The Word Is Greed

January 30, 2009 by

If there is one word that spells economic disaster, that would be – GREED. As early as the beginning of the 20th century, an English author named H. G. Wells wrote, “America is still, by virtue of its great Puritan tradition and in the older sense of the word, an intensely moral land. Most lusts here are strongly curbed, by public opinion, by training and tradition. But the lust of acquisition has not been curbed but glorified.” It cannot be further from the truth that the casual explanation is that Americans worship wealth based on greed.

Let me take you back to the economic scene in the 1910s. A business reporter for the New York Times and later the editor of Business Week named Elliot V. Bell recounted, “J. P. Morgan was far from being the richest man of his time. His estate was valued at about one-tenth of Andrew Carnegie’s, one-twelfth of John D. Rockefeller’s. Yet Morgan’s control of the U. S. economy is unlikely to be matched. When Congress investigated the Morgan Bank in 1912, it discovered that the assets controlled by ‘the octopus,’ as the bank was called by critics, totaled $25 billion – more than five times the budget of the federal government.”

It is of no coincidence that the same kind of greed only possessed perhaps by different personalities, has wrought havoc in the autumn of 1929 and the succeeding years of the country’s economic meltdown. Recall that the great crash of that year is notable of economic events that ushered the most momentous economic occurrence in the history of the United States known as the Great Depression. Since then, America has no shortage of economic turmoil cast upon by the people whose propensity for profit is simply insatiable.

Fast forward, today’s economic pundits equate the same word to our country’s economic woes. No less than Mr. Obama chastised Wall Street executives for taking fat bonuses at a time when financial system has run out of breath. “That is the height of irresponsibility. It is shameful”, Obama said.

But how much in dollars does the Obama administration is in disgust? A whopping $18.4billion bonus payouts, according to the New York comptroller. Such huge amount may sound totally outrageous, if not outright insane, to the ordinary taxpayers, who in the hindsight, would pick up the tab.
Let me rub some salt to your wound, if I may, to confirm the deranged justification of these American CEOs for their fat payouts to sustain their wild spending. Call it vanity but I still insist to be greed. I am referring to the renovation done to the office of the former Merrill Lynch CEO John Thain. Last year, the vane CEO spent $1.2 million to fix up his office, including $35,115 on a commode, and $1,405 for trash bin!

Recall as well how the auto executives learned that lavish spending was totally unacceptable under today’s economic set up when they flew in private jets to Washington while seeking bailout. This prompted Citigroup to cancel a plan to buy $50 million executive jet because Obama does not believe it was “the best use of money” by companies receiving taxpayer assistance. Indeed, during the time of austerity, an act of fancy borne out of greed such as this is totally reprehensible and insensible. It must stop, in toto.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , ,

Obama's Somber Beginning

January 21, 2009 by

When President Barack Obama took the stand to deliver his inaugural speech, the crowd anticipated a dash of hope amid all the woes at hand. The expectation, however, came out a little less than expected. The new leader of the world’s prosperous nation was under no illusion that a quick fix in the country’s economic debacle is in the offing. The somber notes he delivered in that icy platform of the Capitol Hills was evidenced by a handful of roars from the sea of humanity that trooped to the historic occasion.

Recall that the president recognized the U. S. economy to be badly weakened. Apparently, such recognition was done in the hope that his incoming administration shall be given the much needed running room to figure out the enormity of the economic damages left behind by his predecessor.

Note, however, that across America, people are sympathetic to Obama’s plea – which is a good thing – including Mark McKinnon, a former consultant for Senator John McCain. According to McKinnon, “People are going to give Obama more time than they would any other new president because they know he is dealing with unprecedented challenges.” True enough, Obama declared that, “the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily in a short span of time.” With that, the country loaned Obama some time, how much time, however, no one knows. Even his designated chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel “will not put time on it.”

To those in the know, two years or longer is their best estimate based on the running time of the country’s economic recession. According to David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager, one way for the president to earn patience from the American public has something to do with tone. Plouffe’s observation was validated by the shift in Obama’s inaugural speech compared to his presidential campaign rhetoric.

Obama rationalized further that he was taking the office in challenging times, both domestic and foreign, including economic crisis equivalent to that of the Great Depression when Franklin D. Roosevelt moved into the White House. It is of no consequence that collectively the American people must adopt a more self-denying way of life with little room for “those who prefer leisure over work or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame.”

In an effort to heed Obama’s call for change as a means to turn around the ill-fitted economy, the entire nation, Democrats or Republicans, is left without recourse but to give his administration a chance to prove itself. Hence, Obama’s supplication for the return to the so-called traditional American virtues of hard work, fair play, tolerance and sacrifice for the common good is not a difficult proposition.

He urged that “starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.” This urging is a testament to the fact that there are massive jobs to be done to reaffirm the greatness of the country. Again, this is another way of reminding the American people that the tasks ahead require considerable time.

It was evident that those in the crowd and elsewhere whose expectations run high but met with a plea to collectively tackle the “raging storm” must come into terms that, indeed, there is no quick fix to match the enormity of woes before them.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: ,

Slumdog Millionaire: A must see.

January 19, 2009 by

When we talk about great movies, we oftentimes refer to those that are hugely budgeted with elaborate sets, high-tech production, and ridiculously high-paid Hollywood actors. In the movie Slumdog Millionaire, this is not the case.

The movie was filmed in India with barely known Bollywood actors in the lead. One example is Dev Patel who played the lead role, Jamal Malik. Patel earned the part out of his unassuming looks. His cinematic features pale in comparison to the generally hunky and hero-like Bollywood stars. Nevertheless, Patel is a cast member of a British television ensemble drama Skin prior to this movie. The other is Freida Pinto who played the role of Latika, Jamal’s love interest. Pinto had not starred in a feature film before. She is a commercial model by profession.

One can only guess that while the movie’s projected cost was $15 million, an award-winning movie with a small budget such as this defies the conventional wisdom in the movie industry. To its credit, the film pulled down four coveted 2009 Golden Globe Awards including Best Motion Picture – Drama; Best Director – Motion Picture – Danny Boyle; Best Screenplay – Simon Beaufoy; and Best Original Score – A. R. Rahman.

Slumdog Millionaire is based on a novel Q and A by Vikas Swarup and is put into a script by Simon Beaufoy. The backdrop used for the scenes is nothing but redolently panoramic landscape that captures the real-thing-slum in the heart of Mumbai. The filthiness inside this shanty town is enough to turn the viewers’ stomach upside down. The grossness surrounding the squatter commune creates an impression of a third-world India prior to country’s ascent to one of the world’s fastest rising economies next to China.

The movie’s plot is typical to countries where minorities, in this case the Muslims in a predominantly Hindus, are treated heavy-handedly. Children of Islamic descent who hail from the shanties bear the brunt of India’s discriminating authorities.

Jamal Malik, a former street child from Mumbai had the displeasure of being a contestant in Kaun Banega Crorepati, an Indian version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire. Armed without education, he stunned the show’s million avid viewers by making it to the final question worth twenty million ruppies. As such, Prem Kumar, the host of the show suspected Jamal of cheating which resulted in a police interrogation. Under custody, Jamal detailed an explanation of how he knew the answers that walked us through to the chronological events of his sorry-life in the slum areas.

The ensuing scenes from beginning to end of the movie were masterfully directed by Danny Boyle. The film is simply riveting which hoisted Simon Beaufoy to earn the coveted award in scriptwriting.

Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun Times gave the film four stars, stating that it is, “a breathless, exciting story, heartbreaking and exhilarating”. Todd McCarthy of Variety, praises the script as “intricate and cleverly structured”. Finally, Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times describes the film as a “Hollywood-style romantic melodrama that delivers major studio satisfactions in an ultra-modern way”.

Indeed, Slumdog Millionaire is a movie that might bring the executives of the giant film outfits into the drawing board to focus more on the script rather than the big budget to earn critical acclaim.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , ,