Aside from being one of the most entertaining movies I've seen, the film In Time with Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried also makes a brilliant statement about America's state of capitalism. In short, the movie takes us to a time where money is the currency; the poor work a day to get another day, the rich live forever, and a cup of coffee costs three minutes. As I watched, one scene specifically caught my attention. A character who had abundant time stated that although one can temporarily change the balance of the wealth, the long-term distribution will return to a state of extreme unbalance.
This was not the first time I heard the argument, and I absolutely agree with it. I strongly believe that even if we were to distribute wealth evenly, the balance would not last long. Although I believe this theory does not apply to every single person, some people are naturally more drawn to use their resources more shrewdly, while others are innately more lavish in their spending (or unaware of how to invest wisely). I would say that it is essentially the mindset which separates one type of person from the other. We have all heard stories of millionaires who lose all their money just to gain it back later. Contacts and experience definitely help the second time, but there must also be some kind of belief system that factors into this process.
Clearly, I am an advocate of this distribution theory. However, there are some aspects of it which leave me confused. For example, how long does it take to restore unbalance? Are we talking months, years, or generations? 'In the future' is a very vague term.
Regardless of your opinion on this theory, In Time is absolutely a worthwhile movie to watch. It will inevitably generate discussion and leave you with lots to think about.