It's a good thing that "It's A Wonderful Life" ends when it does. (Spoiler alert!)
After all, the bank examiners might come back after Christmas--in fact, they should. What happened to that bank money?
The bank examiners saw the community giving money to Jimmy Stewart; that's not the same thing as having money in the bank. In fact, it was a public pay-off.
Banks can't operate like that, current evidence to the contrary.
The villain doubles his money at the end of this movie, or at least takes over all the assets of the smaller bank (which the community then pays for--kind of like taxes.) Wouldn't that increase his power? Doesn't the giving up of all their savings and possibly food, rent, school money mean that the community is going to be more impoverished and spend less? How will Jimmy Stewart ever pay them back? Especially if he goes to jail? Since all the assets of the bank are missing?
Isn't this the story we are currently in? We're the town and we've paid out most of our money--even money we need for health care, decreasing food and money costs--to that nice Mr. Banker who gave us our mortgage even though we couldn't really afford it. Mr. Banker might be losing his small local bank and we've got to save him (and our mortgages)! But he will use the money to pay off his obligations--and we will still have to pay our mortgages. And the villain now has even more money to buy up the town.
I guess you could argue that the next day the bank examiners come back and make the villain return the cash that is not rightfully his...
P.S. The movie is a parable about community love and support, so still enjoy the happy ending in the movie.
P.P.S. Where do we get our real life happy ending?
h/t Badger: edited to call George/Jimmy Stewart Mr. Banker rather than Mr. Bankster. I had questioned his banking judgment. Although there are many Mr. Banksters today, clearly Capra wanted Stewart to be a good guy.
- Truth Partisan's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
US government may take part ownership in banks
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=...
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER and JEANNINE AVERSA
"WASHINGTON (AP) - News that the Bush administration is considering taking part ownership in a number of U.S. banks helped restore a relative calm over global financial markets Thursday.
The aim of such a move would be to thaw the lending freeze that threatens to push the world's economy into recession. It comes after rampant fear about the global economy sent investors scurrying on Tuesday for safety in U.S. government securities despite an orchestrated round of rate cuts by the world's central banks."
Maybe Jimmy Stewart will co-own the bank with everyone now?
That's an interesting take
and does have some insights to recommend it, but also some factual errors.
Mr. Potter doesn't double his money, nor are all the assets of Bailey Building and Loan now in Mr. Potter's hands - Uncle Billy only misplaced a single day's deposits. BB&L also retained enough assets to withstand a run on the bank and still has assets ($1?) left. Further, Uncle Billy didn't lose the deposits by trying to enrich himself at all, much less via highly leveraged and complex financial instruments.
Given that, it's unlikely that all of the disposable income of the residents of Bedford Falls was tied up in rescuing BB&L, and in fact BB&L also had a liquidity guarantee from Sam Wainwright.
BB&L also wasn't a faceless corporation - there was a long relationship between BB&L's principals and it's customers (which may have involved some subprime lending as well, it should be noted). I tend to view BB&L less as Bank of America, and more like the credit union at the first company I worked for - where the president of the CU sat at the desk behind me and we went out together for beers after work on Friday night.
In fact BB&L was actually a productive part of the Bedford Falls community - it enabled home ownership (and therefore home construction too, along with all the other multiplier effects of its loans). Along with that, it existed to provide a decent (but hardly extravagant) lifestyle for the Bailey's. It would be difficult to point to something Goldman, Sachs accomplished that had as much utility for society, or at least something where the small social good wasn't achieved at the cost of exhorbitant enrichment to Goldman, Sachs.
There is a need for things like credit and banking, but the purpose of the institutions that participate in those things should be to accomplish useful social goals, just like the measure of an auto company is not its P&L or balance sheet, but the quality of its products and their social and environmental impact. Profit ought to be a side effect of enterprise, not its reason for existence.
And Capra's movie illustrates that point.
interesting comment and here's a plot summary
Thanks for your comment.
Here's a plot summary:
http://www.filmsite.org/itsa.html
The bank run part actually happens earlier in the movie--remember when the people in the town were all trying to take their money out?
According to the website, Uncle Billy had about 8000 dollars that he wraps up in newspaper--remember when that happens too? Don't you yell "no!" at certain times during the movie?
It would be interesting to hear more of your ideas on the role of businesses--and especially banking in today's free fall. "Profit ought to be a side effect of enterprise, not its reason for existence" --you do mean besides the profit needed to pay (decent not crazy) salaries, etc? Do you think that all institutions should exist for their public impact?
What is your take on what's happening?
Public impact
Yeah, I think beyond a "reasonable" profit used to pay the owners and sustain the business that a business or enterprise or institution should exist for some socially useful reason - produce some product or provide some service. I'm pretty open to what "reasonable" is too (I own a business). I'm pretty open to what "socially useful" is too - but it isn't solely self-enrichment.
I think that should be more of a cultural attitude than something legislated, although things which pose a serious threat to society or the nation - like the current mess - ought to be carefully regulated or outlawed. But in terms of a social contract, I think for creating, supporting and defending the government and infrastructure that makes property, contracts, money, commercial codes and similar things workable and enforceable, we have a right to expect something useful in return.
It's a Wonderful Life isn't just about "What if George Bailey, the individual, never existed", it's equally about "What if people like George or institutions like Bailey Building and Loan never existed". It's the usual dichotomy of greed and self-interest vs. some degree of altruism. George Bailey wasn't consigned to sackcloth and ashes, but in the interests of the community he did sacrifice some things of great value to himself (travel, education), and in return got other things of value - family, community, self-respect, a reasonable standard of living and quality of life. The film argues that in the end Bailey made a good, and fair, trade and people (heroes, a successful businessman, people he's helped) honor him for it.
Clearly the current crisis, like all bubbles/collapses, was driven almost solely by greed and self-interest, and it didn't work too well (again). John Kenneth Galbraith has a great explanation in A Short History of Financial Euphoria - there's nothing new or original about the current situation (except maybe its magnitude). I'd provide quotes, but the book's out on loan.
Last night I watched a Japanese film that covers somewhat similar ground - Ikiru (Kurosawa, 1952), or "To Live" in English. It deals with a bureaucrat who finds he has six months to live and how he responds to that. Instead of having an angel show him what the world would be like without him having lived, the last quarter of the film is people assessing (and taking credit for) his accomplishments after he's dead. The takeaway message is pretty much the same though - to live means, at least in part, to create, to build, to benefit others as well as yourself and your immediate family.
The first bank run and then the missing money
Bank run (sounding awfully familiar these days):
"(George) realizes he must appeal to the crowd to allay their fears. George appeals to the townspeople to understand that things aren't as black as they appear, just as sirens scream by outside. He explains to his depositors that they are all in this together - that their money is tied up in their neighbors' houses as an investment. Without the Building and Loan, they would all be at the mercy of Potter, who cares little for them, and would offer cash for their shares at half-price during the panic. George pleads with the people to not sell their shares to Potter at half their value: "Don't you see what's happening? Potter isn't selling. Potter's buying!""
The missing money at the end:
"(George) panics when he realizes Uncle Billy's stupidity, becoming enraged with him and slapping him around: "Where's that money? Do you realize what this means? It means bankruptcy and scandal and prison. That's what it means. One of us is going to jail. Well, it's not gonna be me!""
"Bank run" might no be an accurate term.
Considering that most folks, at least those I talk money with, have their assets in their home, 401k and other investments. I wonder how much available cash is sitting in a bank account these days.
Besides the $3,000 to $15,000 in any given savings account (certainly, not mine!) I suspect most folks' cash is in their retirement/investment accounts. The market reaction probably has a lot to do with people furiously realigning their portfolios to safer investments such as bonds.
I love this job!
I love this job!
What about our happy endings?
I still think the best bet is the community banding together to end each other!
But--later retirements? No retirements?
A sub-tier of cheaper goods/services?
More people at home so more volunteer work from community to help each other out?
Or maybe something different/better -- maybe less bling, more
substance.
maybe more real jobs repairing items.
maybe less stuff pitched into the landfill.
maybe more innovation.
maybe less waste.
maybe an emphasis on knowledge and ability instead of financial acumen (which, btw, looks like being even rarer than 'common sense').
I could live with flannel shirts making a comeback, and smaller vehicles.
We may end up with a medicare-for-everybody system because otherwise even the gov't will go broke.
We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18
the trade-off
"...in the interests of the community he did sacrifice some things of great value to himself (travel, education), and in return got other things of value - family, community, self-respect, a reasonable standard of living and quality of life. The film argues that in the end Bailey made a good, and fair, trade and people (heroes, a successful businessman, people he’s helped) honor him for it."
Do you think this would happen today? Do you see people being honored this way in their/your business dealings?
I would say family, community, self-respect are valued here--we (the community) are connected and have a set of shared values. We wait and see what other people can produce--the hands-on work they can do, business-wise--and when and how often people show up, in terms of support. There is some privacy too.
Sure
but we live in a town smaller than Bedford Falls. I don't think any of the local business people sacrifice that much, but most of them are involved in the community outside of their businesses and contribute.
The former movie theater manager just died and there was a good turnout for a memorial service (separate from the funeral) held in the movie theater. But he was pretty integrated into the community - long-time resident, a lot of friends, interesting guy, etc.
Other than something like The Truman Show, you don't get that as much with individuals on a national/nationwide level - and you get it even less as "hometown" companies get swallowed up or even relocated or disassembled by bigger companies.
On a national level a couple of things are different: first is the MBA-like focus on short-term profits, often through creative accounting or some other kind of paper-shuffling exercise, rather than through improving or innovating a company's products. The local grocery store owner isn't going to enhance his bottom line by acquiring grocery stores in 3 or 4 nearby small towns - he's going to do it by attending to his customer's needs more successfully (ours put in a deli, a great wine selection, a better product selection).
Second is that while a lot of executives do contribute time and money to charity or similar things, that's considerably different than being integrated into a community and being intimately connected with its members, and especially having your business have deep community connections as well.
But I'm not necessarily criticizing size. For example, Enron could have made a decent profit by helping CA solve its energy problems, rather than manipulating the market to create more serious problems (they could have done more honest accounting too). But Enron clearly saw its mission solely as making enormous profits by whatever means, rather than delivering a useful product that allowed them to make a profit. I do think they had a useful product - it just wasn't their focus.
As the auto companies go, so goes America
"...just like the measure of an auto company is not its P&L or balance sheet, but the quality of its products and their social and environmental impact."
Remember when saving the auto companies was a big part of making the economy okay? It was a whole quality of lifestyle (did we so believe the commercials--or was it the wheels?) American workers made those cars--that sense of identity is much reduced, something seemingly not taken into account when outsourcing.
Guess the saying is still true as the US auto companies--are there such things anymore?--are doing badly. 50's GM stock paid off well for a long time.
Kurosawa is amazing
and book reviews/comments always welcome in the Sunday Morning Book Review. It's a great time to talk more about Galbraith.