User:Darkwarriorblake/Ghostbusters

Capitalism and private industry
Produced by Reitman, who considers himself a "conservative-slash-libertarian", Ghostbusters has been analyzed as an era-appropriate example of Republican or Libertarian ideology, in particular Reagan era economics popularized by then United States President Ronald Reagan. Reaganomics focused on limited government spending and regulation in favor of a free market provided by the private sector of entrepreneurship, profit motives, and individual initiative.

Analysts point to the film's premise of a small private business obstructed by an arrogant, incompetent bureaucrat (Walter Peck) from a government agency (the Environmental Protection Agency). It is because of this interference that the Ghostbusters' ghost containment unit is compromised, unleashing spirits upon the city and triggering Gozer's arrival. Indeed, when Peck arrives to shutter the Ghostbusters, Egon affirms "this is private property". In this sense, it is Peck, not Gozer, who represents the film's true villain. Others note that after losing their jobs at the university, Aykroyd's character is upset because their public sector funding required little of them. He had worked in the private sector where, "They expect results."

The Washington Examiner notes it is the private sector that arrives to combat the increasing supernatural activity in New York, for a fee, while the government is incapable of doing anything. As Vox notes, the mayor, a government representative, is motivated to release the Ghostbusters to defeat the godly threat after being reminded that their success will save the lives of "millions of registered voters", a cynical view of an official who is motivated mainly by what will allow him to retain his position. The mayor's choice is an ideological one, choosing privatized free market of the Ghostbusters over the government agency Peck represents. The government and its agencies fail completely to stem the supernatural threat. Even the police are forced to turn Louis Tully over to the Ghostbusters because they do not know how to deal with him. Ralph Claire highlights that the Ghostbusters reside in a disused firehouse and drive an old ambulance, each sold off as public services fail. Christine Alice Corcos suggests the Ghostbusters are an example of the American free-thinker trope, representing vigilantes fighting against government overreach that is worsening the issue.

Clare described the film as an example of neo-liberalism, embracing the free market in the wake of the financial despair of the 1970s and the beginning of an economic recovery. Ghostbusters' release was alongside an era Clare described as "pure capitalism", focused on privatization by corporate entities and deregulation designed to allow the private sector to address cultural and social issues without governmental obstruction. New York City, in particular, underwent a severe financial crisis in the 1970s and financial aid was refused by President Gerald Ford and the federal government. This era resulted in films like Taxi Driver (1976), The Warriors (1979), and Escape from New York (1981), set in a gritty, collapsing, or outright failed New York overridden with crime. The Ghostbusters being relied on to solve an apocalyptic problem the government is completely incapable of solving mirrors the real-life New York government ceding large swathes of real estate to private corporations, with financial incentives included, to stimulate the city's revival. The film's promotion of capitalism can be seen when Ray, tasked to empty his mind, cannot help but picture the marshmallow man, a consumerist icon, or how Dana first sees Zuul inside her refrigerator, where consumerist icons are stored.

Inequality and pollution
The ghosts in the film have been interpreted as analogs for crime, homelessness, pollution, and faultering infrastructure and public services. Christine Alice Corcos discussed Ghostbusters's negative take on government and environmental regulation. She considered ghosts to be pollutants and remnants of negative activities and damage to the environment, and the government's refusal to acknowledge their existence a reflection of real-life governments not acknowledging environmental problems that impact humanity. The EPA explicitly does not believe in the ghosts or "waste" the Ghostbusters are collecting, and in turn the Ghostbusters do not believe the EPA deserves obedience or compliance because of its ignorance. Even so, while the Ghostbusters have condensed a widespread problem into a small area, they have constructed a dangerous containinment unit in a heavily populated area while possessing the unique knowledge to understand how much danger it poses or its limitations. However, Peck's rigid adherence to government regulation results in him turning off the unit and creating a more dangerous situation.

Clare identified the ghosts as representative of New York's issues with the homeless and ethnic minorities. Like the ghosts which used to be human, they are treated as a nuisance that the Ghostbusters are moving from the streets and storing in less desirable areas, partially a result of gentrification. The Ghostbusters charge a high fee for their services and so generally serve the affluent such as the Sedgewick hotel and Dana Barrett, while poorer Chinese immigrants pay for their services in duck meat. In this way, Clare argues, Ghostbusters promotes the regeneration of New York City but ignores the cost to the poor and disenfranchised.

Audiences and death
Corcos described the typical view of Ghostbusters as "a satire on academia, intellectuals, city government, yuppies, tax professionals, and apathetic New Yorkers." Nicole Matthews argued that the need to present a film targeted at both adults and children leads to the central characters being infantilized and immature. Similarly, the primarily male audience results in female characters that are either absent or not important to the overall story. Commenting on the former, Vincent Canby said that a film's profitability was dependent on addressing children who "can identify with a 40-year-old-man with a mid-life crisis and 40-year-old-men in midlife crises who long to fight pirates with cardboard cutlasses". The film presents Venkman's comedic sarcasm as a means of disarming situations and furthering the narrative. Jim Whalley wrote that this presents a clear tonal shift between Ghostbusters and its sequel, with the former presenting the characters as hired workers just doing their job while the latter presents them as noble heroes saving the city, hence Venkman's persona is presented as comedic relief instead of a practical tool.

Liz Faber wrote that the film is able to make comedy out of the afterlife by describing the ghosts in clinical and technical terms instead of acknowledging them as former living beings. This avoids reminding the audience of death. Similarly, the Ghostbusters represent humanity conquering death through technology, and on the rare occasion a character is placed in peril, the potential for harm is obscured, such as Ray falling into a shattered road or Dana being concealed within the charred corpse of a Demon Dog.