Are you saying it's neoliberal from the angle of like "small business brazenly disregards environmental regulations because they're cool and the EPA are nerds"?
It's the thesis of "any problem can be solved by private enterprise". If ghosts and stuff become such a problem that exterminators of sorts are required, and it's like super-dangerous tech and stuff... then why are 3 shlub professors in New York doing it on their own dime? Shouldn't that be like a public interest matter?
Yeah, they're effectively petit bourgeois entrepreneurs making profit off a natural disaster. The video game (effectively Ghostbusters 3) makes some vague gestures at squaring that circle though. They've become contractors working for the city with a public insurance fund. The EPA guy from the first movie is their supervisor or something, but they still treat him like a nerd dork loser. I'm not sure if this was a conscious decision to make the Ghostbusters seem more publicly accountable, or if it's supposed to imply they gained more public trust, or maybe it's just a silly game play mechanic where you get a report of the dollar amount of destruction at the end of levels.
I always thought it was more of a dig at capitalist beaurocracy kinda like Brazil. The Ghostbusters are by no means the ideal solution to the ghost problem, but they're the solution that capitalism allows for.
The EPA joke was always more of a "the government would rather try and apply standard beaurocratic procedures to this novel problem than mobilize a massive publicly funded response to it".
Switch out ghosts with covid and it's actually surprisingly prescient about how the US government handles novel problems that effect the public health.
No, but neoliberal economics does heavily rely on privatisation and removal of regulations, both of which are major themes of Ghost Busters. From the EPA guy being the main antagonist of the film, to the lack of any government assistance in busting ghosts. The main thesis of Ghost Busters is that small businesses should be allowed to do as they please without big government regulations restricting them.
But of course movies don't have any subtext, ever.
neoliberal economics does heavily rely on privatisation and removal of regulations, both of which are major themes of Ghost Busters
Ghost Busters was built on the premise that people who didn't believe in ghosts were being asked to govern a ghost-catching business. It was, at the end of the day, a comedy. And its worth noting where they were playing up conflict for comedic effect and where they were actually expressing criticism of an institution.
The main thesis of Ghost Busters is that small businesses should be allowed to do as they please without big government regulations restricting them.
Didn't the Ghost Busters accidentally bring about the end of the world and demolish a big chunk of the city by summoning a massive State Puff Marshmallow Man?
It's just, neoliberal economics: the movie, isn't it?
To be entirely honest I can't remember much of ghost busters because of how bored I was the entire time.
Are you saying it's neoliberal from the angle of like "small business brazenly disregards environmental regulations because they're cool and the EPA are nerds"?
It's the thesis of "any problem can be solved by private enterprise". If ghosts and stuff become such a problem that exterminators of sorts are required, and it's like super-dangerous tech and stuff... then why are 3 shlub professors in New York doing it on their own dime? Shouldn't that be like a public interest matter?
Yeah, they're effectively petit bourgeois entrepreneurs making profit off a natural disaster. The video game (effectively Ghostbusters 3) makes some vague gestures at squaring that circle though. They've become contractors working for the city with a public insurance fund. The EPA guy from the first movie is their supervisor or something, but they still treat him like a nerd dork loser. I'm not sure if this was a conscious decision to make the Ghostbusters seem more publicly accountable, or if it's supposed to imply they gained more public trust, or maybe it's just a silly game play mechanic where you get a report of the dollar amount of destruction at the end of levels.
I always thought it was more of a dig at capitalist beaurocracy kinda like Brazil. The Ghostbusters are by no means the ideal solution to the ghost problem, but they're the solution that capitalism allows for.
The EPA joke was always more of a "the government would rather try and apply standard beaurocratic procedures to this novel problem than mobilize a massive publicly funded response to it".
Switch out ghosts with covid and it's actually surprisingly prescient about how the US government handles novel problems that effect the public health.
Neoliberals famously using super-science to find and trap ectoplasmic entities, then fight a dark god.
No, but neoliberal economics does heavily rely on privatisation and removal of regulations, both of which are major themes of Ghost Busters. From the EPA guy being the main antagonist of the film, to the lack of any government assistance in busting ghosts. The main thesis of Ghost Busters is that small businesses should be allowed to do as they please without big government regulations restricting them.
But of course movies don't have any subtext, ever.
Ghost Busters was built on the premise that people who didn't believe in ghosts were being asked to govern a ghost-catching business. It was, at the end of the day, a comedy. And its worth noting where they were playing up conflict for comedic effect and where they were actually expressing criticism of an institution.
Didn't the Ghost Busters accidentally bring about the end of the world and demolish a big chunk of the city by summoning a massive State Puff Marshmallow Man?