Commanding Heights - The Battle for the World Economy

In the first segment, it covers the development of economic theory through Keynes, Hayek, and Friedman, and the historic solutions and events between the war of 1914 and the 1970s, ending with the change of tack that accompanied Reagan and Thatcher's elections. In the second, it follows the "agony of reform" - that is, the paths taken by many states to transition from planned economies to market economies, following the cases of Russia, Poland, Chile, and Bolivia. The last segment follows the contemporary problems and methods of the global economy, with particular focus on crisis: mainly, the 1998 Asian Economic Crisis.

It is important to remember that this documentary is about economics, and that its concern is about the quality and quantity of wealth generated rather than externalities (the environment, &c.) Taken in this context, I think that it does extremely well: anyone who knows at least a little will leave the show literate in global economics. It does have a certain pro-globalization stint to it, though I hardly find that it is outright dismissive of globalization's criticisms: the second half of the third segment is entirely about arguments against globalization, and the first half of that segment is entirely about the crises that have rocked the global economy. And, after all, Jeffrey Sachs and Bill Clinton are two of their biggest commentators, who are at least pragmatic globalists (If the writers favor any viewpoint, it's Clinton and Sachs'). That said, I think that this is probably the least biased (or, most centrist, depending on your point of view) documentary on globalization in existence - the others you'll find will almost without exception skew more than this one will. Not to mention that its cast of commentators and the ability of its filmmakers are excellent, and something that's normally very dry is made really entertaining.

There are some things that it probably does leave out more: it doesn't give the criticisms of the IMF and World Bank really, particularly those that come from the right and business, which is somewhat peculiar. This might be because of center-left bias (think Bill Clinton) that rather likes these multilateral institutions, or because they just ran out of time, which seems pretty likely - they had to cram into the two hours that those issues would make sense in information about three global crises, the methods of modern international finance, two meetings of the WTO, and Hernando de Soto.

The other thing they somewhat miss is what happened to Bolivia, Argentina and some of the other Latin American countries "after" globalization who ended up trashed by economic currents. Part of this is because many of these events happened or came to be examined after the series aired, but I think that in their search for an emblematic case they found a pretty good one: the case of Thailand, which was one fo those countries that got "trashed" in 1998 - they provide a particularly stirring personal anecdote of one businessman who lost everything in the crisis on real estate, and is now working his way back up to his dreams as a street vendor. The thing is that they don't link this to Thailand's development as a globalizing economy (that is, Thailand isn't covered in section 2.) so we don't make the intuitive connection between globalization and increased economic risk.

The third thing that concerns me is that they did not cover the "moderate" paths to globalization experienced in France, Ukraine and Germany, or the successful totalitarian export economies of South Korea or Thailand. Again, I think this is because they ran out of time: the emblems of Chile and India almost get at these ideas, and the importantly but not strikingly different paths taken by the countries I listed were close enough that the viewer could infer the important insights. I suppose I'll have to read the book to see if that covers those alternate paths any better.

That's my take on the program's shortcomings - I think that they faced the problem that they could either cover all subjects, remain aloof from any accusations of bias, but say really nothing about anything, or they could (as they did) stab deeply at a number of emblematic cases and avoid some things that they saw as low-priority. This of course came at cost, but by far I think that this is something that everyone should see - I think they should show it to students, as they'd certainly leave knowing a thing or two about the founders of modern economics and how foreign exchange works. Hell, they might even know what short selling is...

No one having watched this film will leave without having learned something new and important about global economics.


Superb   April 5, 2002
Chris Roberts (Des Moines, IA)
20 out of 29 found this review helpful

If there were only more stars to give. This truly exceptional documentary takes an intriguing look at the effect of governmental policy on the markets of the world, and does so while offering excellent historical perspective. The treatment of political approaches is fair and objective, showing both the positive and negative impact of all types of policy. However, the clear and undeniable conclusion is that unfettered free markets will provide the most benefit to the most people. What a joy to see such an honest, straightforward, analytical approach in such an interesting format.


A Collosal Failure--myth-making for Reagan + Thatcher + IMF   November 28, 2003
Quickhappy (Big city, big country)
19 out of 58 found this review helpful

Welcome to the fantasy realm of "free trade," where capitalism is nothing but a source of wealth and political freedom. In this video you will be treated to the finest hallucinogens. Here, Reagan, Thatcher, the IMF, and the World Bank are god-like heroes, spreading prosperity and freedom around the globe.

Overlooked is the fact that over the last 50 years, the IMF and World Bank have brought hunger, misery, and dependence to the third world. Overlooked is the fact that 3 billion humans live on a dollar a day! These people are suppossedly the great beneficiaries of "free trade."

It's worse than ignorant to speak so uncritically of "free trade:" it's to collude with famine, AIDS, child labor, and poverty. It's to ignore and apologize for dictatorships (Pinochet is lovingly portrayed), to forget that Reagan's Contras slaughtered 30,000 in Nicaragua and made it the poorest place in Latin America, and to forget that the U.S., France, Germany, and Japan got rich as slavers and colonial powers. It's to forget that Taiwan, Korea, and Hong Kong improved their lot through protectionism, state education, and planned economies.

If you loved Reagan, you'll love this video. It requires the kind of dementia and amnesia that Reagan suffers from to celebrate these myths. But if you want to truly learn about the global economy, including the pros and the cons of capitalism, you have to look elsewhere. You need to read Joseph Stiglitz, Mike Davis, Vandana Shiva, and others. Until then, you will be living in the fantasy-land of rich White men.


Revisionist History of the 20th Century   November 24, 2002
17 out of 43 found this review helpful

To claim that the 20th century was a battle of the economic ideas of Von Hayek and Keynes is absurd. The claim that socialist central planning dominated the 20th century from World War I to Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan is equally absurd. Although this DVD is purportedly about Economics, there is no discussion of the underlying numbers and statistics and no discussion of the role of technological change. Volume II, "The Agony of Reform", is an interesting history of the free market reforms of Chile, Bolivia, Poland and Russia. Overall, however, I do not recommend this 3 volume set.


An Economic Education in only six hours!   March 17, 2003
Kasey M. Moctezuma (San Diego, CA USA)
16 out of 20 found this review helpful

What a fantastically informative video series. For those who are hard core economists, this is probably baby stuff for you, but I think there is enough footage of current events around the world, (in Chile, Mexico, etc) that you might find it of interest. I think that this series is aimed at people like my husband and me - hardcore PBS and History Channel watchers who like to learn and are interested in economics, but don't have a deep economics background. This series is fresh and interesting with footage from current newsreels, interviews with world leaders and other area experts. The series also delves into the historical background of many ideas from 20th century economics (Von Hayek versus Keynes anyone?) in a fascinating, informative way. This is an educational video series, and I think that it is more beneficial for people such as myself, with a limited background in economics, but it is delivered in such an interesting and insightful fashion, linking current and recent events (and those from recent decades) of the political world with those of the economic world that it is a pleasure to watch. This will be a series that I will watch numerous times.