"[M]ost people hold, explicitly or implicitly, that without regulation, markets could, and sometimes would, spin off into disastrous excesses of one form or another.

"The operative image of economic regulation is that of a huge truck without steering or brakes. 'We have to have those instruments of control, or the truck will go careening off the side of a cliff.'

"The truth is that government regulation is precisely the cutting of the brake lines and the seizing up of the steering column.

"The actual alternative is: government regulation vs. market regulation---which means coercive rule by political appointees vs. freely negotiated prices.

"On a free market, when price relationships begin to diverge from economic reality, they are brought back in line because of greed. Speculators, arbitrageurs, and other "profiteers" swoop in to profit from any misalignment.

"Their activity acts to eliminate the very misalignment with reality that created the profit opportunity. ... Whenever prices, including interest rates, diverge from economic reality, there is money to be made in correcting the prices by the appropriate buying and selling.

"And here's the best part: those with the best judgment of economic reality are the ones who make the most money, which means they have the most influence on the market. It is the buying and selling of the Warren Buffets (and their more speculative counterparts) that keep the economy aligned with the facts. ...

"But ... [t]o the extent there is government intervention, the minds of the profit-seekers are thwarted and rewards go not to the Warren Buffets but, at first, to the ward heelers and power brokers, then as the system devolves, power over the economy goes increasingly to those who are better at conning the public. Then, they are replaced by those more willing to use compulsion. The ruthless displace the relatively timid punks, and destruction reigns.

"So, people have it backwards. 'Unregulated' means reason sets the terms and 'regulated' means reason is quashed by political power."

~ Harry Binswanger from his post 'One contradiction in the fear of laissez-faire'

Roger Ebert’s legendary status as America’s film critic is well earned.

He still let his progressive views seep into his signature thumb in his later years. That didn’t diminish his place in movie reviewing lore, nor his legacy.

A contributing critic for his self-named site has taken that progressive baton and run with it. Think “Chariots of Fire”-style running.

The review wastes no time getting to the ideological point.

“One Night Only” … is everything that’s troubling about the current conservative capitalist hellscape that is the United States of America writ large.

Ma’am, this is a rom-com review…

There’s so much more.

It makes nods to the very real horrors of today, like tech bro-backed surveillance capitalism, rampant Big Pharma advertisements, and fascist police and politicians controlling our bodies, without ever taking the time to interrogate any of the sources that have led to our current political climate.

If only “When Harry Met Sally…” had brought up the Iran-Contra scandal, it might have been a classic. Oh, well.

The director of “One Night Only” cut down on the sex and nudity, but even that proves problematic.

That’s progress, I guess, since an earlier iteration of this film made in the ’80s or ’90s would have just been a flurry of t** shots…. Romance, too, is depicted in deeply conservative, heteronormative terms—casual sex is looked down on, open relationships only lead to guilt, etc. 

More “problems?” The movie isn’t kind to “sex workers” and there’s not enough queer sexuality. It’s about a boy and girl who fall for each other.

Darn. Where is that “Heated Rivalry” tribute?

And, when the film does mention gay romance, the critic calls it “straightwashing the history of anti-LGBTQ legislation.”

It’s reminiscent of an old Cancel Culture saw. You can never be woke enough.

This rom-com also fails to give age-of-consent laws the closeup they demand. Again, imagine the rom-com that actually checks some, if not all, of this critic’s woke boxes.

Please read the whole review. There’s more. Much more that will stun.

Here are some of the comments on the site:

• This review is truly the worst I’ve ever seen on this site
• Let me guess, the reviewer just got out of college with their grievance studies degree? Yeah…
• Roger Ebert might have despised this movie, and he’d likely cringe at this despicably unimaginative review. Do better next time.

Now, a critic can let a personal political or cultural view slip in now and then. And, if you’re working for an ideological site, that’s to be expected.

Hollywood in Toto wears its conservatism on its sleeve, and the occasional right-leaning barb slips through.

Sorry not sorry.

Still, HiT still wouldn’t go the full “One Night Only” review.

Should anyone?

The post Is This the Most Woke Movie Review … Ever? appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.