MarkyDeSod

I agree that this manipulation does take place. Absolutely. But I contend that this is just part of the dissemination of information in the market place. The fact that some people are experts at it and most are not is just a fact of life. You just don't like it that some people are just really really good at what they do. Remember, by definition, 50% of the people are below average intelligence, no matter how many people go to college!

Well, my view is that the end of the movie has a lot of problems. I am criticizing Stone, precisely because he sees evil in a place where it really is not there. Replace the word "greed" in the speech, with "selfishness". Does the movie's tag line suddenly go from immoral to moral? I liberals would say no, of course, because they HATE selfishness and will use FORCE to eliminate it! The point is, Stone doesn't hate greed. He hates selfishness also! What if the deals had gone bad and Gekko had lost his shirt on Teldar paper? Would anyone have given him his money back? Of course not, because they're just as greedy as he is! What if some wealthy investor screws up his manipulations of a stock and instead a lot of people gain from his loss, such as what happened to Ted Turner? What if Martha Stewart's hot advice to dump her stock turned out to be some sort of deception? Whoa, you think that never happens? Was Larry Wildman a good guy, as portrayed, when he earlier layed off a bunch of people after a takeover? What happens when a Gekko goes broke? That's what Rand's analysys of Capitalism was all about. If you don't want to take risks, don't buy stocks! Was Stone himself greedy for making money by making a movie? Did anybody ever consider if maybe he is a Gekko himself and scammed his entire audience? Did he give all his profits away to charity, because greed and selfishness is bad? Did he make the movie NOT to make money? Of course not. Stone's view of Wall Street is, in my view, like this: "Small investors shouldn't invest in stocks trying to make money, they should go work at Blue Star, get old, and have a heart attack fixing jets for Stone to go fly around in".. Ta Dam! I bet Stone has a TON of stocks. Even an off shore trust account or two! Where is an investigative journalist when you need one!

I have read all the major Objectivist books, novels, movies, etc. except the Ayn Rand newsletters from the 60's. I don't see how Gecko's character goes against any of it, really. Stock trading really is real work and it is a profession. It's purpose is to make a profit by directing money to the places it is needed most, to create things by financing people who have great ideas that are making great products. It does that by shifting money away from people who are bad businessmen or making inferior products. Stock trading is real, just like computer programs are real. Real electrons flowing through real circuits using real logic thought out by real minds making real life actions that make real money! This is all I want to argue on this point right now, I've got to do my tax returns!

OK, If you vote for Republicans, you are essentially voting for religion as the basis for the US government's laws. Jerry Fallwell is your guy. Since there is no God, then, of course, this is insane. Since the morality of Christianity has lots of problems, bad laws get passed all the time. A Republican vote is a vote for Evangelicals and fundamentalists. Enter the Middle Ages! Millions would end up dying. The total end of the concept of separation of church and state. Now, if you vote for Democrats, you are basically voting for some hybrid mongrel cross between Socialism and Communism. Who care's the details, it is just the same thing as voting Republican as far as how bad the result would be. Enter communism! Millions would end up dying. Lose the war to the Islamists. Centralized 5 year plans. Food and health care lines a mile long. No gas. Either way, laws get passed that are totally going against what Obejctivism would call for. My point is, that an Objectivist Political party's goal isn't to win elections. It is to get Objectivist principles put into the structure of the country, both culturally and politically. Doing it in just academics is faulty because it in effect sanctions all the stuff that happens outside of academia. People reading Atlas Shrugged in High School would just have to go to college and become another run of the mill liberal, because there is only two parties and neither of them give a damn about what was written in Atlas Shrugged or how many copies it sells every year. Having a political party doesn't mean stop fighting inside Acedemia, no no. An Objectivist political party is also a place for Objectivists to rally. How are people going to become Objectivists if, after they do, there is no place to go and no clear activity to join? The same argument could have been made about the libertarian party and it formed anyway. The libertarian party just can't advance anywhere because it is so flawed. Objectivists need to get a grip and start pressing all areas of social movement simultaneously. That's what I meant in one of my previous posts - that you have to push push push on every front at the same time if you have any plans to win what is obviously a war. RIght now Objectism is basically a bunch of poeple running around talking to themselves but getting nowhere because they haven't decided that they are serious about changing anything. Right now they are just happy complaining. Being a professional whiner sucks. Doing that for a living sucks even more unless you have a strategy and a goal. I assert that there is only right now a goal to make a living doing this, but not to win. Get serious! I assert that I am serious about this otherwise I wouldn't be on here. Appologies in advance for my ranting.

I have seen the director of Wall Street (was it Oliver Stone?) remarking about his character of Gordon Gecko (played by Michael Douglas) as being the "bad guy" in the movie, and his surprise to learn that the audience liked Gecko! I have always postulated in my mind that this is because what was supposedly Gecko's evil stock-market manueverings were actually consistent with Objectivist ideology in many ways, and that the audience picked up on that quite clearly even despite the fact that both the actors and the directors did not! I have always thought how amazing this is, and it is one of the reasons that I continue to pull out my DVD of "Wall Street" once and awhile, and replay it. The moral issues in the movie are so interesting when cast in the framework of Objectivist ethics and philosophy. I was wondering if any Objectivists out there have had any similar responses to the film, and whether you have contemplated the issues: 1) Is Capitalism moral ("Greed is Good") 2) Is insider trading moral? Are insider trading laws immoral? Should they be repealed? 3) Are anti-trust laws unethical? In particular, was Gecko actually a moral man and Bud Fox the confused guy who was actually the criminal? Fox is the one who stole company documents, not Gecko. And surmising Larry's take-over of Annecot Steel was an interpretation of information, something people do every day when buying stocks. Why does the audience love Gecko's character? Because he is moral, and it is moral for a middle class guy to become rich. Your thoughts. . . .

Yes, Objectivism is a massive leap in logic. Of course! That's the whole idea, man! Just voting Republican or Democrat because its a two party system is just copying, which of course, is not thinking! Just give up and be pragmatic instead of moral! Of course, as Peikoff has lectured the reasoning so many times, "The only way to be pragmatic is to be moral". Living Objectivism with integrity is hard. Playing about it in an academic environment is a limited life if you are not in academia, of which I am not. Waiting until Objectivists turn the whole university system inside out could turn out to be a long, long, long wait. Longer than I've got to live. I'm not waiting on 'em.

Yes, changing from Pragmatism to Objectivism *IS* a massive change in logic! That's the whole point of Objectivism, of course! I assert that if you vote Democrat or Republican, you are just copying, just like Peter Keating would have spent his whole life doing. Talking about Objectivism is easy. Living by it is another thing altogether. It's what makes it interesting and worthwhile!

The top Objectivist thinkers have correctly analyzed what is wrong with the Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian Parties (I'll limit the discussion to just those just to get through this). At the moment, there is no Objectivist Party (Am I wrong?) People ask how to vote, give that there is no Objectivist Party. Now, if Objectivist principles are applied, there is conflict with each choice given what we have today. Since their are no conflicts in reality, it is not correct for an Objectivist to vote for anyone in any of these parties. And yet Objectivism goes against groupism, which means Objectivists can't get together over anything! This does not bode well for Objectivism's ability to spread! One of my managers in my company once said, "A good manager pushes an organization in all directions simultaneously. Then, when one area gives a little, there is pressure there to make a change". Objectivism would gain a lot more credibility if it started an official political party for itself. That legitimizes it in the public's mind and would generate interest. And it would give Objectivists a focal point, politically, where they are not trying to resolve rediculous conflicts in position all the time. Another idea I have had, is why don't the Objectivists rank all the countries of the world annually concerning how close they are to Objectivist values. This would apply political pressure for countries to adopt Objectivist Principles into their part. It didn't take Communism super long to take route. Can Objectivism do it in as much time? If the philosophy is good, it should not take long!