‘2012’ (2009) is kind of a modern Democrat’s piece of art. Not only did they show Danny Glover as president (he was kind of old for that shit), but they also made what seemed to be a kind of health care parallel. Oliver Platt’s character Carl Anheuser was playing the Republican who wouldn’t want the rest of the people inside the ship, which only the rich and fortunate could afford to enter. “There aren’t enough resources!” to let the plebeians in the ship, and the argument against this was not even addressed. Somehow, the people in the ship got by after all, and we have to assume that this was achieved not in spite of the inadequate resources, but because there were adequate resources after all. But the real world could not brush off such a matter so easily and change plots in the statists’ favor.
And then Isiah Thomas, I mean, Adrian Helmsley was making a speech about losing their humanity if they let the people die. Both were shown to be wrong. First of all, contrary to what Carl said, there were enough resources to keep the people in the ship alive. Adrian noted how 10 people could fit in his room. On the other hand, if the flooding and calamities lasted more than 27 days and there were really too scant resources to keep the people in the ship alive, then all of Adrian’s feelings of nobility and love for his fellow people would have resulted in everyone rather than most people dying.
Arguments for health care usually talk about how bad it is for people not to have such a service, as though government involvement in the industry will make things more equitable. Instead, government favors special interest groups like big pharma, reduces competition drastically, and wastes resources to the detriment of other industries that would be patronized by the same public that would supposedly benefit from universal health care. It’s sad that people see government as the answer.
At first I couldn’t understand how being a billionaire would have mattered in booking some ship space, but it was explained that such money was clandestinely used to build the ship. Fair enough. Still, considering how little of humanity was to survive, the forms of money that would have remained would have made immediate consumption and less savings imperative. After all, what good is stored money when there are too few resources to consume or save?
Let us take a look at the film’s Marxian angle, when Adrian was questioning Carl about who was to be included in the ship and pointing out how the workers who made the ship would be excluded. It is admitted that the creation of many things does not necessitate any entrepreneurial knowledge of the laborers. They are paid for the labor and do not gain property rights from such labor. It is an exchange that takes into account different kinds of knowledge and skills, and even wealth and status of the different participants. That the workers did not know they were building a ship to be saved only highlights this aspect of capitalistic exchange. But to condemn all transactions on this account is ridiculous. The creation of value is based on entrepreneurs seeing things and knowing things different from others, and using resources accordingly.
What’s more, relating cataclysmic circumstances, wherein the buildup of capital and the use of media of exchange are severely limited, to everyday economic life, is to be rash and destructive. Civilization precisely allows for greater foresight, long-term planning and lower time preferences. In a case where all life is to be extinguished, then people are going to act ever more in the short term, resulting in a destruction of capital, if it means ensuring their survival. Does this mean that thousands or millions will be let on the ship to the point of depleting all resources and letting every survivor starve to death?
Another silly thing is how coordinated the governments were. If the United States got hold of such knowledge, would the bureaucrats really have sought out the assistance of China and other countries, or used the information to ensure their survival alone? The latter seems more likely. Also, if the leaders are there on the ship, why would the people still recognize their authority? Society is experiencing an absolute upheaval, where geographic rule almost seems irrelevant. Why would people still subject themselves to Carl’s or the other leaders’ directives? Or even think of themselves as so and so nationality, apart from sentimental reasons? In the end of days, it is highly unlikely that a government’s sovereignty and chain of command would remain unquestioned by the majority. Anarchy would indeed ensue, which is not necessarily a bad thing. With such a reduction in the world population, it would be easier to exercise voluntary association, including the ostracism of lawless elements (by law, I mean common law).
The revival of an economy on Earth would be on the basis of what the people need. This would mean infrastructure and the like would come about through combined and voluntary efforts, and there will be more or less equilibrium of people’s demands and the supply exchanged for meeting these demands.
My point is, it’s just doubtful that old governments would have any relevance in the new society, despite the biases of the people for government rule.
Just a bad propaganda movie.