- Home
- Business & Marketing (833)
- Editorials (671)
- Entertainment (2033)
- Fashion (1032)
- Highbrid (189)
- Honeys (2876)
- Humor (948)
- Music (5222)
- Need to Know (2224)
- News (2076)
- Podcasts (4)
- ARCHIVE
Monday, December 12, 2011 | 9:05am
Gordon Gekko Delivers Occupy Wall Street Talking Points in 1987
Though time passes, the blueprint of greed remains the same. ‘Greed is Good’
What’s up Nation. I’ve been meaning to post this for over a week now but as you can see I’ve been a little tied up with a new client activation. Please pardon my absence. The other reason is because the clip has interestingly been very abscent from YouTube. Not calling conspiracy but interesting.
One of the classic films on the U.S. financial system is the 1987 Movie “Wall Street” featuring Michael Douglass as Gordon Gekko, a scheisty financial maven who uses young ambitious upstart broker, Bud Fox played by young Charlie Sheen. In one of the many famous quotes from the movie, Gekko shockingly delivers the Occupy Wall Street platform some 24 years before it got started.
I’ve included two videos. The video below is the crystal clear audio so you can’ hear the entire sililiquoy as delivered in the film. The video above is the actual trailer from the film. The easiset place to hide something often is right in front of your face. Rent it and see for yourself.
FILED IN Need to Know, News
This movie actually came on a couple of weeks ago on HBO, I have it DVR’d. I havent gotten a chance to see it during my adult years. If only understood it when I first seen it in my high school summer school ecomonics class when I was 15, I’d probably be much more wealthy and little more corrupt than I am now, lol.
For many years, I had pointed to the original Wall Street movie as the cause of nearly everything that was wrong with America.
.
I remember when it came out; and I remember the effect it had on young people around me.
.
Excluding the last scene from the movie, the entire film did nothing more (and nothing less) than to teach a generation that there was no such thing as ethics or morality, and that getting money was more important than anything else.
.
That’s why I see Wall Street 2 as more of an apology for the first film. It’s like he saw the monster he created, and he’s apologizing for the mess he created.
He who? You really think it was that powerful?
But what is the difference between what Gordon was doing and a particular corporation funding a particular candidate with a wink, handshake and blank check?
@Juan … Oliver Stone, the guy who made both movies.
.
@ Mr Bad Guy… the difference is that they weren’t broadcasting their crimes, or painting their criminal life as a valid life philosophy.
.
In the last short scenes of the first film, you see the main character paying the price for his crimes. You never actually see Gordon Gekko having to pay for his.
.
The entire movie was an advertisement for bad living. Cut a few corners and steal a few secrets, and you could be f*cking Darell Hannah and have everything in the material world.
.
I kid you not… I can remember the effect it had on people who were otherwise on the fence between living an honest and dishonest life. The movie was seen as moral justification to live a criminal life.
.
Not to mention the point that Juan originally brought up… the idea that there is some sort of respectability in destroying companies.
.
I guess the character I most sympathized with was Martin Sheen’s (the father).
That is a good point, Malcolm: you are what you eat. This doesn’t just apply to food you cook and ingest. More importantly, how you feed your other apetites. And if you are a person on the fence, or an impressionable person, a follower, you may just be looking for a justification to go one way or another. Usually, people who start living immoral/illegal lives, and are basically decent people (there are many who aren’t decent, not talking about those), need a justification in order for it to be okay in their heads to do these things. I would say that especially today, people have painted too many grey lines and people are looking for excuses because we all want more/better lives. Living a more modest life is just not cool and if you try, others look at you as though something is wrong with you and they push you aside or try to walk over you!… above all, this is my biggest beef with society today.
So, I can committ immoral and and unethical acts just so long as it’s not braggadocious, and grandiose? Steal just a 1/4 a cent a week from every American for about two months and keep a low profile? That’s okay?(about 875k/ week for those counting; 7M total)
@ mr bad guy.
.
That’s not what I’m saying.
.
But there’s a difference between, for example, smoking pot in the privacy of your own home and passing it around the schoolyard; telling kids that it will make them ‘cool’.
.
I am against stealing in both cases, but I am also mindful of the power of the media to influence young minds.
I dont. I see drug use, which is wrong and self-destructive, now matter where it is done. And at that point you are hoping that people have the “common sense” and will power to know when to curtail their addictive and possibly destructive ways before it leaks into other sections of their life and/or into society, instead of attempting to get rid of the real problem at hand. This is the reason I am against the legalization of certain drugs. But then again I have very little trust and faith in people.
@ Mr Bad Guy…
.
Then don’t use drugs as example, pick another vice or crime.
.
My point had to do with the difference between an individual who commits an immoral act; and one who attempts to train others to do so.
I understand totally. One is self-destructive and self-corruptive, while the other glamourizes the destruction and corruption to a degree where others want, and feel they need, to partake in the same action for some sort of self gratification.
.
I just tend to look at a problem as a whole, and not in a user vs. dealer , student vs. teacher, practitioner vs. preacher realtionship.