Movie Review : Jamie Johnson's second film "The One Percent"

     Lewis and I immensely enjoyed the 2006 social satire/documentary by Jamie Johnson (heir to a fortune category belonging to the 1% of wealthiest Americans... but he seems to have a "Christmas Carol" conscience).  It's a typical display of wealth disparity, but the unique aspect--that probably nobody else could attain--is that Jamie usef his family name to gain interview access with some very top-tier/controversial/spoiled brattish people.  As uneducated as they might seem, they accurately described how the system works.  Ex-Secretaries of Interior/Labor/Economy are interviewed to show how the government collects your money and makes deals (unrepresented by The People) to benefit billion-dollar companies, levies taxes (without representation), and maintains poor economic plans that hurt the public but unreasonably benefit so few (which is detailed by the experts being interviewed).  I would recommend the film.
     What amazes me is that people have a disdain for monarchies and but love to spend $1,000 per "club seat" for Superbowl games... for overpaid/carousing athletes.  They happily open their wallet for extravagant fashion from behaviorally-corrupt houses like Versace or D&G.  (Incidentally, Queen Elizabeth probably has a more stringent and demanding schedule than Donatella, Marc Jacobs, Paris Hilton or Sir Elton John on any day).

     Nobody protests the ever-worsening corruption of public (tax-paid) officials.  The public simply says, "Here's half of my paycheck for tax dollars.  Here's money for undescribed monthly cellphone taxes/surcharges.  Here's money for whenever the utility company bills me for a "surcharge".   Here's money towards financial organizations that got my tax dollar bail-out money (but who don't pay American taxes)."
     Alas, without any public effort, nothing will change.  (If you're hired for a job and don't deliver on your promises, you get "let go".  You don't get to work through your full term at full pay, while pocketing graft and making deals for your appreciative friends).  Yet, that's an age-old social dilemma (surprisingly still the same--despite this modern era of cellphone cameras, youtube, blogs, Skype, and social media).
     Yet, Jaime did the same thing as so many other satirists.  He focused on the extremely (sometimes oligarch) wealthy, and on the extremely poverty-stricken.  Nobody mentions the plight of the overburdened middle classes who are coerced/brainwashed into debt.  Like "battery power packs".  I suppose, if they did, it might risk "waking them up"... thus destroying the American spending spree and structure of finance charges, late fees, mortgage charges, insurance premiums, and tax base (income tax, sales tax, luxury tax, death tax, gift tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, license tax, gasoline tax, medicare tax, property tax, school tax, road usage tax, social security tax, telephone usage tax, tolls, registration tax, permit tax, and interest expense).

     When making his movie, Jamie didn't introduce the debt-crushed American (esp in NY) suburbia.  Sure, nobody has a gun to the buyers' heads, but they get routed badly.  Those in poverty have worse lives that are less clean and less healthy.  Many movies were made on their demographic.  But, there is something to be said for the fact that all of America's social and economic expectations are straddled on the middle class.  All the catalogs are targeted to them.  All the retail, home/mall construction, auto, insurance, banking and restaurant profit margins are dependent on them.  Credit card applications are aimed toward them.  Second mortgages are aimed at them.  There is a social expectation for them: "Keeping up with the Joneses".  Its an age-old stigma displayed in old 1950s "Dagwood" comics, as well as in Jim Carey's 2005 movie "Dick And Jane" or the 2008 Leo DiCaprio movie "Revolutionary Road".
     Call it what you wish, but the social scenario is there.  The middle demographic is expected to have new cars, pool parties, to entertain, give money to the community (because taxes are being wasted), have the best lawn, pay for their kids' college tuitions (which often don't teach financial stability), pay for their kids' Spring Break vacations, buy cell phones every year, buy "first cars" for their kids, pay $30k for their daughters' Sweet 16 parties, pay for "Bridezilla"-type weddings, pay for family cruises/vacations.  
     Their homes, gadgets and cars are perpetual financial drains: repairs, maintenance, upgrades, options, insurance, extended warranties.  They spend for overpriced athletic gear, sporting gear, recreational gear, computers, infant furnishings, infant safety inventions, kids'  toys, and all the stuff you see at Bridal Showers.  They dine out.  They remodel their homes.  They refinance.  They pay for therapists, gardeners, housecleaners, dry cleaners, car washes, bar tenders, florists, caterers, babysitters, spa treatments, club fees, tutors, coaches, church fees, architects, financial advisors, accountants, and lawyers.  They essentially hemorrhage money.  That's what keeps our country running.

     Perhaps, a documentary movie should be made about them--highlighting the spending habits of the average household (which usually has 5 cars for 4 people).  Maybe that, instead of talk shows and E!News shows that highlight unnecessary drama.  It might remind people of the adage "Just Say No".  If people were accountable for their money, many social problems would dissolve.