Edward Rothstein analyzes our current economic crisis through the lenses of Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life" and Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice," and observes that both dramas are about the role of trust in maintaining a workable economic order. What's happened to us now is that people have lost trust in institutions and each other, and rationally enough, given the evidence. Rothstein:
What is strange is that we now depend on the state to re-establish trust by rescuing and even nationalizing financial institutions, relying on the same authority that gives paper money its value. But after the events of the last century, can anyone fully believe that the state should be the ultimate standard for trust and fiscal faith? And would even a real-life George Bailey be able to coax us into confidence, let alone belief that good intentions have power over principles of finance? We are in for perilous times.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I'm afraid Barack isn't going to rebuild trust. He has some of the worst qualities of W . . .
An inability to say "no" and a lack of center.
He likely will be played like a violin by Congress and his Vice President.
Oh come on. George Bailey was the last person I would ever have trusted my money with. Potter was the one I would have gone with.
Yeah - cantankerous old coot though he was, at least he didn't have an alcoholic relative handling the money. And George Bailey, recall, was the guy who was so keen on putting people into houses that they couldn't quite afford.
Considering where Obama got his start--in the Chicago Machine--I wouldn't say he's going to be "played like a violin". He's going to be Mr. Wheeler-Dealer, much like Bill Clinton.
NOT a promising prospect.
Your servant,
Lord Karth
I remember during the Savings & Loan crisis about 20(!) years ago some people were snidely commenting that IAWF was a parable for the late 80s -- it's essentially about the bailout of a Savings & Loan.
;-)
But I don't see any bankers today (or in the late 80s, for that matter) putting up their own money to keep their banks solvent.
There was an article on Salon.com a few years ago in which the writer was arguing that it would have been better after all for the people of Bedford Falls if George Bailey hadn't been born -- that Bedford Falls was a sleepy, boring, stifling little town, whereas Pottersville rocked, and appeared to have more potential places for employing people. (Sure, they were gambling parlors and dime-a-dance places, but nowadays most state governors seem to be willing to give their left kidney to attract jobs like that.)
just remember that he was the one who stole the $8000 from the Building & Loan, then framed George as the thieving culprit. Not the best recommendation for handling other people's money.
Uncle Billy's inability to remember what he did with the money was due more to the excitement of his nephew winning the Congressional Medal of Honor, than it was to him being sloshed (he was obviously not drunk until later in the day, when he was being yelled at by George).
Potter was not rich because he offered goods and services that people needed at prices they were willing and able to pay. Potter obviously (to me) inherited his wealth, and was only playing at being a big businessman. Read the book "The Millionaire Next Door", and you'll realize that Potter lived much too sumptuously to have been a first-generation rich guy. He also obviously (to me) relied on political connections to maintain his position and wealth (remember "Tell the Congressman to wait"?), rather than any sort of entrepreneurial talent. How else could he be able to "buy up" every business in town, and apparently keep all potential competition out? That can only happen when government steps in.
It is true that George Bailey might have helped more people, though, if he had followed his dream from the beginning, and pursued a career as an architect/builder, rather than run his dad's legacy business. But he was totally trustworthy in regards to handling money. He was able to build houses that were worth twice what his building costs were. Part of the reason was his ability to "save 3 cents on a length of pipe", in other words, he specialized in cutting costs without sacrificing quality. Like most entrepreneurs, his "equity" stake was in his business, and in himself (we learn from Potter that George's knowledge, skills, and abilities were worth at least $20,000 per year--ten times his salary at the B&L), not in a lot of cash lying around, or securities.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.