A ‘Wall Street’ Sequel?: What Will Make Socialists Shut Up?
by Leigh ScottYawn. “Wall Street 2.” Yeah, I liked the first one. Michael Douglas is awesome in that movie and pretty much everything he does. I mean, who else could rock the V-neck sweater with no T-shirt like he did in “Basic Instinct” and still look cool?
Another needless sequel. Whatever.
What got my attention was the “money line” in the trailer (pun fully intended). Douglas says “I once gave a speech that said greed was good. Now, apparently, it’s legal.” Wow is that stupid.
Of course greed is legal. So is ambition. So is hard work. So is having a big ego. So what?
Leftists constantly whine about “greed” as if that desire is the root cause of all misery and evil in the world. Greed alone does nothing. I can sit on my couch all day watching TiVoed episodes of “Nip/Tuck” eating Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups and declare myself “greedy” without accomplishing anything.
And no, you can not have one of my Reese’s Cups. They are crazy delicious and they are all mine.
For a “greedy” person to actually impact the world, they have to amass enough personal wealth to incur the wrath of the socialists and the communists. That takes a lot of luck, hard work, a healthy ego, and a fair dash of smarts. Unless of course you are a Hilton or something. Yeah, screw them!
Greed is a lame scapegoat, but it’s an easy one. Politicians, authors and filmmakers don’t sound as pious railing on about those of us who “work harder” than others and therefore have more than the rest. It doesn’t flow off the tongue as easily to assail those who have “risked greatly” and have been rewarded handsomely for their efforts.
But going off on the “greedy” sure makes a great speech.
What I want to know is when and where this hippie Utopia existed? History is full of monarchs, dictators, and assorted evil cabals. There wasn’t a time in history when everybody shared everything. There is no society where people worked equally and shared the rewards equally. It’s human nature to have ego. Greed is part of our DNA.
Our Founding Fathers understood this.
Those crafty old white guys in the powdered wigs realized that you can’t beat human nature, and that a minimal government was actually the best and fairest form of organization that they could conceive. Rather than being ruled by the guy who knew how to make fire, or the guy who’s dad killed more people than the other guy’s dad, or the guy who claimed that he spoke to God, the Founders envisioned a society run by the people. We all have the freedom to do as we choose, to be what we want to be.
The upside is that people who aren’t wealthy or from noble families can strive to be something bigger and better. The downside is that some people will end up total losers.
But that’s part of the deal. That’s the trade off. And that’s ok.
I roll my eyes whenever someone starts a sentence with “we are the richest country in the world…”. Why shouldn’t we have universal health care? Why shouldn’t we have a huge government with tons of employees who are set for life?
Well, we are the richest country because we DON’T have the things that the left thinks we should. Everything on the Leftist Wish List of Stupidity is a recipe for economic disaster. If you string ten or so Obama administrations together, the United States won’t be the richest nation in the world.
Will that make the socialists shut up?
Let me break it down save you leftists some time. We libertarians and conservatives don’t like or want corporate welfare. If a company is failing, let them fail. We don’t like, advocate, or support people who break the law. We are all for regulations, provided that they are rational, fair, and don’t benefit some new government bureaucracy or special interest.
We are all about the free market, liberty and individualism. Those things have made this country great. They have provided opportunities that have attracted immigrants from around the world for centuries. They have provided the wealth to create the world’s greatest military that has liberated millions from the grasp of tyranny. The free market and the engine of capitalism have provided a shining beacon of hope to the rest of the planet since the beginning of our nation.
Greed is a byproduct of the free market and capitalist system. We are fortunate to even be able to be “greedy”. Most people around the world and throughout history haven’t had that luxury.
Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms–greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge–has marked the upward surge of mankind.
I didn’t write that last paragraph. Oliver Stone did. It’s from the first “Wall Street”. That speech by Michael Douglas highlights the film’s rich, thematic subtext. It helps crystallize the dilemma faced by Charlie Sheen. That definition of greed isn’t the cheesy scapegoat one tossed around by college Marxists and our president. It’s the complex version, one that acknowledges the benefits of capitalism to the advancement of human society. It acknowledges the benefits of liberty.
That speech was crafted by a filmmaker far more relevant than the current Oliver Stone. Back in the day, he was an artist capable of creating challenging narratives with strong conflict. Now, he’s a leftist stooge and mouthpiece for thugs like Chavez and Castro.
Sad.
My predictions for “Wall Street 2?” Tepid box office, critical acclaim, lots of articles and clips on leftist rags like the Huffington Post, lots of angry commentary from Big Hollywood (maybe more than “Avatar”!), and the first (and only) Oscar nomination for Shia LaBeouf.
As for me, I will skip this one in the theater. I’ll watch it on Netflix or grab a DVD from Redbox where I know from first hand experience that the filmmaker makes a lot less money.
Does that tick you off, Oliver? Do you want more of my money?
What are you? Dare I say…greedy?
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
69 Comments
I have no problem with "Greed"
greed is what makes me get up in the morning and bust my ass at a job I hate so I can save up some money so I will be able to invest it in my own business so I can get out of debt, provide for my kids, donate to charitable organizations, mentor a few ambitious up and commers and retire comfortably, and never be a burden on society.
yeah greed is good
PRIDE is what made the Devil the Devil – not greed. Greed makes men into Misers.
.
Milton Freedman said, "If people aren't free to work for their own self interest, they are working for the state and the interests of greedy politicians through the use of force and coercion. Of course, they're never greedy, it's always the other guy that's greedy."
Anonymous said, "greed is sitting on the couch smoking pot waiting for the government check to show up paid for by someone else who worked for it."
Anonymous said, "I'm NOT afraid of greedy corporations, I can go elsewhere or make more money. I'm afraid of greedy politicians, greedy for power, because I CAN"T make more freedom. "
.
.
.
I have an idea. It would address the deficit, pay off some of the national debt and relieve men like Moore and Stone of the terrible burden of supporting capitalism.
Michael, you go first.
1 Release your 2009 Financial Statement to every newspaper in the country including the Enquirer which now has become the only newspaper that will "out" non Leftist friends.
2. Loudly proclaim your hatred for capitalism and announce you are going to keep 8 million dollars in US Treasuries (lending the gov. your money) which will return about 80K$ at 1%. At 3% return, you'd get $240K which is only $10K below being "rich" according to Democrats.
3. Loudly promote your generosity and attack on capitalism to all your peers, including Cameron with his billions, Clooney with his millions, Sarah Jesscia Parker with her and Matthew's riches, etc. etc. etc.
Voila! Problem solved. You've struck a blow for socialism, addressed the national debt, the deficit AND we know to what good use President Obama will put your money to — the same good use he puts your doctors' and accountants' money to — transferring it to those who need it more than you do. But wait, isn't that Marxist?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?"
Marx made the crucial error of identifying greed for money as the source of all human misery. This enabled his followers, ever since, to self-righteously attack wealth, while at the same time cherishing their own greed for power. They feel no guilt about their greed for power, because Marx missed that one.
I liked the original…it was before Carlos was so douchey and Douglas was so plastic.
Who do they counter with in WS2? Even Stevens LeBeouf. No appeal, thin talent.
I'm gonna wait for Red Box for this one (I have a coupon for a free rental too!!)
"The truly greedy are those who would take, by government fiat, that which has been earned by others." George Gilder
I would add the politicians, bureaucrats and judges who aid & abet these people in their efforts.
One glaring mistatement that popped out:
" If you string ten or so Obama administrations together, the United States won’t be the richest nation in the world."
Try a second term.
A Wall Street sequel?
Hmmm. Fat Mikey Moore has chimed in recently. He says capitalism is evil. I'm sure that Oliver Stone would agree, especially if his coffers aren't being filled by the saps that pay good hard earned dollars to see his trivial art.
The difference between “greed and laziness,” a quick anecdote:
In the‘70s me and a group of “friends” decided to try the communal living. About ten of us moved into home with the idea of splitting the rent, it’ll be cool! The 80/20 principal quickly kicked in, and two people paid the bills while the other eight laid around the house, and watched “Mr. Ed.” Needless to say the experiment dissolved into acrimony, and the 20% moved on, while the 80% snarled how…un-cool man!
Welcome to America in 2010!
A guy with seven homes, like Michael Douglas, sure makes an interesting spokesman for the anti-greed movement.
There are children in Botswana who have no Reese's Cups. How does that make you feel, you…you Capitalist, you?
[...] more from the original source: A ‘Wall Street’ Sequel?: What Will Make Socialists Shut Up? This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
Awesome comment. People who obsess over every penny, when they have plenty in the bank, are totally annoying.
[...] [...]
I hope there's a cameo appearance of Keith Olberman in the film.
Speaking of Reese's Peanut Butter Cups, I remember buying a 2-cup pack out of the machine in the cafeteria of my high school for a dollar. The moment after I'd unwrapped the first cup in the package, a pretty cheerleader whom I had no classes with and who never had spoken to me before, slid up next to me. "Hi," she cooed and tilted her head coyly. "Can I have one?" she pointed to the remaining Reese's with her index finger, clearly displaying the oversized class ring of her combination star quarterback/prom king boyfriend.
"If money be not thy servant, it will be thy master.
The covetous man cannot so properly be said to possess wealth,
as that may be said to possess him."
Sir Francis Bacon
And time to put away the canard that "Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor." NO HE DID NOT.
Robin Hood stole from the tax collectors (Sheriff of Nottingham, read GOVERNMENT) and returned the wealth stolen FROM the people.
Time for some conservative in Hollywood to make the TRUE STORY of Robin Hood. It'd be a smash hit.
We'll be hard pressed to survive this one.
Even in the bible, wealth is not a sin. What you do with your wealth or why you want to become wealthy is where the sin comes in.
Greed is just a word that civilization has decreed is evil and should be avoided. It's a subjective term, allowing no specific, measurable definition. Which makes it great to use by politicians and social purests.
Sneer, show your abomination of it, spit it out of your mouth like bile, and reap the rewards of screaming fans who really have no idea what they're being told.
What we're really talking here is simple self interest. It's been part of human nature since cave man times. Probably longer. Back when we had two dogs, yous should have seen them try to get each others food, play time. Anything. If I'm petting one dog, the other will be at my other knee with in 30 seconds demanding her fair share of petting.
Is it greedy to want to eat if you're starving? No. But it's definitely in your self interest. Is it greedy to provide a roof, clothes and food for your family? No. But it is in your best interests.
The wonderful thing about free markets is it renders the concept of greed moot. As long as people follow the law, it makes no difference to me why some one wants to provide better products and/or services at lower costs than another person, they just do, and we all benefit.
If they want to take all their earned money, pour it into a bath tub, and roll around naked in it, let them, it doesn't matter. And if another successful businessman wants to take his earned profits and fund hospitals for the poor, that is their prerogative.
Do you think the chapter where the hedge fund mangers donated huge cash to the DNC will end up on the editing room floor?
What about the chapter when Rubin and Bubba took the handcuffs off the mortgage market and replaced it with the "Hummers For Housekeepers" initiative and the "Mansions For Minions Act of 2006" and the "Bankruptcy Will Screw Average Americans Yet Save The Banks Act of 2005" or…?
Do you think Oliver even knows why this crisis – still sitting off balance sheets – is the proverbial tsunami? And what we just went through was only just the earthquake.
Make no mistake about it folks. Preserve your principal. The Jokers who created the problems are there to save you from them. Get to high ground.
I don't know about that. They're hard enough to stand as hypocrites. Can you imagine the slime coming from them if they actually had to do what they propose?
We'd have to call in South Park Smug Control.
He didn't miss it. It's the 800 lb. gorilla in the manifesto.
To which I would add, if they want to take my hard earned money, why am I the greedy one?
That's because Moore is so sure he's right, he doesn't have anything to learn. There fore he doesn't have the slightest idea the differences between communism, socialism and capitalism.
My experience has been insistence of knowing a subject is inversely proportional to their true knowledge on said subject.
It's for the children.
"But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?'"
Matthew 20:13-15
Talk about straw men — sure, there was no perfect utopia on Earth. But there was a time in recent American history when the middle class was growing, when jobs were plentiful and well-paying, and when a blue-collar worker could earn enough (without a second income) to send his kids to college. The trade-off? The taxes on the richest of the rich were extremely high, so that it was difficult for anyone to amass a great fortune. But the vast majority of the country thrived.
This period was the 1950s, when the highest marginal tax bracket was 90%. Somehow we weren't a Communist country then, nor were we when JFK lowered the top rate all the way down to 75%. But there was an incentive for owners to reinvest their fortunes in their companies rather than cash out. Can't have that anymore — now you call it socialism.
heard and understood
Since Stone obviously has not one iota of greed in himself I'm sure he won't mind if I download the film illegally, not paying anyone involved a penny (they're all greedy b*st*rds who don't deserve it anyway, right?)
bingo!
I used to cry because I had no feet, until I heard Michael Douglas has no Reese's cups,
Say whatever you want about capitalism. I don't think anyone is actually going to listen to this film, knowing it's from Oliver "conspiracy nutbag" Stone. My complaint is why is %^$%ing Shia Labeof in this movie? Or any #^%ing movie? Seriously, who actually like this little, horrible, snot-nosed punk of #%#$y,#$#$y actor? Why does he keep getting roles? What is going on here? GAAAHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
Man, someone get the liquor concession outside the New York Times building because Maureen Dowd is gonna be sucking down that Johnny Walker Red Label like a Pelosi on a taxpayer paid trip.
I bet Shia Labeof like the capitalism in his paycheck. Capitalism is bad for us peasants.
As to his acting, considering the shallow pool of acting talent that makes it to the big screen these days, he seems to be just a face.
That is a way of explaining redemption and has nothing to do with pay wages.
God gives all redemption no matter when we repent and turn to Him.
"I would add the politicians, bureaucrats and judges who aid & abet these people in their efforts. "
Please don't leave out our "fine friends" at SEIU and ACORN.
Yep, but the line from the parable still fits the thread.
Your own "marginal tax rate" strawman intentionally ignores the facts that:
1) All local, state, and federal taxes levied against the middle class during the period of 1950-1960 was a tiny fraction of what every middle class American pays now (even though neither Truman nor Ike cut spending on social programs)
2) Taxable wages were not ridiculously high for the majority of manufacturing "blue collar" workers because labor unions' powers were temporarily constrained by Taft-Hartley and the public impression that most unions had communist ties (later confirmed by the Venona Papers) or were run by organized crime (can't imagine where that idea came from)
Giving e-e-e-e-evil rich people a tax cut allowed the innovations leading to the low-cost computer in your house, an iPhone in your hand, and access to the Internet everywhere. That seems fair.
We will never shut up becasue we are right!
You owe us a living becasue you steal our jobs and the you are paid to much. We work just as hard as you do and you should give some to those who need it, after all you have the means so why so greedy!?
You people are mean spiritted and ungenerous
No it would not becasue people want to take back what is thiers from the rich, that is a lie, Robin Hood worked for the government and stole from the merchants that is a fact.
The communist party is no different, we are just trying to help the poor
Ha ha, I hate capitaist pig quarterbacks and all other capitalists too!
Funniest joke I've heard all year. Communist party trying to help the poor! What a hoot. All the communist party helps is itself. The poor don't get poorer but everyone else is lowered to poverty. Some program.
And you're wrong. Robin Hood stole from the government to give back what it took from the people, the government being the sheriff of Nottingham. Communism is neofeudalism where the King (state) owns all and dictates (diktats) it's distribution through it's Nobles (politicians and bureaucrats) and everyone else is equal in their poverty (serfs). There are a few Guildsmen (athletes) who are better paid under communism but the majority of the people suffer. Go to Cuba, Venezuela, NK, China (which is improving as the dictators allow capitalism to creep in) and see how well the average Juan, Juanita, Kim and Jing
like their marvelous "rulers". Geesh. I'm hoping you're pulling my leg with your answer; if not….
As someone who used to consider herself a liberal, I have to say that it was one of the last liberal beliefs I had to shed – that greed was good, that free markets were good. The media, school, even sometimes my parents, had instilled in me a sense of "corporations bad", "rich people bad". It was hard to let go and believe this:
"The upside is that people who aren’t wealthy or from noble families can strive to be something bigger and better. The downside is that some people will end up total losers. But that’s part of the deal. That’s the trade off. And that’s ok."
But once I did; once I realized the truth of those ideas, funnily enough, the FREER I felt. Like a weight had been lifted. Like my eyes had been opened. Not to say that it made me stop carrying for the poor, etc. But it made me realize that not every bad thing that happens to people can be fixed by a gov't program. That charity was a better way to handle it and that no one was guaranteed success in life.
My eyes have been opened. I was blind and now I see. Great article.
Greed for power, yes … and somehow they also manage to get rich in the process. By caring!
That was either an excellent use of sarcasm … or you need a sound thrashing.
A worker can easily support a family on one income at a 1950s standard of living. But today we would call that "poverty".
This proves global warming is true!
http://www.businessinsider.com/we-are-so-screwed-...
You hit the nail on the head. I am constantly telling people that just because the government steps in, it cannot possibly guarantee the state of health, well being or any other damn thing!! And the meme about the greed and "there should be no US citizens going hungry" crap makes my head spin.
and besides, the whole BASIS of the parable, when talking to the saints that no-one would get better than anyone else who came later, was that he had every right to hand out his salvation as he saw fit to anyone who came seeking it, just as a landowner had teh right to pay his money as he saw fit to anyone seeking a job.
The guy who came early was satisfied with his lot until he was overcome by envy that someone else was getting a "better deal"
I can see what the article's attempting here, but I'm afraid it doesn't wash.
Greed is not the same as ambition.
Ambition is the desire for success, whatever form it takes. You might define that success as financial, but it might easily be the ambition to complete a film or a novel that you know isn't going to be a blockbuster, but will be appreciated by a select audience. It might be setting up and running a charity that doesn't directly benefit you. Whatever it is, it's what gets you out of bed in the morning.
Greed, on the other hand, is a completely different concept. It's the act of coveting something that you fully know is not due to you. It's the desire to take more than your efforts warrant. It's the voice that says you could be a lot more comfortable if only you loosened up a bit and cheated. No inventor, philanthropist or artist worth their salt was ever motivated by greed.
The two concepts don't equate. They cross over, but they don't equate. Which is why it's interesting to note that whenever capitalism is discussed on here – in neon and crayon, of course, as it's always contrasted with a woefully and deliberately misdrawn idea of socialism – it tends to be the greed angle that's played up.
Everyone can agree that working to accomplish your goals is a good thing, but our current iteration of capitalism, underlined by the banking collapse, underlines the point that… well, if you're lucky, you may not have to do any actual work in order to secure glittering rewards.
Before I reached saturation point with the industry, I was paid quite a bit for doing next to nothing for a bank. The commute was a bit tedious, but once at the office I spent the day playing Jenga and video games, signed a few documents that I skim-read but which would improve or ruin the lives of people I'd never met and had no interest in knowing, then went home. Eventually I shifted to working from home on American time, which consisted of fielding the odd email while playing online poker and having arguments with people on a site that this one's editor used to maintain. Paid quite well, as I say, but there was never any effort going in there, and by rights I should have been embarassed when I walked past the guys who empty the bins outside my home in the morning. They probably won't be passing on massive estates, but they're at least doing something of substance. What I used to do? No, it was only ever bullshit. Smoke and mirrors, valueless, and powered by greed rather than ambition.
you should send that to the company- it would make a great ad. an edgier version of the 'don't lay a finger on my butterfinger' campaign.
Obvious troll is obvious.
Let's see…I risk my own personal economic security to be an entrepreneur. I raise money that I am personally responsible for in order to finance my business. My business then employs anywhere from 20-60 people at a time, providing them wages far above minimum. Through employment of union members and our own insurance we provide health care for all of those workers and their families.
So, I am responsible for 100% of the money should the business fail, yet, if all goes well I get to squeak out a few percent of the "profits" (when you figure in legal fees, taxes, accountants etc.). And I'm ungenerous?
That of course doesn't include the huge percentage of my income that I donate to charities and support other ventures.
Take two tabs of reality and call me in the morning.
Really? Bill Gates and Steve Jobs invented their computers because they were multi-milionaires looking to add to their bottom line? And we had a strong middle class because weak unions led to low wages for blue collar workers?
You really don't know anything, do you?
You mean owning a house in a nice neighborhood and a new car? What a shock — you don't know anything, either.
Thanks, but I'd rather see it in one of Leigh's movies…
"You people?" What's that supposed to mean? Are you implying something about the content of my character just because because I'm an African-American?
You're obviously a ra-a-a-acist! Shameful!
Just jumped to the IMBD site for Wall Street 2 and, hey! not only is Charlie 9/11-Was-An-Inside-Job Sheen back along with Josh Brolin (see picture of "expensive Wall Street type dinner" above) in the movie, but so's Susan Sarandon!
So if you were wondering if this was going to be entertainment, or more a preachy kind of movie about how successful people are mean-spirited, corrupt, and ungenerous, well, wonder no more… prepare to be instructed.
Meh. It'll never be as good as "Bonfire of the Vanities 2: New York Boogaloo" was.
Your comment made about as much sense as the plot of Star Wars-The Phantom Menace
Considering your ignorance about the history of computer technology (Apple Computer, DEC, and Microsoft all had wealthy venture capitalist backing of some form in their early years) and your inability to understand the difference between salary and standard of living, I'm not worried about what a shallow anti-intellectual like you thinks.
Actually, a majority of people below the poverty line own cars and all kinds of appliances which didn´t exist in the 1950s or were much more expensive. Home ownership is close to 50%. Very few things cost more than they did. As for the middle class, they are much better off, at least until now.
Yes! Yes! I´m with you! The enemies of Obama must be krushed!
Real middle class wages declined all the way through the Bush years, as more and more of the nation's wealth was transferred to the ultra-wealthy. But of course, this couldn't have happened without the willing support of minum-wage trailer dwellers who bought every lie about how they might strike it rich some day, so they'd better not impose taxes on the really rich, in case they got there. Persuading dumb people to vote against their own interests is the only trick Republicans know.
We are better off than in the 1950s or even the 1970s. Every statistic proves that, and so does my memory. Your statement that "dumb" "trailer dwellers" vote Republican because they believe they´ll be milionaires one day makes me question whether you know any real working people. You certainly don´t seem to respect them. Yet you alone now their real interests? Really? That is the kind of hubris that drove collectivists to ruin entire continents in the last century. What´s your real motivation? You want to be part of the ruling elite? Lord it over the dumb? Even your "trailer dwellers" are less deluded than you.
Lest we forget, greed is the reason we're able to communicate via this medium with such ease.
My favorite part of your blog, Leigh, was when you criticized Wall Street 2 (a film you haven't even seen yet) with this zinger: "Another needless sequel. Whatever." Since you brought up the idea of needless films, Leigh, I want to mention a few film titles to you to see if they ring any bells: Transmorphers, Beast of Brey Road, Frankenstein Reborn, Pirates of Treasure Island, King of the Lost World, Hillside Cannibals. Sound familiar? How about the word "irony?" Does that sound familiar? I guess not.
You must be logged in to post a comment.