I am an admirer of "Born Rich," where Mr. Johnson looked at himself and those like him from a critical perspective – unimaginably wealthy without having earned it.
The One Percent is a remarkable effort since it attempts to show how the larger community of extreme-wealth-Americans seek to both maintain and grow personal wealth and sustain their status for future generations – a De facto aristocracy. It's clear that aiming his camera at the adults is more complicated – they know how complex the issues are which surround wealth inequality. There are few easy answers.
What I love about the film is that it takes a very simple approach - Jamie Johnson doesn't question business success at all. His interest is how wealth, once acquired, is maintained within the wealthy community. This question is at the heart of the public debate about wealth inequality – why the wealthy are NOT always the so-called, "job creators." He shows that that many are in fact merely interested in maintaining their position within this informal aristocrat class.
It's not an easy job and to be frank, I wish he'd been more aggressive. But he is looking at this topic from the inside. Even with his naïveté, he still gets Milton Friedman to expose an epic flaw in reasoning – Friedman states that the social needs of ordinary Americans are perfectly represented in Washington by their elected representatives – apparently he was either oblivious or cynically ignoring the fact that the wealthiest Americans and corporations pay enormous sums for political influence on behalf of their priorities, very often at the expense of the other ninety nine percent of Americans.
I was thinking about this film for days after watching it. Highly recommended.
The One Percent is a remarkable effort since it attempts to show how the larger community of extreme-wealth-Americans seek to both maintain and grow personal wealth and sustain their status for future generations – a De facto aristocracy. It's clear that aiming his camera at the adults is more complicated – they know how complex the issues are which surround wealth inequality. There are few easy answers.
What I love about the film is that it takes a very simple approach - Jamie Johnson doesn't question business success at all. His interest is how wealth, once acquired, is maintained within the wealthy community. This question is at the heart of the public debate about wealth inequality – why the wealthy are NOT always the so-called, "job creators." He shows that that many are in fact merely interested in maintaining their position within this informal aristocrat class.
It's not an easy job and to be frank, I wish he'd been more aggressive. But he is looking at this topic from the inside. Even with his naïveté, he still gets Milton Friedman to expose an epic flaw in reasoning – Friedman states that the social needs of ordinary Americans are perfectly represented in Washington by their elected representatives – apparently he was either oblivious or cynically ignoring the fact that the wealthiest Americans and corporations pay enormous sums for political influence on behalf of their priorities, very often at the expense of the other ninety nine percent of Americans.
I was thinking about this film for days after watching it. Highly recommended.