Iron Man and Making Money
I saw Ironman the weekend it came out, and I really liked it. So much so, I went to see it again with a friend the next week (I think 300 is the only other movie I’ve gone to see twice). While the movie is by no means perfect, I totally agree with everything Scott Holleran wrote in his positive review. Iron Man is just like Batman in that he’s a normal who turned himself into a superhero. This movie is heads-and-shoulders above the normal type of movie that is released today, and I’m looking forward to buying it when it comes out on DVD.
There was one huge plot-hole in the movie, though, and it runs counter to the other good ideas in the movie. Since what I’m about to talk about can be figured out from the movie trailers and the first ten minutes of the movie, but I’ll do the obligatory warning:
WATCH OUT, PLOT SPOILERS!
The hero, Tony Stark, runs a very successful, multi-billion-dollar weapons company. His biggest client is the United States military, who pays a premium for Stark’s revolutionary weapons. During a trip to Afghanistan to demonstrate his latest weapon, Stark’s convoy is attacked by terrorists who use Stark weaponry to take Stark hostage. Immediately after Stark escapes, he starts an investigation of his own company to figure out if they’ve been “double-dealing:” Selling weapons to America as well as America’s enemies. And sure enough, they are. In his mad quest for money and power, the movie’s villain sells weapons to terrorists.
I can imagine someone building a suit that allows man to fly at super-sonic speeds. I can imagine someone finding a way to protect the human body from the intense forces generated at that speed. I can imagine someone inventing a tiny engine that’s capable of generating enough electricity to power that flying suit. I can even imagine artificial intelligence that’s powerful enough to assist a scientist and appear to communicate like a real person. What I cannot believe, however, is the idea that a billion dollar business can build its success and power through working with terrorists, murderers, and thieves. That’s beyond belief. It’s impossible. When you think about what is involved in a business as large as Tony Stark’s, how long it had been in business, all of the people involved, and and all of the investment… how could this be built on terrorism? Making money requires producing something of value, which terrorists just don’t do.
This reminds me of part of Francisco’s money speech in Atlas Shrugged (emphasis mine):
If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose—because it contains all the others—the fact that they were the people who created the phrase ‘to make money.’ No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity—to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words ‘to make money’ hold the essence of human morality.
It maybe be possible for someone to get away with a crime, but I believe that it will always catch up with you in the long-run. You can’t win a war against reality. Because of this, it’s impossible for me to accept today’s popular idea that businesses can be successful through lying and cheating. It’s not just true that crime doesn’t pay. Crime can’t pay.
Plus, how much money can a terrorist have, anyway? Stark’s primary client is the United States military, which probably spends more than every other military in the world combined… and there are some people in Stark’s business that think they can make some money by dealing with some thug in a cave in Afghanistan? No way.
Don’t get me wrong, I still enjoyed the movie. I’m just afraid that by promoting this bad idea, some of the good ideas were lost. Instead of Iron Man being about a self-made superhero, it’s about a guy who stands against evil businessmen. Or worse, it’s about a man who realizes that the act of making money has to be tempered by “social responsibility.” Iron Man is good, but it could have been even better.
Tags: [atlas shrugged, capitalism, iron man]Comments
Gmail lacking in storage space?
I just read an article that pointed out that out of the four big email providers, Google’s Gmail now offers the least amount of storage. This is interesting because just a few years ago when most providers were offering between only 2 MB to 10 MB, Gmail jumped on the scene by offering 1 GB of storage. That made the storage for other email services look pretty pathetic, so they had to step up their game. Now that Microsoft has announced that they’re bumping their storage up to 5 GBs, now Google is the one that’s behind everybody else.
This reminds me of one of longer-lasting benefits of great ideas and products under capitalism. Not only do you get the short-term benefits of that idea or product, but you’re also going to get the benefits of all of the competing products that will come about by those who are trying to compete. Google’s idea to offer such a vast amount of storage pushed everyone to offer the same within a few years. Now what’s going to happen when Google fights back? Whatever they do, we’re going to receive the benefits. Competition is good.
Tags: [capitalism, gmail, google]Comments
Peter Schwartz on CNBC
Peter Schwartz appeared on CNBC early this week to talk on the issue “Going Green: Bad for Business?” He debated Michael Ewall from the Energy Justice Network. Schwartz made the argument that the purpose of environmentalism was to save nature from man, and as such it is the exact opposite idealogy of business. Enwall argued that capitalism was good for dictators and pollution and had to be restrained before it destroyed our environment.
Obviously, I agree with Schwartz. I also wish that when environmentalists says that “we” need to find “creative solutions” to our “energy problems,” they’d say exactly what they were for: government regulation.
You can click here to watch the video.
Tags: [capitalism, energy, environmentalism, government regulation, peter schwartz]