Hollywood works on sequel to the film Wall Street

[Konovalov]

Read this in the Times (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article4941765.ece)today. Oh brother. :damn:

The crumbling financial markets may herald the end of staggering bonuses and swaggering bankers but Gordon Gekko, the ultimate Master of the Universe, is back.

Twentieth Century Fox are fast-tracking the production of a sequel to Wall Street, the 1987 paean to brash capitalism.

Greed is no longer good - even the modern-day Conservative Party says so - and the new film will see Gekko pitched into the current, unfamiliar world of the unstable modern markets.

Why can't they just leave a modern classic alone? :roll:

[Skybird]

Ah, a documentary. Reality still is the greatest authority on horror.:smug:

[Hylander_1314]

Yes "truth is stranger than fiction". And most of the time, a whole lot scarier.

[Digital_Trucker]

Yes "truth is stranger than fiction". And most of the time, a whole lot scarier.

And very difficult to divine.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Who wants to bet that the movie has little to do with Gekko taking advantage of ridiculous Federal regulations to gain an advantage over his competitors?

Economics is grossly misrepresented in our school system, the last thing we need is a freaking movie about it.

I'm already dreading the inevitable arguments with people whose views on economics will be primarily based on this movie. It's like Saving Private Ryan all over again:roll: ! Do I even need to mention what a load of garbage Pearl Harbor was? And yet I see people referring to these piles of hi-def tripe all the time when they discuss history! Hollywood is doing a good job (unintentionally, I'm sure( no, I really mean that, I'm not being sarcastic)) of ensuring that the American populace knows nothing about history. And by doing so, they doom us to repeat it.

I'll probably go see it anyway, but expect a subsequent rant from me about how it is the U-571 of the business world.:D

Wherever there is economic failure ( bear in mind, not recession, but total failure) there is always one common denominator; The State. Seriously, imagine for a moment that you are a complete a$$ who exsists only to further you own personal gain. Then the State steps in to regulate your activity. What's your next move? Give up and die? No. You just become part of the state, because that is where the power lies. And this is even more dangerous than a free market. In a free market, we can vote people out of power with our money. In a state-heavy market, we have no choice. The Federal Reserve does not consist of elected officials. Letting the state regulate the economy is akin to letting the fox guard the henhouse. Whether we have a free-market system or a socialist system, the same people always find their way into positions of power. The danger is in letting them into government positions where they have fiat powers. There is no limit to the damage they can do. And inevitably, we end up with a plutocracy that destroys the country. Just like every great nation ever.


America has been successful because of freedom. Personal freedom is nice, but economic freedom is key. Just look at Singapore. Very prosperous for its' size and dearth of resources, yet it is an international finance center. Or Japan, or Hong Kong, or Taiwan, or Switzerland, or Lichtenstein, or Andorra, to name a few.


You simply cannot destroy the plutocrats. They are weasels which will exsist in every system. The best one can do is to harness their efforts by chaining them to a free market, where people can see them for what they really are. They will still benefit more than most, but they have to drag the rest of us with them. If they fail or take advantage of us through monopolization, we simply change suppliers because we hate the weasels so much.

America has pursued this policy to some degree thus far. Result; Economic superpower(slowly being dragged down by the state). Russia failed to do so, result; Epic fail. Russia is not a superpower because it is so beholden to the world economy, which is dominated by powerful, free-market nations. The Russians have great plans, but they can't afford them.
China. A nation that exsited in a perpetual downward economic spiral( in recent history) until the plutocrats decided to create special economic zones where capitalism was practiced. Result; a prosperous free market that props up the rest of the nation and will make them the next superpower. No worries, though, China will follow the same path that all great nations have. The State will ruin them.


I have no doubt that this film will only help us along the path to economic failure which will destroy us. Maybe not today,maybe not tommorrow, but eventually. I would guess within the next 5 years. And even then, people will clamor for the state to fix our problems. We will give power to them, just as we have done in the past, and our problems will become worse, but we will have little power to stop them. Once again, the plutocrats will triumph, and the rest of us will fall.

We were so close:damn: ! So close to a system which would benefit the masses with trade and economic power, and we failed. The Plutocrats gained control of the system again. They traded money for votes which they turned into money.


It would all be funny if it wasn't so tragic. :roll:

[Skybird]

You simply cannot destroy the plutocrats. They are weasels which will exsist in every system.
Is it even wanted by design? The senate with few members has more power than the house of represemntatives with multiple times as many members. In the end, the plutocrats still think in terms of feudal society, and themselves being the noble class.

If it would be about education, that might even be true, but too many see it just in terms of wealth, and that is bad, and not any noble at all.

I recommend Machiavelli's remarks about the principles of the Roman Republics, and how the early ones tried to balance the will of the "noble" class with the voice of the people. He also wonderfully explains what can go wrong, and has gone wrong, and why. Diffreent to the bad and evil repuation of Machiavelli, he was a very smart thinker, a precise observer and an admirer of the idea of republics, especially and before any other: the republic of Rome.


The best one can do is to harness their efforts by chaining them to a free market, where people can see them for what they really are. we just had that, and still have it. I costs people thousands of billions, and has destroyed trillions of dollars and follow-up costs.

[bookworm_020]

Yes "truth is stranger than fiction". And most of the time, a whole lot scarier.

And alot more expensive to watch happen infront of you!:stare::yep:

[UnderseaLcpl]

The following is meant in the most friendly manner possible, and in the interests of rational discussion. Forgive me for getting a bit passionate about economic issues.



The best one can do is to harness their efforts by chaining them to a free market, where people can see them for what they really are. we just had that, and still have it. I costs people thousands of billions, and has destroyed trillions of dollars and follow-up costs.


Of everything you said, this is the only point I can understand. Sorry for my ignorance.

We have never had this system, and certainly not in the past century. The closest we came was when President Jackson tried to abolish the central bank in 1836.
It was reincarnated in 1913, because the Constitution, in letter and spirit, was ignored.

But let us suppose that there is a system in which the plutocrats can be neutralized by some sort of state system. What is it? What alternative do we have besides strictly limiting the state and therefore restricting the power of the plutocrats to the economic sector, where we can vote them out with our money?

Give me any system that is not designed with personal and economic liberty at its' heart, and I will show you a pile of debris that some plutocrat sits upon.

Milton Friedman said it best, which is why he is in my sig right now.

[Hylander_1314]

Actually, Andy Jackson did abolish the Central Bank. He also only for the second time in our nation's history, paid off the national debt.

Since we're on the topic of money, and finance, here's some quotes from people in the past, Andrew Jackson too on the Central Bank in 1836:

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" -- Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

"If Congress has the right [it doesn't] to issue paper money [currency], it was given to them to be used by...[the government] and not to be delegated to individuals or corporations" -- President Andrew Jackson, Vetoed Bank Bill of 1836

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."--Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President

"The modern Banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process
is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banks can in fact inflate,
mint and unmint the modern ledger-entry currency".- MAJOR L .L. B. ANGUS

"While boasting of our noble deeds we're careful to conceal the ugly fact that by an
iniquitous money system we have nationalized a system of oppression which, though more refined, is not
less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery. - Horace Greeley