Financial Regulation Hollywood Hates Capitalism—Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps Edition


Oliver Stone's uber-villain Gordon Gekko is back in the new film, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, which (surprise!) features greedy capitalists behaving badly. It might remind you of Avatar, Mission Impossible 2 or roughly a zillion other films in which capitalists destroy the environment, concoct killer viruses, harvest organs, and cover up murder in order to feed their lust of profit. Even when capitalism isn't the primary target, the representatives of commerce are often flat-out repulsive (think Jabba the Hutt).

Perhaps it's ironic that Hollywood filmmakers practice what they preach against. Sure he palls around with socialist dictators Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, but there's no doubt Oliver Stone hopes to rake in obscene profits with his new flick.

Approximately 1.35 minutes.

Written and produced by Ted Balaker; Associate Producer: Paul Detrick; Post Production Supervisor: Hawk Jensen

Go to for HD, iPod, and audio versions of this and all our videos and subscribe to's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new content is posted.

Related: Killer Chic: Hollywood's Sick Love Affair with Che Guevara

NEXT: American and Canadian Muslims Leaders Defend Free Speech

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Meh, there are plenty of Hollyweird movies that depict agents of the state as evil, or mountainous government regulation as evil, or communists as evil.

    Okay, I made that middle one up. But Rambo and 007 sure did get some mileage out of taking down the commies.

    1. But in the cases of Rambo and 007, the commies are portrayed as being evil for reasons other than being communists. 007 is hardly a criticism of central planning. Movies such as Avatar exist for the sole purpose of lambasting capitalism.

      1. I’m no James Bond expert, but I am having trouble recalling any 007 films in which the villains were from Red China or the Warsaw Pact states. Maybe “For Your Eyes Only?” I never saw any post-Roger Moore movies, but I heard the North Koreans were the villains in one. I also seem to recall their being Bond films in which 007 had to work with the Soviets to fight some cartoonish fictional foes.

        1. ‘From Russia with Love”.

          1. I’m pretty sure it is SPECTRE that acts as the villain in “From Russia With Love.” Russia is merely the locale.

            1. SPECTRE is playing the Soviets off the West in From Russia With Love. The locale is actually Turkey, followed by a train through Yugoslavia, ending up in Venice.

        2. For Your Eyes Only–Greek communist agent working for Russia.

          Most of the other villains are either rogue Russians (Octopussy, A View to a Kill), or much more commonly, big businessmen or renegade capitalists, with the occasional drug lord thrown in.

          James Bond actually tends to prove the point of the article; in Hollywood, capitalists are evil. This trope is averted by the Austin Powers series, in which the villain’s Number One employee would much rather be a straight-up businessman, given how lucrative that is. Who needs crime when you can make money legally?

          On the other hand, only the super rich can afford giant hidden complexes inside hollowed out volcanoes.

      2. Movies such as Avatar exist for the sole purpose of lambasting capitalism.

        That’s debatable.

        Many Chinese viewers evens saw Avatar as parable on eminent domain.

        1. What the fuck is Avatar?

          1. A movie about human-alien sex, with some gun battles as well.

          2. Think Pocahontas in space.

      3. I think communists are generally evil for reasons other than being communists. Communism is just the most convenient political tool for accomplishing evil things.

    2. Hmmm…lemme think of movies that depcict government regulation, bureaucracy, red tape, and the like (but not the military, CIA, FBI, or shadow paramilitary groups/agencies) as evil…

      Off the top of my head, I can think of three:

      1. Brazil
      2. Gridlock’d
      3. Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

      I’m sure there are others. If you count all the La Femme Nikita/Bourne Identity-type movies, they are very common. But a straight anti-state movie is kind of hard to do except in a social satire type of movie, like the three I mentioned. Heck, two of the three are sci fi.

      1. Doesn’t nineteen eighty-four come to everyone’s mind immediately?

        1. Another obvious one which I forgot about. I think of it as a book; forgot they made a movie of it.

          Another one: Kurt Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron, which was made into a movie three times (twice under that name and once under “2081”). That’s about as anti-socialist a story as you could possibily come up with.

        2. V for Vendetta (although profit was the motive, the government became an evil entity)
          Star Wars original trilogy was all about overthrowing the evil empire.
          Logan’s Run (the govt killed everyone on their Lastday)
          Ali G Indahouse
          A Clockwork Orange (to a degree)
          There are quite a few, and not all of them are parodies

          1. V for Vendetta is kind of a toss up. In the movie they tried to make V seem more left-leaning than he was in the comic, and Evee’s parents were socialist enthusiasts in the comic.

            What about the series Firefly? That has elements of an oppressive government.

            1. Yeah but the rebels were “confederates” so that makes them card-carrying aspiring slave owners to a lot of people.

              It wasn’t until you get to Serenity that the full blown evility (a combination of Stupidity and Evil) of the Earth government was exposed. Even then, most people would just see it as a movie, and not a parable to be heeded on any level.

              Ugh…Let’s just say I have a lot of arguments with socialist fans of Firefly. For some reason, a lot of douchebags watch cool shows. It must have something to do with having too much free time on their hands.

      2. Ghostbusters was also mentioned downthread. As for anti-commie movies, there are plenty of those. Firefox was mentioned down thread, but how about Red Dawn? There were also plenty of commie-bashing movies during the 1950’s and 1960’s.

        1. that is a rare one – the EPA was the evil guy

          1. but in most of these commie movies, the sommies were not evil because they were commie… they were eveil because they were doing some evil plot. They just happened to be commies. These anti capitalists movies intentially make a point about attacking capitalism.

      3. Um, Ghostbusters?

        Stupidly evil EPA agent.

    3. Quantum of Solace is anti-capitalist and make pro-marxist comments.

  2. yeah, but the agents of the state are generally portrayed as right wing agents- who I’m sure are really just working for some corporation’s interests.

    1. That or they are portrayed as military assholes. Personally, I don’t have a problem with movies portraying the military as assholes, but they make it obvious that they are attacking conservatism and not so much the government the itself.

  3. Oliver Stone’s uber-villain Gordon Gekko

    Little-known fact, Normy: the villain’s name in the early drafts of the script was Gordon Lizard, but Oliver Stone thought it might be too obvious.

  4. WOW…you think Gorden Gecko represents capitalism?.LMAO!!
    No wonder your auspicious teabag “movement” was was proptly taken over by the nuckledragging jesus deathculters.Why cant you attract more SANE people?..gee I wonder.

    1. Is that you shriek?

      1. No. But here’s his picture:…..Toilet.jpg

        1. and they call themselves teabaggers.
          Does it get any better?

          1. Well, the fact that your labeling us teabaggers makes you a teabaggee makes it a whole lot better… for us and not for you, unless you really like the taste of all those balls in your mouth, in which case that’s kind of creepy.

    2. What the hell are you talking about?

    3. Stupid Troll is stupid.

      1. But it chose an appropriate handle.

      2. My stool has a higher IQ than you do.

        1. Our balls have a higher IQ than you, nutsucker.

  5. PS….did you miss the gulf oil spill?Or the international economic collapse brought on by our unregulated banks?The europeans though we were a safe bet..kinda quaint huh?

    1. Unregulated banks? This is performance art, it has to be.

      1. The derivatives market is unregulated.The repeal of glass-stegall allowed the big banks to play in that casino.

        Also it was the UNREGULATED mortgage companies that were giving out the liars and ninja loans.

        Bush and Greenspan both had the power to change the rules but why spoil all the fun.
        Thanks for playing.

        1. Even if there were zero regulations (and there were regulations) then the banks should have been allowed to fail, and fail entirely. If there would have been any bailout it should have been for those holding pension funds and mortgages and not much else. And the banks should have been liquidated (well, not that there was much liquidity there anyway).

          1. Well they played a good game.Ya gotta hand it to them.They not only defrauded the US but most of Europe too.Citibank helped Greece hide its massive debt in derivatives so they could get into the EU.Think about that for a minute….they planned this really well.So it wouldnt just be the US to go under but Europe too.

            And congress was literally threatened with marshall law in this country if they didnt sign it…thats blackmail of the highest order no?They have control of the markets too in case you havent noticed.What happened only hours before congress was to vote on breaking up the too big to fail?The market tanked.You really think that was an accident?

            We are all hostaged to them now and they will get what they want.

            1. Ok, you’ve convinced me. They need more regulations. I’m writing my congressman right now.

              1. LOL!!…opps too late.

            2. Check out Venezuela sometime. Their bank system is a model of socialist capital-distribution utopia.

              1. Well you know you have to go to venezuela to make your point you have lost………you know that right?

                1. You realize that having all those balls in your mouth is a traditional form of video game humiliation after you’ve lost, right?

            3. Honestly, who isn’t terrified when threatened with Marshall Law?


        2. Glass-Steagall never applied to Canadian banks yet they didn’t melt down like US banks.

          1. Because Canadian Banks are heavily regulated?…duh!

            1. No. Canadian banks have a long standing relationship with regulation and the governance has never been one of contention where one bank seeks to push others out. The banks are also traditionally more conservative and smaller in number, but larger in size. The more regulation argument is fucking laughable, the better regulation and more common sense is argument is more on target.

              Please also not Canada isn’t trying to get everyone and their dogs into a house creating a moral hazard the size of Godzilla.

              P.S. You are a moron of epic scale. Your dismal intellect is only surpassed by your retarded handle which is a false allegory and myth to begin with. You’re a moron^2.

              1. And YOU are a liar!
                Canadian banks have very strict CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS!!!

                IE….REGULATIONS…who is the fucking moron..I know do you?

                1. Hey, who put LSD on his balls while FIAP was sucking them? You didn’t have to, you know. He was crazy enough already.

        3. For all of “libertarianism’s” alleged virtues, it has never quite figured out how to deal with trolls. They hate them, but they cannot do without them. O trolls, why can’t they quit you?!

          1. Someone has to live under the bridges.

        4. You forgot to say “sheeple.”

        5. “Also it was the UNREGULATED mortgage companies that were giving out the liars and ninja loans.”

          Try again. The government was putting pressure on Fannie Mae to loosen credit requirements to get more people in houses. Private companies were just trying to keep up.

          1. Uh just the opposite was the unregulated mortgage companies that were taking such a large market share Fannie and Freddie because they are FOR PROFIT entities they had to loosen their standards to compete.And they were pushed By the Bush adminisrtation to do it.

            Thanks for playing.Ive been following this and Enron for years now.And Im interested in the facts not some talking point.

            You can have your own opinions but not your own facts.1. “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were among the principal culprits of the housing crisis” Wrong. Fannie and Freddie were cogs in the giant mortgage machine, but they had nothing to do with the abdication of lending standards from 2002-07. That was a function of the Lend-to-Securitize business model of the sub-prime mortgage originators. THAT was the primary cause of the housing boom and bust, along with Ultra-low rates and a lack of Fed regulation of these sub-prime lenders.

            1. See this article from the New York Times in 1999 (Clinton Administartion, I believe):
              I definitely like this statement:
              “But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.”

              Major govrernment FAIL.

              1. Hmmm dont know the difference between apples and oranges?..Figures.
                So who pushed that low incomr home ownwership…Not Barney Frank..he thought more people should rent..hmm lets see..

                Bush To Offer Zero Down FHA Loan

                FHA wants to insure zero-down mortgages
                The Bush administration has a goal … lenders would be able to offer zero-down loans and let the FHA insurance pool assume the risk.

       ? Cached page

                Now why would they do that?
                And why would they get the federal employee unions pensions into the market just months before the collapse?Why did they try to get SS into the market just before the collapse?

                Too obvious?

          2. By 2005, the die was set. The GSEs were very late to the party, buying sub-prime at the top of the market. The peak of homes sales (units) were August 2005, and the peak in prices were in 2006, just a few months later. From there, it was all downhill. By the time the GSE’s were buying sub-prime debt, it was all over but the crying.

            6. OMISSION: Bush thwarted attempts to make lenders behave responsibly: Gee, somehow Mr. Rove forgot this one. Bank regulators had proposed new guidelines for writing risky loans. These were internal administrative rules; had they been enacted, the worst of the housing and credit crisis might have been avoided. The Bush administration backed away from proposed crackdowns on the subprime, no-money down, interest-only mortgages that were critical contributors to the credit and housing crisis. According to the Associated Press, pressure from banks (many of whom have since failed) was the reason:

            “Bowing to aggressive lobbying ? along with assurances from banks that the troubled mortgages were OK ? regulators delayed action for nearly one year. By the time new rules were released late in 2006, the toughest of the proposed provisions were gone and the meltdown was under way. ‘These mortgages have been considered more safe and sound for portfolio lenders than many fixed-rate mortgages,’ David Schneider, home loan president of Washington Mutual, told federal regulators in early 2006. Two years later, WaMu became the largest bank failure in U.S. history.”

            The Big Picture

            FYI…bush comes from a bankster family so entities like fannie and freddie are direct competition for his interests.Ever wonder why they would want to bring it down?

            1. Ahh Barry Ritholtz and conspiracy theories all in one glorious post.

              Bush brought down the financial system for monetary gain!!

              1. Oh and he didnt lie us into Iraq for profit either.

                1. No. He didn’t.

            2. Remember kids, it’s fun to make shit up.

              1. Remember kids, it’s fun to make shit up.

                He didn’t make shit up — he fucking plagiarized because he doesn’t have enough smarts to write things in his own words.

                1. It’s almost all plagiarized, (except the insults).

                  I’m thinking this one is paid and told what to do by someone else. It can’t spell, doesn’t know basic grammar, and repeats the same comments on wildly different threads.

                  Maybe a college project.

                2. I linked to is it plagerism again?
                  And how os it wrong…More importantly…be specific I like details..and leave out the pirate accent and porn references.

              2. Dont have too.

                1. These nuts I’m sucking taste really, really good.

            3. “These were internal administrative rules; had they been enacted, the worst of the housing and credit crisis might have been avoided.”

              That”s highly debatable.

        6. Re: frog in a pond,

          The derivatives market is unregulated.

          It wasn’t a lack of regulation which made derivatives toxic. It was the fact that investment banks had guarrantees that they would be bailed out – which is exactly what happened.

          Also it was the UNREGULATED mortgage companies that were giving out the liars and ninja loans.

          This is incorrect – mortgage companies are regulated, so much so they were MADE to make such loans.

          Bush and Greenspan both had the power to change the rules but why spoil all the fun.

          They DID change the rules – Greenspan toyed with the interest rates while Bush played tin soldiers with people’s lives.

          Thanks for being an ignoramus.

          1. I have a great deal of respect for you OM, but please, don’t be his porn.

          2. Thats absolute bullshit.Nobody forced anyone to make liars loans or ninja loans.Did they allow it?..yes…why?..ever ask yourself?

            And Greenspan KNEW the massive fraud that was going on in the UNREGULATED markets.he not only did nothing he lowered interest rates.Now thats gas on a fire right?

            So they planned this.Get a clue.

            1. Sure they allowed it. There was an implicit guarantee from the government. Why not raise the risk and increase profit when someone is guaranteeing limited risk? It doesn’t take a ROCKET SCIENTIST to see where the motivation came from. Mix that up with a few other variables and you get a nice credit bubble.

              my clue > your clue^nth

              1. Government and the federal reserve are supposed to put the brakes on that level of fraud.We had Greenspan an Ayn Rand cult member who believed the market would take xare of itself and The bush administration who wanted to bankrupt the government.And they didnt just do it to our government either.

                1. hyperbole a plenty

                2. PS. Froggie… If Greenspan wanted to let the market take care of itself, he should probably have quit his position as our economy’s chief central planner.

                  Controlling the money supply and the interest rate of a nation – not to mention, continually printing money from 2002 on and artificially holding interest rates WAY below market levels (historic lows, don’t you know!) promoting a bubble isn’t exactly a very “hands off” approach to the market, now is it?

                  What I want to know is why do all our bullshit trolls know so little about even the most basic economics concepts?

            2. UNREGULATED!!!!!!111!!!111!!!!!!

              If you over-emphasize a word, that makes it true, right?

        7. find me a big bank that failed because of its trading desk. Hint: leahman and bear stearns dont count. They are investment banks. The commerical banks and thrifts that got in trouble (countrywide, WaMu, Indymac, etc) were not trading dirivatives. Repealling Glass Seagal was not what caused this.

          1. Are you kidding me?
            Countrywide, Washington Mutual Bond Risk Increases (Update2)

            Credit-default swaps based on $10 million of Countrywide’s bonds jumped as much as $75,000 to $260,000, according to broker Phoenix Partners Group. The contracts are trading at the highest levels since at least July 2003, the earliest prices available, according to Credit Suisse Group. They rebounded to $213,000 as of 5:05 p.m. Credit swaps of Seattle-based Washington Mutual, the biggest U.S. savings and loan, rose as much as $25,000 to $115,000 and later was quoted at $110,000.

            “Negative news is begetting more negative psyche, which might beget more negative news,” said CreditSights Inc. analyst David Hendler in New York. “It’s like a whirlpool that starts sucking everyone in.”

            Yes banks were taking advantage of the LACK OF REGULATION in stegall took the breaks off.

            1. Here is Gretchen Morgenson in the New York Times:

              Outwardly, Fannie and Freddie wrapped themselves in the American flag and the dream of homeownership. But internally, they were relentless in their pursuit of profits from partners in the mortgage boom. One of their biggest and most steadfast collaborators was Countrywide, the subprime lending machine run by Angelo R. Mozilo.

              Countrywide was the biggest supplier of loans to Fannie during the mania; in 2004, it sold 26 percent of the loans Fannie bought. Three years later, it was selling 28 percent. What Countrywide got out of the relationship was clear ? a buyer for its dubious loans. Now the taxpayer is on the hook for those losses.

        8. Who were these “unregulated” banks again? All banks are regulated, or benefit from the federal reserves credit expansion.

          True, Fannie and Freddie let private banks create much of the subprime loans, but they then bought and securitized those loans creating a market for them. Even if Fannie and Freddie focused entirely on the prime market only, they still would have created a bubble in real estate. It was the upward trend in the real estate market that drove speculation into many areas such as subprime. The GSE’s increased demand for real estate to illogically high levels, and this in conjunction with record low interest rates created an environment that made home prices shoot up.

        9. The mortgage banks were pushed into those loans. Had their industry not been so enthusiastically supported by both parties, no sane institution would have touched those loans.

        10. See, when people like you argue that the derivatives market is “unregulated,” all that you really mean is that the capital reserve requirements were too low. I’m sorry, but do you really think that if the banks were required to have 10 percent of the value of the derivatives backed by other capital, the whole problem could have been avoided? I don’t know if it would have even slowed things down by more than a little. All of the other hyperbole you spout simply clouds the issue.

        11. See, when people like you spout off about the “unregulated” derivatives market, all that you are really complaining about is that they weren’t subject to the same capital and reserve requirements as other financial products. Sure, had the derivatives been backed by capital worth 10% of the derivatives themselves, that would have slowed things down, but would that really have prevented the crisis?

          1. Oops, I thought that my other comment didn’t go through.

    2. Yup. There was zero regulation of either the oil industry or banks before 2010.

      1. Well under bush the oil regulators were busy getting blowjobs and snorting coke.but if you want to call that regulation ..OK.
        And the banks used the unregulated mortgage companies and the unregulated derivatives market to create a scheme only ENRON could surpass.

        Oh and when states did try to regulate the ninja and liars loans…the bush adminisrtation brought them to court.

        So if you want to refere to an anti-regulatory administation as an example of how regulation works…well..nuff said.

        1. Judging by the random words that are SCREAMED by this poster, I’m guessing it’s classwarrior.

          1. They used the ENRON model of complex financial vehichles to defraud the world.Some of the same people were involved too…ask Larry Summers.

          2. I was leaning towards helmet donning bib wearer. Or window licker.

            1. The snozzberries taste like snozzberries.

              1. lol! Your best work.

            2. Hay, wat doo yoo except from me? I’m a guy hoo kant spel end haz “FIAP” for a nickname.

              FIAP FIAP FIAP!

        2. And the banks used the unregulated mortgage companies and the unregulated derivatives market to create a scheme only ENRON could surpass.

          The California “deregulation” scheme was a plot by Enron to mandate that prices would increase. Long term contracts were illegal. All electricity had be bought at the state power exchange in Pasadena where the power was auctioned off at the price offered by the highest bidder. What this meant is that even if a power plant was willing to sell electricity for a penny a kilowatt to a willing utility, it was prohibited by law because someone else offered more money. This mandated auction scheme is guaranteed to drive up prices.

          Futhermore, Enron’s tax department — the department that is in charge of seeing that customers are charged the proper taxes and the taxes are remitted to the proper authorities were expected to make a profit. Enron simply pocketed the collected taxes. Where were the government revenue departments to go after this fraud?

          With regulation, you get incentives to game the system and to influence regulations in ways that suit you. And that’s what Enron did — they captured regulatory system in the state of California, the state of Oregon, and the United States.

          You can check out David Cay Johnston’s books or the various articles on Enron here for more.

          With more regulations, there is more chances to game the system to favor you or screw over your competitors. Why else do corporations want to be regulated?

          With the Dodd-Frank bill, the banks, mortgage brokers, realtors, pawn shops (pawnshops? WTF??? STUPIDITY!), and all the other people involved in the melt down are exempt from rules prohibiting various type of financial deals yet will be bailed out if anything goes wrong. In fact, everything Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers did wrong will be legal and, in some cases, be required by law.

          And that is regulation. Regulation protects the powerful, the wealthy, the well connected and screws the ordinary guy like most of the posters here.

          So, frog in a pot, if you’re not powerful, wealthy, or well connected, BOHICA.

          1. Enron counted on its close relationship to bush and cheney to look the other way while they bankrupted California.And that is exactaly what they did.

            You think without regulation that coulnt happen?
            OK did you ever read Adam Smith?
            What did he say about monopolies and how you avoid them.HELLO..

            1. The government gave them the system which they could game. Yes, in the absence of that much government power, companies would not be able to do what Enron did. Adam Smith wasn’t that smart FYI.

    3. And checking in with the latest financial news from Bizarro World, frog in a pot, where the women have mustaches, Nancy Pelosi works as a streetwalker, and the banks are unregulated.

      1. What would Nancy charge for a donkey punch?

        1. At least $500. Unlike our Nancy, Bizarro World Nancy has brain cells to kill.

        2. Thanks for that intellectual tidbit.Your mother must be so proud.

          1. I’m sucking your nuts SO hard right now.

            1. Oh..keep..going.. don’t…stop…me!!

      2. what did the repeal of Glass-Stegall do genius?…Gramm Bilby?

        Speaking of BIZARRO WORLD..

        1. What did Sarbanes-Oxley do genius?

          Questions on Gramm-Leach-Bliley should be referred to Bill Clinton, who claims, “I don’t see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis.”

          1. Bill Clinton is a scumbag scammer.Dont expect me to defend him.

            1. Then don’t expect me to defend Phil Gramm, the international bankers’ best friend, Jim Leach, aka Olympia Snowe with a penis, Tom Bliley, product of gerrymandering and indistinguished strip of Congressional wallpaper.

              1. they should all be tried for treason.

            2. I seriously want to suck Clinton’s nuts right now. Not his dong, mind you, just his nuts.

          2. Ps…blaming Clinton for signing republican bills and what republicans wanted is disingenuous at best.Clinton did everything republicans wanted NAFTA too.At least he balanced the budget and left a surplus after Reagans debt clock.Funny republicans only care about debt when dems are in office..why is that?


            2. left a surplus

              You still believe in unicorns and a fat Caucasian man who breaks into your house via the chimney on December 24th-25th too, don’t you?

              1. Reagan’s budget deficits were huge compared to anything before him going back to WWII and postwar WWII. They were 5 to 10 times the size of Carter’s largest deficit (in his last year). Bush 41’s was a huge deficit spender also.

                Clinton passed his first budget bill over the nay vote of every GOP member in both houses of congress, with Al Gore breaking a tie in the Senate — and that turned huge Reagan Bush deficits into surpluses over 8 years

            3. At least he balanced the budget and left a surplus after Reagans debt clock.

              Projected surplus, toad, most of which never materialized.

              1. Of course it never materialized Bush said right of the bat he didnt want a surplus.And worked tirelessly not only to eliminate it but to bankrupt us.

              2. Bush 43 was without doubt the most fiscally irreswponsible President ever — launching 2 wars and 2 huge tax cuts, and than a huge pre=election Medicare expansion without paying for any of it — and he left Obama with at least 80% of the current deficit (derived from 2 wars, 2 huge tax cuts, the diminished tax revenue thatnks to a deep 2-year recession, and interest on the alomst $4 trillion in national debt created during his 8 years in office. That’s the fact, Jack. Read it and weep

                1. I’d be weeping over my being so completely out of touch with reality too if these nuts I’m sucking weren’t so tasty.

        2. what did the repeal of Glass-Stegall do genius?…Gramm Bilby?

          Prevent the recession from getting worse.

          Many banks sought exemption from Glass-Steagall even before Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act (GLB). Even after passage of GLB, banks had to get pass several tests to merge.

          Citi, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America all took advantage of GLB… and they’re the ones that are still around.

          1. to be fair, Citi should have failed. But yes BOA and Wells are probably still standing today onyl because they had the diversified revenue streams that GLB allowed. Maybe Frog can explain how no other counrty in the developed world even has something liek glass-stegle and yet somehow they never had a crisis? Or perhaps he can explain how the investment bank failures (bear stearns, leahman) or the thrift failures (country wide, WaMu) had anything to do with GLB?

            1. Ask Ireland .Spain Portugal and Greece about that.

          2. LOL!!

            Why is that genius?They RIGGED the game and got rid of the competition.CAPITALISM at its finest.The pinnacle.THATS what you get without regulation.Even Adam Smith knew that much.Dont you people even read your own heros?

        3. Jesus christ. Glass-Stegall only catalyzed the unsustainability of the system that already existed. To say that there are no regulations in an GS-less system is stupid – the Fed manipulates the money supply and forces an unsustainable inflationary system on us.

          THE reason why it catalyzed it is that it altered the expectation of ‘what a bank does’. Before GS ended banks were effectively places where you could save to and loan for, after, they could also do spectulative shit. If GS never existed, the expectation would be that they could do speculative shit, and you might be more careful about what banks do what.

          Nevertheless, GS or not the collapse was ordained by the overexpansion of credit to beyond the point where growth in productivity could not match the debt expansion to cover the growing interest payments.

          Blaming this shit on ‘deregulation’ is just a red herring.

          1. What you just decribed was exactly what regulation is supposed to prevent.Back when I bought my house I need to have at least a 25% down payment and they checked my employment and made sure I would be able to pay.
            So what happened since then?

            And it isnt just housing…



            #1 JPM Derivative: JPM collected $1.2 Million in FEES while Erie, PA School District Got = $755,000

            #2 JPM Derivative: JPM collected $4 Million in FEES while Philadelphia International Airport $6.5 Million

            #3 Jefferson County Derivatives Scams


            1. “Back when I bought my house I need to have at least a 25% down payment and they checked my employment and made sure I would be able to pay.
              So what happened since then?”

              I can’t say, because I don’t know when you bought your house.

              1. I sucked a lot of Donkey balls since then, that’s what happened!

      3. Clinton: I Was Wrong to Listen to Wrong Advice Against Regulating …

        At the time Bill Clinton gave credit to Rubin and Summers and was … But, I wonder how many of the critics here have publicly admitted … Same Prez who in 1999 signed the Gramm bill which did away with Glass/Stegall. ……/clinton-rubin-and-summers-gave-me-wrong-advice-on-derivatives-and-i-was-wrong-to-take-it.html – CachedYouTube –

        Bill Clinton Admits “I Was Wrong”
        Apr 20, 2010 … Added to queue Re: Bill Clinton Admits “I Was Wrong”by PaintinWiz29 views … Glass Steagall doesn’t address the source of the problem. … – Cached

    4. Or the international economic collapse brought on by our unregulated banks?


      And what caused the current crisis may even be enshrined into law.

      1. Yup the casino is still wide open with dark markets completely unregualted.Nobody really knows what they are doing or how much is being gambled.

        The best estimates are somewhere around 600 trillion ….most of it FRAUD.
        The next bubble should be a real popper.

      2. Yes…unregulated….

        FRONTLINE | “The Warning”: Sneak Peek 1 | PBS

      3. and those are just the regulations the Fed is involved in. The FDIC, OCC, OTS, FFHA, FTC, SEC, and the state regulatory agencies all have rules too.

        1. Your assuming they regulate?
          How quaint.Well if you vote for people who dont believe in regulation…guess what happens?

          1. You’re an idiot. What the fed does is not regulation. It’s plain and simple manipulation. And they’re supposed to be apolitical. In other words, they have decided upon a policy (monetary expansion) that they are going to execute whether or not it’s going to drive us off a cliff and who tries to vote away their power. If you don’t understand what the fed does and how that fundamentally affects our economy, you shouldn’t be posting your drivel about how deregulation causes suffering.

            1. The federal reserve should be abolished.we shouldnt have international banks in charge of our monetary policy.The federal reserve is to federal what federal express is.

              1. The Federal Reserve does exactly what the government wants it to do. Are you suggesting that the government would keep interest rates higher if they were directly in charge of the FED?

    5. WTF?? STUPIDITY!!!

      1. What was the repeal of Glass=Stegall and Gramm- Bilby for 200 Alex?

        1. At least get the name of the law right.

      2. *slurp* *slurp* *slurp*

        Oh gawd that’s good cumm!! More, MORE!!!

        1. I only suck nuts, homo!

    6. Everything you mentioned in the thread is overly regulated. By bringing up derivatives but not mentioning Mark to Markets is childish & idiotic.
      Please do not enter into why the economy failed, you will get an education based in facts that you won’t like.
      As for the loans – answer the question “Where does money come from?” if you say “they print it” then you should be lobotomized.
      As for Bush having any control – you so true ignorance, if that office held any power then why wouldn’t B Rock solve all the problems?
      Troll go away – you have to either have a very witty sense of humor to be on these boards or facts.
      Neither of which you have

      1. Mark to market?Doesnt even apply when the underlying assets have little or no value you know.And if you think the wonderfully complex credit default swaps and other “weapons of mass desrtuction” in the unregulated drivatives market arent a problem you should tell AIG.

      2. FYI..I have yet to see any true wit on this board.And the humor might get an 8th grade boy to chuckle.Its embarrassing and sophmoric and not in a talented sophmor way.More like the mean jock way.

  6. Han, Chewie, Jawas, and for that matter Uncle Owen are also representatives of commerce as well.

  7. Jabba the Hut is not repulsive. He’s just misunderstood and has a gland problem.

  8. …AND, the film industry is (supposedly) the number one polluter.



    1. Nope its the pentagon…hands down.

      1. I guess you can call that an industry if you want.

      2. Sucking balls, on the other hand, produces no pollution whatsoever.

  9. it’s the Capitolists who really do the raping.

  10. Well, many movies are certainly biased against Capitalism and individual achievement. However, I finally got around to seeing Robin Hood last night and it was a great movie. In fact, there is a theme I’d like to see played out a lot more.
    To wit, the tie between the never ending warfare state with a voracious appetite and the tyrannical tax collecting apparatus that supports it is something many conservatives ignore. It would be nice if some of our conservative friends got that message, but even the thought of DoD spending cuts are both blasphemy and treason in the conservative mind.

    1. The plot from lots of movies is definitely anti-capitalist. What seems odd is that what Hollywood puts on the screen and what goes on behind the scenes shows a more anti-left agenda. Consider:

      Movies glorify weapons.
      The movies overstate the amount of smoking in the general population.
      Productions don’t follow the minimum wage laws (“unpaid intern” is basically a second job for much of LAs waitstaff.)
      Productions allow (exploit?) child labor.
      Movies can discriminate on age, gender, racial and “able-ness” characteristics in their hiring decisions.

      Those last three would not only be anti-left, but would be illegal were it not for the loopholes in place. I’m guessing the left wouldn’t be so happy if the “Greedy Capitalists” tried to get away with the last two on the above list.

    2. “but even the thought of DoD spending cuts are both blasphemy and treason in the conservative mind.”

      [citation needed]

  11. But Rambo and 007 sure did get some mileage out of taking down the commies.

    Uh, FoE, Rambo might have had actual communists as villains, but not the Bond movies. It was usually SPECTRE, the evil multinational group which acted in many ways like a corporation. Even From Russia With Love was actually a SPECTRE plot, not the Soviet SMERSH. I can’t recall any actual communist villains. There were some Russian or Chinese officers, always noted as ‘rogues’ with their own agendas. In Goldfinger the Red Chinese lend a nuke for the plan, but the actual villain might be seen as a symbolic uber-capitalist. In later Bonds they often fell back on the standard evil-rich-businessman-terrorist motif. The plots often involved specifically stirring up shit between the superpowers.

    Anyone want to help out here? Can you recall any Bond films that involved plots by, and sanctioned by, the communists?

    The original Bond books, however, are another story.

    1. Nope. The Bond movies have always turned communist villains (SMERSH) into SPECTRE.

      1. Let’s face it, with villians like Drax and Kristatos, who needs General Orlov?

  12. Even when capitalism isn’t the primary target, the representatives of commerce are often flat-out repulsive (think Jabba the Hutt).

    Could have done much better than this. What about George Lucas’ Space Semite pastiche, Watto (mind tricks don’t work on me, only money), or the Neimoidians, the evil, cowardly Space Capitalists who pick on the idyllic monarchy of Naboo FOR TEH PROFITS and make deals with the Dark Lord of the Sith (aka Dick Cheney)?

    1. Most people would rather forget the newest Star Wars movies exist at all. So ignoring them is the best policy.

  13. Hollywood Hates Capitalism[…]

    They keep hating it all the way to the bank . . .

  14. Avatar doesn’t quite fit into that whole deal, as its mostly about property rights than anti-capitalism.

    Sure, they’re a hackneyed environmental message tacked on, but its primarily about the Na’vi protecting their property from those who want to take it from them by force and fraud.

    1. Also, I’ve long since realized that looking for ideological purity in my entertainment would make for a boring, boring life.

    2. Did the Na’vi even have a sense of property rights?

  15. (yawn) I’m going back to the Katy Perry post from this morning. It least it has boobs.

    1. Sorta. That outfit might have had a low neckline, but it wasn’t exactly bust-enhancing.

  16. Meh, there are plenty of Hollyweird movies that depict agents of the state as evil,

    Generally, the evil state agents are “rogues” who are stopped by “good” state agents. A wash, at best.

    or mountainous government regulation as evil,

    Offhand, I can’t think of a single example. I’m sure there are some, but . . .

    or communists as evil.

    Hardly ever.

    1. or mountainous government regulation as evil,

      Ghostbusters had the EPA guy as the bad guy.

      1. Enemy of the State, Andromeda Strain, (or The Stand while we’re at it), Firefox was Evil Commies.

        Not to be politically taboo here, but when was the last time a Jewish guy was portrayed as Evil Banker? Given the preponderance of the tribe in high-finance, making a nefarious Wall Street movie without a nefarious Jew in sight is like making Hoop Dreams starring four white guys and a fat Mexican kid; kinda missing the obvious.

        1. Yeah, well, Hollywood goes out of its way to avoid certain stereotypes. I love the way muggers and street gangs are almost always white, or some sort of unidentifiable racial mix, but almost never black (unless part of a racially-mixed gang).

          1. Not since Colors have gangs been accurately portrayed.

            BTW, I think that may have been Don Cheadle’s first work. And, Maria Conchita Alonso was fucking ridiculously hot in that movie and has been an outspoken critic of Hugo Chavez and calls Sean Penn out regularly for being a fucking fool.

  17. Oliver Stone’s uber-villain Gordon Gekko is back in the new film, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, which (surprise!) features greedy capitalists behaving badly.

    Right, we all know that Wall Street types are fountains of good who act in the public interest. LOL, where the fuck have you been for the last couple of years?

    Even when capitalism isn’t the primary target, the representatives of commerce are often flat-out repulsive (think Jabba the Hutt).

    Reason is coming to defense of a slave trader? Slave trader is the model capitalist? For real?

    Someone should be fired immediately for this blog post.

    1. I didn’t see Qui-Gon Jinn stepping in to free the slaves, so I assume it was considered to be a normal practice a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away……

      Now, Pizza the Hutt. He was pure evil.

      1. And delicious!

    2. Right, we all know that Wall Street types are fountains of good who act in the public interest.

      Since when is it anyone’s duty to act in the public interest?

      1. Since they decided if they don’t like you, they can shoot you in the face and rape your wife.

  18. Shouldn’t this be, “Movie Watchers Hate Capitalism”? Hollywood is just trying to make money. If people didn’t watch movies where corporations were the bad guy, then people would stop making movies where corporations were the bad guy.

    This is like saying, “Hollywood Loves Murderers,” because of shows and movies like NBK, the Sopranos and Dexter.

    1. Sorry, but Hollywood regularly makes movies to please themselves and their friends, and they talk themselves into thinking they’ll make money. Hence lots of politically correct movies that bomb, and few “family-friendly”/patriotic films, no matter how popular they might be.

      1. this is pretty true. In general the genre that has the greatest net-profit margin are G and PG rated family movies (they are cheap to make generally). And yet hollywood does not act on this.

  19. I remember when Ollie Stone got his DUI a couple years back. The paparazzo was on the scene after they heard his name on the scanner (too bad the cops are going digital BTW).

    All I remember thinking when I saw the photos wasn’t Mr. Stone, it was the car – his car – that he was pulled over in.

    It was a Benz. Mighta been an SL500, but more than likely it was the SL600; same sexy bodywork but with the V12 Twin-Turbo Carbon Monster that says “Fuck You, I’m rich” to all the dopes in traffic around you.

    The kind of car Gordon Gecko would be driving I assume. What’s wrong Ollie, no Trabant?

  20. The villain (the human villain, anyway) in Ghostbusters is a government agent, and not really a rogue one, either. Plus an EPA agent to boot. I’ve always liked that about the movie.

    1. I didn’t know what the EPA was ’till I saw that movie, granted I was only eleven at the time.

    2. Ghostbusters is probably my favorite pro-capitalism movie. The heroes are motivated by profit.

      Also, the helpless city government has to recruit the private sector to solve its problem.

      “I’ve worked in the private sector. They expect results.”

      1. Yes, Ghostbusters was great that way (among others).

  21. Wall Street wasn’t supposed to be a how to movie?


    If you do, he will never go back to

    1. Or his pot.

      (Thanks, Pip… I love that image.)

    2. Aw, c’mon! Gimme more nuts to suck already!

  23. What is greed???

  24. By the way, Gordon Gekko never said “Greed is good.” He says in Wallstreet: “Greed, for a lack of a better word, is good.”

    No, it is NOT the same thing.

    1. No, it is the same thing. Break the sentence down. I’ll give you an example:

      Frog in a pot, for lack of knowing his real name, is a fuckstain on the bedsheets of society.

      The fact that the real name for froggy is unknown doesn’t change the fact that he’s still a fuckstain on the bedsheets of society. I think Gekko was saying that he couldn’t come up with a better term than “greed” to describe what he was trying to sell as virtuous, so he was gonna go with greed as his term of choice.

      No, he wanted to get across to the stockholders that striving to be prosperous and maximizing your profit potential was a good thing, while bloated bureaucracies like the board of directors and the number of VP’s the company spent too much money on were bad things. The real shame is that people act like his speech was a bad thing because they think they’re supposed to. If you really listen to the whole speech, it’s almost erection-inducing.

      1. Re: Sloopyinca,

        We’re on the same page. The fact of the matter is that Gekko was talking about something different: the drive, the passion of making money, while the comment has been bastardized by time (and anti-market ideologues and eleutherophobes) to mean something entirely different.

        1. [Random poorly-spelled and mentally retarded rant against Bush]

          [Random poorly-spelled and factually-challenged rant against deregulation]

          [Random link to far-left reality-challenged partisan “news” website]

          [Random profanity-laced personal attack on you and anyone like you]

          [Sound of Donkey balls being slurped]


      2. Totally agree with your last paragraph. That scene, in my view, lends credibility to the proposition that Stone was somewhat evenhanded in his direction of the original.

        1. I agree with both sloopyinca’s last paragraph and your post Old Mexican as well. I guess we are all on the same page.

        2. And I agree that he was pretty evenhanded in the first film. He’s also always had an anti-government streak in him as well, if you think about it. Based on some of his other work, I wouldn’t have been surprised to find some corrupt SEC guys in the first film. Of course, their desire for money would have corrupted them.

          Just look at Born on the Fourth of July, JFK, Nixon and W. They all rip government or people in the government. And not just Team Red. JFK and Born take place for the most part during LBJ.

  25. Obviously the Wall Street films are very specifically about evil capitalists, but it’s not entirely fair to paint every genre picture with an evil corporation using the same brush. To swap out the company for another villainous organizational entity (a government, military, religion, or criminal syndicate are your main options) might require the screenwriter to jump through some painful hoops of logic or completely change the tone of the picture.

    Corporations make good, generic screen villains because they can be immensely powerful without necessarily controlling every aspect of the fictional world, they can operate above or co-opt the rule of law but are still ultimately vulnerable to it, and they have easily defined motives. Also, the protagonists can still be under the villain’s thumb as employees.

    They’re still a cliche, but the majority of evil cinematic corporations spring not from ideological malice, but from a desire to avoid specific genre trappings (spy/war/crime thriller) or themes of anti-authoritarianism which may distract from the filmmakers’ focus on their prized fictional super-power, zombie virus, or doomed romance.

    Basically, not every movie can be 1984 or V for Vendetta.

    1. the majority of evil cinematic corporations spring not from ideological malice, but from a desire to avoid specific genre trappings (spy/war/crime thriller) or themes of anti-authoritarianism which may distract from the filmmakers’ focus on their prized fictional super-power, zombie virus, or doomed romance.

      That’s a sober, logical explanation… which I frankly just don’t buy. There IS ideological malice in a lot of Hollywood productions. They’ve got a slant.

      Just one example: the recent remake of The Manchurian Candidate, which changed the original bad guys from the Red Chinese to… the evil ‘Manchurian Corporation’. They REALLY had to stretch to do that. Hell, the original had a right-wing vice-presidential candidate secretly in bed with the communists, and it STILL wasn’t politically correct enough.

  26. “They’re still a cliche, but the majority of evil cinematic corporations spring not from ideological malice, but from a desire to avoid specific genre trappings (spy/war/crime thriller) or themes of anti-authoritarianism which may distract from the filmmakers’ focus on their prized fictional super-power, zombie virus, or doomed romance.”

    Sometimes they can tie in evil corporations and zombie viruses. I believe Alice is back battling the Umbrella Corporation in theaters as we speak.

  27. News-fucking-flash:
    Hollywood makes movies with bad guys. Sometimes the bad guys work for corporations. Sometimes they work for the government.

  28. This afternoon I exhanged $7.50 for two hours and sixteen minutes of cinematic pleasure. Although it is not Citizen Kane, Shane, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Twelve Angry Men, The Outlaw Josey Wales, Rocky or Slumdog Millionaire, Wall Street II was pretty good.

    1. I’d kinda like to see it, but I just can’t bear to give any money to Stone. I’d rather burn a $20 than give him a dime.

      1. I’ll readily cop to being addicted to my Friday afternoon smoke and screen routine (well, three out of four Fridays a month). I know my money is often going to folks with whom I have some profound worldview differences.

    2. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance was pro-centralist clap trap.

  29. Not having seen the movie yet…

    Doesn’t it paint favorable pictures of Shia LaBouf’s character and his character’s mentor without divesting them of their capitalism?

    Douglas and Brolin’s characters seem to be cautionary examples of capitalism “run amok” and not representative of all traders or capitalists.

  30. Those people over there, the group of people competing against one another, they’re bad. They don’t care about the poor, the homeless, and the ‘middle class.

    My ideals allow me and my chosen group (the State, elected officials who either believe, or pretend to believe) to transcend human nature and serve the poor, homeless, and middle class by redistributing your tax dollars.

    Boatloads of your money shift the burden away from higher risk, higher freedom innovation into a happy “community.”

  31. I thought the original “Greed is Good” speech from Gecko was right up there with the best pro-money screeds from Ayn Rand. Stone’s point may have been to mock capitalists, but Gecko sure made a case for going after what you want, big time.

  32. Ollie Stone created an iconic character named Gordon Gekko. He’s cashing in whether it might be the last or not (as per the success of this movie). Funny thing is that his retarded character captivates those that hate his characterization as much as those that think his characterization is spot-on.

  33. I wonder how much Hollywood would love it if it were forced to nationalise ? It would be especially funny if it happened when their dear leader is still in charge (which no doubt would then mostly support), and then one day a new president they abhor is in put in charge of Hollywood.

  34. I given this same advise to the Hollywood bashers in the Religious Right and Feminist Left: You don’t like it, don’t watch it!

  35. Capitalism must not be criticized! Capitalism is perfect. It is God. Burn all commie heretics!

    Do not anger capitalism, or it may rape us all again.

  36. does anyone here actually think that wall street is an honest implementation of capitalism? I have a bridge to sell you.

    1. For capitalism is infallible. Humans are flawed and often disobey its divine will.

  37. Capitalism is evil!

    Buy my DvD to find out why.

    1. I can’t afford your DVD now that I’ve been foreclosed on.

      Would you give it to me if I sucked your nuts instead?

      1. Fuck no. I’ve been through the dishwasher 8 times already. And buy some damn JetDry already.

  38. Actually capitalism is divine as if from God himself. The reason is because it is a true of test individuals against God’s Commandments to help their neighbor, be charitable etc…

    Socialism on the other hand derives from Marx and allows people to blow off their Biblical responsibility to take care of their neighbor with the excuse that the government takes care of them. It is the reason why the U.S. is far more charitable than Europe.

    After all according to Karl Marx it was his object in life to dethrone God and destroy capitalism.

    Atheist libertarians really need to stop being so hostile to religion and learn the context of the Bible and how to use the Bible to reason with Christians who would use it to clobber people over the head.

    Jesus never preached for Caesar (government) to take care of the people, he preached to individuals to help their neighbor etc…

    Also, Jesus never said to clobber people over the head and since God allows free will so should the Christian who would use the Bible to clobber you over the head. Christians are supposed to preach the word and move on not clobbering anyone.

    If libertarians and the Christian right could work together we could go a long way in killing Leftism once and for all while bringing back fiscal responsibility.

  39. I like when people try to paint Jesus or Robin Hood as socialists when it suits their opinion.

    Jesus never expected the government to help the poor, he expected people to WANT to take care of each other. Not be forced to.

    And Robin Hood wouldn’t have minded the people being taxed to death, as long as they got social services for it.

    1. Well yeah: in Matthew 6:2, Jesus says “So when you give to the needy…” [emphasis added] not “So if you give to the needy…” pretty much assuming you’ll give to the needy. He also says not to be like the “hypocrites” or (as that meant in the original Greek) the “play-actors” and go announcing their charitable acts with trumpets. He’s probably taking a pretty dim view of all these celebrities (theatrical and political) and their highly-publicized “charity” to the rest of us right now.

      As for Robin Hood, well, he was living in a time when they didn’t have a lot of complicated economic theories. His idea of social services probably consisted mainly of letting the peasants hide themselves in the ruler’s castle whenever enemies attacked in exchange for a fixed portion of the harvest; not the greatest deal ever, but pretty simple and straightforward. If you didn’t like that, you could always try living in the forest and running a toll road…

    2. And this one dispels the myth unions are some noble Godly cause.

      Matthew 20
      The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard
      1″For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. 2He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

      3″About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5So they went.

      “He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. 6About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’

      7” ‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.
      “He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’

      8″When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’

      9″The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. 10So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12’These men who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

      13″But he answered one of them, ‘Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

  40. Blaming capitalism for all the good in the world is like blaming oxygen for carbon dioxide.

  41. I thought “fight club” was kind of anarcho-communist. Anti-state with a hatred of big business and rich people… squatting buildings, stealing, scamming, fighting the police, secret underground movement.

  42. “Son of Flubber” presents a severe contrast between dealing with the government and dealing with the private market. Prof. Brainard has developed “flubber”, an energy-generating substance, and in the previous film, he had promised the U.S. military exclusive right to the use of flubber, because he disdained an offer from the “evil” businessman Alonzo Hawk. At the beginning of this sequal, the good Prof. discovers that getting the government to pay up for flubber to be impossible; instead, Brainard gets a visit from the IRS man who attempts to assess a large tax bill based on Brainard’s estimation of his revenue from flubber.

    Meanwhile, a marketing firm (or consortium of marketing firms; it’s not clear which) shows up at his house with expensive gifts–and a check for a million dollars–all to provide incentive for Brainard to allow them to produce a wide variety of products from flubber for the average household. As he has already granted the gov’t exclusive rights to flubber, Brainard must sadly turn them out.

  43. Disney’s animated version of “Robin Hood” has Robin “stealing” from the government and giving to the people. It’s very clear that he is engaged in the good work of recovering for the citizens what the government has confiscated from them.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.