Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy (2002– ) User Reviews

Slightly overromantic portrayal of global capital

[haasxaar · 7/10 · 31 December 2008]

Globalization is a polarizing topic. This documentary was made at a time obviously before the obvious nadir for free market economics of this year, 2008. With the fall of Lehmann Brothers, Bear Stearns, Chrysler, GM and the precarious situation of many other large conglomerates the hypotheses have been discredited slightly that have been presented here.

A new era is dawning as I write this. The cycles that have been depicted here in Part 1 are continuous and the "Austrian School" cycle is in its last days, in my humble opinion. This documentary shows, truthfully, how Keynesian economics was discredited and replaced in the Western Economies after the turbulent decade of the 1970s. What isn't mentioned is that several other western powers did not embrace the market-solutions of the USA and UK. France, Germany, Scandinavia and Japan all continued to follow certain Keynesian parameters. The miracles of Hayek-style solutions is portrayed with little counterbalancing examples of its negative sides.

PBS has really tried hard to give an extensive depiction of the development of globalization since the war. There was much here that I did not know before. The many interviews with Sachs, Clinton, Cheney, de Soto and numerous Heads of State or former Heads of State from Asia and Europe. However, the skew in favour of the process of globalisation is all too evident. Few dissenting opinions are detailed or extensively dealt with. The usual arguments of pulling several people out of poverty, and the industrialisation of the developing world are constantly reiterated to imply, cleverly, that globalisation is an irreversible and beneficial process to everyone. However, I am well versed in this topic, and my reading does not extend to Naomi Klein and Michael Moore, but the problems and difficulties that accompany globalisation are not really even hinted at in this documentary.

What this film shows is a good start. A good basis for knowledge for beginners about globalisation. However, my advise is get out and read, get out and discover. There are many issues left untouched in this documentary. It is amazingly interesting to look back at this film after the failures of the Bush administration and watch Richard Cheney say that few people have been harmed in the process of globalisation. We all know now that Cheney is not exactly someone who really has altruistic instincts as his core beliefs.

I'm giving this documentary 7 out of 10 because its technical quality and depth with the amount of information and many interviews. However, its rightward tilt slightly unnerved me. Yet it does deliver a rational argument, despite being incomplete, about the whole discussion that does dominate a lot of contemporary political debate. So watch it and start reading.

everything you wanted to know about economics but were afraid to ask.

[Nucliomaniac · 9/10 · 26 June 2006]

One of the best documentaries i have seen in my life.

This cult movie was part of our course in macro-economics at a b-school in hyderabad, and was shown during coffee breaks and a special screening midway through the course.

The music, the interviews, the chronological style of the documentary all make for fascinating viewing, never have I enjoyed a required reading for a course so much in my life.

This movie is highly recommended for all who have often ruminated over questions such as Capitalism vs Communism, what is macro economics and why did the south American and south east Asian currency crises occur.

Don't miss it, simply exceptional !!!

Drowning the Chickens

[pottsf · 9/10 · 11 August 2007]

Many scenes of processions of limousines coursing through the darkened streets of capitals around the world. Deeply informative nonetheless.

The scene of drowning chicks in the aftermath of the August 15, 1971 wage-price freeze is specious. This propaganda did not originate in this film - the film repeats it as it was originally presented.

But finding the males (roosters) among the hatchlings is an at-least-annual exercise in chicken farms everywhere. Since they don't lay eggs or produce the most-marketable meat, over 99% of the males identified fresh out of the egg are drowned (about 50% of the brood, of course). This routine activity was filmed and promoted at the time to publicize a reaction by poultry producers that they did not, in effect, make. Its presentation was pure spin.

Absolutely Superb

[paulo-1 · 10/10 · 2 September 2002]

The subject of Commanding Heights is the globalization of world trade in the 20th century. It does so in three-two hour installments. Part 1 shows how the world moved from market economies to planned economies and back to market economies in a century. Part 2 shows the impact, sometimes painful, of moving to market economies. Part 3 addresses the current and future problems of a globalized world. That's the structure. The brilliance here, and there is much, is how clearly, thoroughly, and excitingly the stories are told. This is not an economics lesson; this is high drama that impacts peoples lives. Commanding Heights shows that it is people who create the ideas, it is people who accept or reject them, it is people who profit or suffer by them. The series travels to the locations where events happened, and in many cases, interviews the people who made them happen, from Bill Clinton to Milton Friedman to workers in various countries. The pacing of the series is also excellent. It is amazing how many topics are covered in little time, yet, the pace does not seem rushed. Even if you have no interest in business, Commanding Heights is still fascinating to watch. There is also an accompanying website with background information on the history, people, and ideas presented. Commanding Heights is a triumph.

Fantabulous, A must watch.

[anuragkjain · 10/10 · 6 May 2004]

This movie is a prescribed study material in one of the courses at my b-school. Even though I was aware of general macro and micro-economic principles, I never thought much about the Economy in the political sense. This documentary drives home an important point: Economic policy is slave to politics.

I was totally taken aback by the number of examples and the extent of re-creating the scenarios that takes place. The soundtrack is really superb, which helps in no small measure. Inspired by Commanding Heights, I just finished reading Hayek's Road to Serfdom and it was a treat and an eye-opener to the thought-processes more than half a century back!

If you want to understand the world better, this movie comes a 10/10 recommended!

history of macroeconomics

[yahyaaygun-1 · 10/10 · 3 April 2006]

a see worthy documentary,a wonderful chronological research...In my opinion a man who is interested in the history of economics must see this documentary.Capitalism,Fascism,Bretton-Woods system,New Delhi,Thatcherism,Keynes vs.Hayek...if you are interested in these heroes and subjects you have to see.Also you may hear some very useful comments from Friedman's own speech.As an economics students I appreciate everyone who have contributed this wonderful masterpiece.And I could not understand why only about 80 persons voted for this movie.Is the science of economics and political history so boring and annoying. See it and appreciate me and the producers.

Best documentary I have seen

[s_gman2002 · 10/10 · 30 May 2006]

I feel that this is one of, if not the, best documentary I have watched. As an introduction to the political economy, poverty and globalisation, it is a must-watch for anyone who is interested in current events, or is entering university/college doing anything in economics, international affairs or politics. The reason why this documentary is so good - apart from the production quality, huge amount of interviewees - is that it takes at times complex economic arguments and policies and boils them down in such a way that anyone can understand the concepts. While it is a rather large documentary, it is well-worth the look for anyone who has an interest in contemporary affairs.

The best documentary I've ever seen

[clarkca · 10/10 · 18 September 2003]

This should be required viewing for everyone; freely, of course. As an economist, this was pure unadulterated pleasure. The professionalism, photography, music, editing, and storytelling were so superb I'm stunned at its quality and power to rivet everyone to their seats. If this is the only documentary you ever see, please see this series, you'll bless the day you did and you'll stun everyone at cocktail parties with your grasp of the most important ideas and the history of the last century.

This series was especially powerful after having just returned from a tour of Eastern Europe and seeing the Museum of Communism in Prague, and the physical ravages of Communism in the Eastern Block which are still very evident even after 14 years of freedom. We, as Americans, have no idea how incredibly lucky we are. This series will help you understand.

A lesson on history, sociology and politics.

[vishal_wall · 10/10 · 28 May 2008]

The overall idea of the documentary is to show how 'market' is evolving globally. Its in 3 parts. 1 part shows the market in the era of communism, depression and socialism. 2 part shows the opening of domestic markets in 70s and 80s and third part shows the cross border exchange of goods, ideas meaning 'globalization'. The over all attitude is very positive and politically neutral.

The best part is that all economic changes are shown with political point of views and so they become more meaningful and easy to understand. Highest order economists and politicians are interviewed like Clinton, Thatcher, Hayek etc.

Its not a Bible Sermon as I found this documentary a lil harsh on central planning issue. Keynes is compared with Marx and Lenin. They are completely different in their approaches and are very successful politicians/economists. Capitalism isn't working as well and so open market seems to be not the 'real solution' either. I really wonder what people have against Marx. Whatever Marx said is absolutely right. The real solution has to come from communism as Capitalism is losing ground because of the hoarding nature of human beings. We live in groups and community solutions are the real solutions for us. Anyways. It is a brilliant learning experience. Watch it if you wanna learn.

Impressive and thorough

[sondre-rasch · 10/10 · 8 December 2008]

This was probably the best documentary I have ever seen.

Commanding Heights is a paced and exciting look at historical events of the last century with glasses of economic policy. The soundtrack and film clips are very good and really improves the experience. I was also very impressed with the quality of the interviewed (Bill Clinton, Margaret Tatcher, Jeffrey Sachs, Milton Friedman etc.) The film takes a close look at various nuances within a planned and market economy. And for those commenting that this is too pro-market - you must have missed the first two hours. The first episode made me more prone to Keynesian ideas than I was before.

Nevertheless, It is an excellent and fun documentary. You wont regret watching it and you will perhaps even feel slightly smarter.

Superficial

[hildog12 · 1/10 · 31 March 2006]

This documentary reminds me of the English journal The Economist: It's slick, has contributions from men and women with big brains, and it looks free of bias from both the left and rich, but in the end, it's a significant and insidious piece of ideological warfare. Co-authors Yergin and Stanislaw (Y&S) gloss over whatever events don't fit their thesis, and as a result their work is an inaccurate portrayal of the last few decades. Take, for example, their handling of the 1970s. Y&S discuss some economic problems, and there's some discussion about how Nixon and the people surrounding him dealt with those problems, but there's somehow no mention of Nixon bringing us out of the Bretton Woods System (system devised by Keynes, White and others at the end of WW2 which regulated capital flight, etc), one of the most significant events of the past 50 years. Also, they have a hard time separating fact from fiction, and what politicians say and what they do. For example, they give the usual line about how Thatcher and Reagan were for "free markets" yet don't actually look at their records. Reagan, for instance, was the most anti-market president in American history, and by far the most protectionist. But again, since dealing with history truthfully would not help their piece of ideological propaganda, it's simply ignored. Y&S also ignore how most technology develops (hint: it's not through investment and what's jokingly called "free trade") there's no mention of the state sector driving development, even though that's how the US develops its technology.

All in all, a terrible piece of work. Despite the slick presentation and nice documentary footage, The Command Heights is one of the worst documentaries I've ever seen.

Brilliant

[luca_manf · 10/10 · 23 March 2009]

Commanding Heights espouses Hayek's ideas and argues for greater market freedom. It does so very poignantly, captivating the audience. A perfectly balanced approach to the ideological fights of the 20th century would result in nothing more than a chronology of events.

Wherever one lies on the political spectrum, Commanding Heights will definitely be a worthy watch. It outlines the positive and negative aspects of free markets and planned economies with a twist in favor of the latter. CH is an ideal watch for someone who asks himself "Why?" and wants to know more, possibly investigating the events mentioned in CH further.

I am looking forward to the production of a pro-Keynesian documentary of the same caliber, so it can be offered with CH as two sides of the same argument.

Right wing sponsored BS.

[MotosuwA · 1/10 · 13 June 2006]

When I saw the intro to this documentary, I was flabbergasted; the first four minutes were dedicated to promote giant corporations like FedEx, BP and EDS. Also, the John Templeton Foundation (a promo for free-marked solutions) was one of the major contributors to the making of the movie.

The movie portraits communism and planned economy almost as something evil, using a "red filter" effect and scary music when filming Kreml in Moscow.

This documentary is mostly propaganda, and should not be used for educational purposes. In fact, this movie does not deserve to be called a documentary, as it is "paid and made" by the corporations/bourgeoise.

Nothing More than Propaganda

[punkersluta · 1/10 · 21 December 2007]

As one can easily tell from the beginning of this film with its sponsors, the ones talking to you are the individuals who run corporations and third-world sweatshops. The documentary covers the debate between Liberal and Conservative (neo-liberal/capitalist) economics, claiming that this is the centralized economic battle that results in protests, riots, and social unrest. On the contrary, this social unrest has little to do with either of these establishmentary positions. The narrator calls it "a century-long battle over the economy." Sorry to burst your bubble, but the arguments over economy were MUCH HOTTER in the 1800's at the dawn of the industrial age than they are now. "How will we best organize our economy?" the narrator asks. He does not discuss Libertarian Socialism (George Orwell), social democracy (August Bebel), cooperatives and syndicates (Rocker, Bakunin, Goldman), etc., etc.. The only two options for world economy organization are the two that most closely resemble each other on the key principles: the value and necessity of an authoritarian regime, an enormous division of the two classes into a small elite with complete power and a vast, poverty-stricken majority, and the idea that the economy must be directed by the private interest of corporations. On the contrary, this isn't so much a documentary about what economic organization best suits human needs -- it's a documentary about what economic organization best suits THEIR NEEDS.

Superficial fiction posing as educational documentary

[howToDie · 1/10 · 11 April 2008]

One thing notable about this movie is a remarkable collection of interviews with a number of international textbook economists, shadow politicians, and powerful tycoons. Take Dr Milton Friedman for example. What other popular presentation would boast 20 plus minutes of footage of this iconic economist?

But leaving the entertaining visual impact of headshots of the smart, the rich and the powerful, there's not much else positive to say about this 6 hour film which is as ridiculously long as it is ridiculously fictitious.

The thesis of the movie can be summarised as "the only economic system which guarantees long term economic prosperity and political stability is free market". This controversial claim has never been settled in the academic circles, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_capitalism#Market_failures for example. So, it is no surprise that the inherent weakness of the thesis invites the extensive use of *weaker forms of arguments* to advance their position including

(a) omission or downplaying historic facts contradicting the thesis (e.g. the Nazi Germany was a free market economy, the Great Depression happened under free market conditions, the communist USSR had marginal poverty rates while the free market USA never went down past double digits),

(b) failure to mention more plausible explanations of surveyed historic events (e.g. the dramatic fall in prices for copper, the major source of income for Chile, and the CIA efforts in destabilising the political situation during the Salvador Allende term),

(c) trivialization (e.g. the suggestion that the visit of a *free-market revolutionary* Margaret Thatcher to Poland in 1989 ultimately led to Poland independence),

(d) false claims (e.g. removing price controls in India resulted in less red tape)

(e) fantasies (e.g. a Soviet defector who finally revealed to the West that the USSR was economically doomed was illegally transported across the boarder by two British individuals in a car boot)

(d) claims lacking substantiation / causal explanation (e.g. the Polish shock therapy worked while the Russian did not despite similar political situation)

(g) conflating ideas (e.g. balancing the budget in Bolivia which brought economic stability had nothing to do with the movie's thesis)

(h) conclusions which do not follow (e.g. the Russian financial crisis 1998 gave the country the second chance)

So although the movie fails in presenting a coherent logical support for the thesis, it also succeeds remarkably (according to its IMDb ratings) in persuading the uninformed viewers that free markets and resulting globalisation is the only panacea for economic and political ailment.

In fact the movies is so bad, it could be a class-room case study of successful public indoctrination.

Summary: avoid unless you are in the process of writing an essay on corporate/government propaganda.

Interesting, but doesn't go far enough

[jim-2320 · 4/10 · 12 August 2008]

I am a student of Austrian Economics. I was pleased to see Hayek fairly treated in a documentary, and Keynes ideas mostly discredited. However, one cannot discuss the effects of Keynesian economics and world politics without also discussing central banking. The central bank and it's evil spawn; fiat money is the vehicle for government intervention. Without a central bank in control of money and credit, deficit spending would be strangled in it's cradle. Without deficit spending, the socialists would never prevail. That is why one of the 10 planks of the communist manifesto is the control of all money and credit through a central bank.

Again, some interesting history is available in this documentary, but it provides a distorted view of economics. Hayek was right, and Keynes was wrong. This documentary would have you believe that the political class was attracted to Keynes on principled grounds. Hogwash! The attraction is obvious: Money and power. Hayek denied them this, which is why they hated him.

Fairty Tale for Chicago School Economists

[vicki-nikolaidi · 1/10 · 23 December 2012]

There are so many errors in this documentary it should be categorized as fiction. I am writing this from Greece and the line about Greece and dictatorships is totally misleading. There was for a short period a terrible time when the military junta was in power, but it is important to remember the junta was initiated by Kissinger and supported by the USA. The script is quite muddled because it seems quotes from those appearing in the film have been clipped in order to present the view of the authors. Too much emphasis was on congratulating economists for the prizes they have won rather than offering new analysis on the issues. A range of views was not available in the documentary. The other flaws are too numerous to list. The book has even more.