Humphrey Bogart, Globalization and "Sweat Shops"
50 years ago the delightful romantic comedy Sabrina (1954), starring Audrey Hepburn and directed by Billy Wilder, was released. The other two stars of the film play the scions of a wealthy business family that own and manage an international business conglomerate. Linus Larrabee (Humphrey Bogart) is the older, responsible brother who is passionately devoted to the family business. David Larrabee (William Holden) is the younger playboy brother who doesn't understand his brother's calling. In this startlingly relevant and stirring exchange, Linus explains to David why he is so passionate about further developing the family business:
David: "You've got all the money in the world."
Linus: "What's money got to do with it? If money were all there was to it, it'd hardly be worthwhile going to the office. Money is a by-product."
David: "What's the main objective, power?"
Linus: "Ah, that's become a dirty word."
David: "Well, then, what's the urge? You're going into plastics now. What will that prove?"
Linus: "Prove? Nothing much. A new product has been found, something of use to the world, and so a new industry moves into an undeveloped area. Factories go up, machines are brought in, a harbor is dug, and you're in business. It's purely coincidental of course that people who never saw a dime before suddenly have a dollar and barefooted kids wear shoes and have their teeth fixed and their faces washed. What's wrong with a kind of an urge that gives people libraries, hospitals, baseball diamonds, and movies on a Saturday night?"
Comments (6)
My take, it IS power, power over resources. Some socio-economic orders create wealth, others take it and reallocate it. But the underlying output should be to maximize turning resources into what people need and want.
Money, beyond a certain point, stops functioning merely as a means of exchange and becomes wealth, which measures the power the person who owns it has to order the use of resources. It can stay in the hands of producers, or the power can be taken and distributed by force. Regardless, misallocation of resources causes poverty. I'll leave it to each individual to determine which method, public or private, creates the most misallocation.
Published: September 20, 2004 9:41 AM
What a great scene! Thanks.
Published: September 20, 2004 10:46 AM
Any idea if this scene survived the 1995 version?
Published: September 20, 2004 12:46 PM
Brad, it may very well be about "power", but it's about power over one's self and one's own property.
While an individual with great wealth can command what is to be done with that wealth, he doesn't actually command anyone else without expending that wealth to trade for the services he desires. If it is a task no one will do for mere money, even great wealth is powerless.
Published: September 20, 2004 3:27 PM
A fan of cigars, and - well, I'm on the Mises site - not a fan of Castro or his over-rated cigars, coasting as they are off of a reputation a half-century out-of-date, this little line of dialogue from Wilder's "One, Two, Three" - a great socio-economic madcap milieu itself - gets me everytime.
C.R. MacNamara : Cigarette? Cigar?
Peripetchikoff : Here, take one of these.
C.R. Macnamara : Thanks. Hm, 'Made in Havana'.
Peripetchikoff : We have trade agreement with Cuba. They send us cigars, we send them rockets.
C.R. Macnamara : Good thinking.
Takes a puff.
C.R. MacNamara : You know something? You guys got cheated. This is a pretty crummy cigar.
Peripetchikoff : Do not worry. We send them pretty crummy rockets.
Published: September 20, 2004 5:10 PM
The argument of the illegimatacy of "public" property is 'right on'.
The statists tax the people, use the money to buy the property of the people, and raise the people's taxes (via capital gains or out-and-out tax increase) to continue the process.
The end:
The State has all the property and all the money, leaving the people wondering what the heck happened...
Published: September 21, 2004 7:22 PM