Somehow
the movie Wall
Street (1987) still holds up after all these years.
Sure, the technology is dated – the cell phones are hilariously
huge and the fat-back screens in offices display only green
digits – but it hardly matters. The clothing by Alan Flusser
is of course amazing and holds up too, but the real merit here
runs deeper than appearances alone.
The sensibility
of the film, the thrill of commerce and trade, the challenge
of the battle between money and morality, and the larger-than-life
quality of its main character – the rich, savvy, and unstoppable
Gordon Gekko – all combine to make a legendary story that remains
strangely inspiring in ways that its maker, Oliver Stone, surely
did not entirely intend.
The film
ends with a paean to labor unions and governments that save
companies from rapacious capitalists, but it seems artificial,
like a Victorian novel that had to have a happy ending lest
the readers revolt. The overall message concerns the central
role of finance and commerce in moving history forward. Even
the famed "greed is good" speech gives one pause: he is onto
something here, even if it is inelegantly stated.
In the
same way that the Godfather movies shaped the culture of organized
crime, Wall Street continues to influence the way traders
and high-flying capitalists understand themselves.
And it's
no wonder. The impression one is left with is all about the
courage, the thrill of the fight, the riskiness of entrepreneurship,
that struggle to obtain vast wealth, and the striving for the
status of "master of the universe." It pictures commerce as
a gladiator fight, a magnificent and relentless struggle for
progress, an epoch and massively important terrain in which
the fate of civilization is determined.
Enticing
isn't it? Indeed it is and should be. Not all of commercial
life is like this but parts of it are. And some features are
universals that don't just apply to high finance. Everywhere
and always, the future is uncertain. Those who make good judgments
are rewarded. It isn't easy. It isn't for the faint of heart.
Competition can be as fierce in a small business setting as
in a big business one. Even the tiniest shop faces a daily risk,
and this risk affects decision making in every area. Contrary
to what Gekko claims, there is no sure thing, even with inside
knowledge and even with all the wealth of the world. Indeed,
Gekko is ultimately undone by forgetting that there might be
someone out there with even better information.
The thing
that levels the playing field in this rivalry in the service
of society is the ubiquitous reality that no one really knows
for sure what is around the corner. And in the end, whether
you win or lose depends on that fickle and uncontrollable thing
called consumer volition and its confrontation with the other
undeniable reality of scarcity in all things.
I was trying
to think of another story that captures that amazing element
of drama associated with commercial life. It was this feature
of the novels of Ayn Rand that most impressed Ludwig von Mises
and Murray Rothbard. She gave voice to their own love of economics
as high-drama intellectual battles for and against the progress
of man.
My own
favorite writer in this genre is Garet Garrett and his four
novels written in the 1920s.
It is not
just his novels. It is Garrett's entire worldview. He saw the
market as the tableau for the working out of the great struggles
in human history. Unlike Oliver Stone, he favored capitalism
for the very reason that it was the engine of progress, and
a vibrant and wholly cooperative way to work out the competitive
spirit in the human person.
The virtues
of steadfastness, valor, bravery, and the impulse to make a
dent in the universe, and never, never, never give in (Churchill)
are tragically associated with the death and destruction of
war, but free enterprise provides a means by which these impulses
can be channeled toward creative purposes.
And so,
for example, in The
Cinder
Buggy we are witness to a titanic struggle within a
family over whether the future belongs to iron or steel. And
the description of the struggle, in the lives of its entrepreneurs,
causes the heart to race.
The day
of steel was breaking. It was not a brilliant event. It was
like a cloudy dawn, unable to make a clean stroke between
the light and the dark. Yet everyone had a sense of what was
passing in this dimness. Gib, whose disbelief in steel rested
as much upon pain memories and hatred as upon reason, was
a fanatic; but at the same time great numbers of men with
no such romantic bias of mind were violently excited on one
side or the other of a fighting dispute. Fate decided the
issue. The consequences were such as become fate. They were
tremendous, uncontrollable, unimaginable. They changed the
face of civilization. Vertical cities, suburbs, subways, industrialism,
the rise of a wilderness in two generations to be the paramount
nation in the world, victory in the World War, – those were
consequences.
And look
at this. You have to love this material:
And all
the time, bad as it was, steel kept coming more and more into
use, especially, that is to say, almost exclusively in the
form of rails. And the reason the steel rail kept coming into
use was that an amazing human society yet unborn, one that
should have shapes, aspects, wants, powers and pastimes then
undreamed of, was calling for it, – calling especially for
the steel rail. The steel men heard it. That was what kept
them in hope. The iron men heard it and were struck with fear.
Even the
everyday actions of workers become fascinating:
The air
was torn, shattered, upheaved, compressed, pierced through,
by sounds of shock, strain, impact, clangor, cannonade and
shrill whistle blasts, occurring in any order of sequence,
and then all at one time dissolving in a moment of vast silence
even more amazing to the ear. Conversation would be possible
only by shrieks close up. The men seemed never to speak at
their work. They did not communicate ideas by signs either.
Each man had his place, his part, his own pattern of action,
and did what he did with a kind of mechanical inevitability,
as if it were something he had never learned. They were related
not to each other but to the process, kept their eyes fixedly
on it for obvious reasons, and stepped warily. A false gesture
might have immediate consequences.