:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/HogwartsCastleatUniversalHollywood-570d3f525f9b581408757fc7.jpg)
Posted on 12/14/2018 7:46:26 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Christmas is right around the corner. During all the festivities and family gatherings, your grandmother, or some other relative, will inevitably try to cajole the whole family into an obligatory viewing of It’s a Wonderful Life. While the inspirational theme of one man being able to make a difference is touching, try not to take all of this film’s messages directly to heart, lest you desire reduced opportunity amid slower economic growth.
The film follows its supposed protagonist, George Bailey, from his young days of saving his little brother from drowning in a lake and stopping his boss from accidentally poisoning a child. However, where Bailey goes off the rails, and becomes an economic cautionary tale, is when he inherits his family’s Building and Loan after the death of his father.
George’s father, Peter Bailey was President of Bailey Brothers Building and Loan, and routinely butted heads with the film’s supposed antagonist, Henry Potter. Potter owns the bank and most businesses in the fictional town of Bedford Falls. The elder Bailey rants to his son that Potter only wants to liquidate their business because it’s one that he can’t get his greedy hands on. George later parrots this same anti-capitalist rhetoric once he picks up his father’s mantle.
Before elaborating on Bailey’s horribly flawed economic worldview, it is important to get some background on Potter, the man who should ultimately be considered the hero of Bedford Falls. We learn fairly early on in the film that Potter is a board member and stockholder in the Building and Loan. In all likelihood, the small Building and Loan is not a publicly traded company. Thus, it stands to reason that Potter was able to become a stockholder by giving Peter Bailey capital. If Potter truly wanted the Building and Loan to go under, he could have withheld his significant wealth from it. Instead, he invested, and later pushed for its liquidation because it was not making healthy business decisions or making a profit. This is counter to the Baileys’ narrative that he is a monopolistic pig who treats little people like cattle.
Potter’s background is a lesson on what concentration of wealth can mean for small businesses. Potter is able to use his considerable resources to fund family operations like the Bailey Brothers Building and Loan, among countless others in the fictional town. It is especially magnanimous considering how often the Bailey family smears Potter to anyone and everyone who will listen.
For viewers who may not have picked up on this subtext earlier in the film, it is revealed far more clearly later on when the Great Depression hits Bedford Falls. Bailey’s company is exposed as a fraud for its subprime loan schemes as, when there is a run on the Building and Loan, Bailey is unable to pay out. Potter, on the other hand, is financially secure enough and offers to buy out all of Bailey’s customers. After making this honorable offer, Bailey continues to degrade Potter, and convinces people that they don’t need their money and that it should instead stay tied up in his company. The Building and Loan can only run if Bailey can convince people to act counter to their self-interest.
Part of Bailey’s pitch to keep money in the Building and Loan was perhaps his most bold attack on the free market. He tells the mob that no one wants to live in the housing options Potter provides, calling them “overpriced slums.” However, if there were more affordable, liveable alternatives, people wouldn’t be in Potter’s homes. Yet, there is clearly a high demand for them, as they are more affordable than Bailey’s alternative.
Even after the misinformation campaign against him, Potter offers Bailey economic security when he comes to him for help after his uncle misplaced significant funds from the Building and Loan. Admittedly, the funds were mistakenly given to Potter himself, but given his contributions over the years and the Baileys’ poor business decisions, it was likely money Potter was owed anyway. But, Potter offers George a job, opportunity to travel, and prosperity for his family. Bailey considers it before declining and, again, smearing Potter as a greedy old man.
At this point, it has been established that Potter is responsible for most of the jobs in Bedford Falls, provides them with affordable housing options, and was willing to provide assistance when the economy went downhill. The moral of this film still rings true. One man can make a difference in the lives of so many others. However, it is Potter, not Bailey, who is that man.
There are other lessons to be learned as well. Wealthy businessmen with excess capital can use that money to prop up or help start entrepreneurs and small businesses. They can also use it to create opportunities for a wide range of individuals. It also shows that the market speaks louder than any anti-capitalist ever could, and that is evidenced by the well-being of the citizens of Bedford Falls. We can also see how the subprime loan scheme run by the Baileys forces investors and customers into economic dire straits. We have seen that play out numerous times in our nation’s history, most recently in 2008.
So, if you do get roped into watching It’s a Wonderful Life this holiday season, keep an open mind. Draw inspiration from the good that Henry Potter accomplished for the men and women of his town, and reject the anti-market, anti-capitalist narrative pushed by the Baileys.
Yeah, the excuse he made for Potter keeping the eight grand was kinda dumb.
Henry Potter was a Filthy Heathen Liberal by todays standards
Will get to it soonest - TNX!!
I seem to remember an article with a version of this thesis coming up every couple of years.
Bailey accomplished this by simply paying out what people said they needed during the weeklong bank holiday, rather than paying out the entire contents of their accounts.
And don’t forget Freedom is Slavery; up is down and out is really in. Another schmuck with way too much time on his hands.
I had a book on the movie. It said there actually was an alternative ending filmed at the time.
Potter has a change of heart. I think (read this book 30 some years ago) he goes Georges house and returns the money.
IIRC they were worried that the censors would object to Potter getting away with a crime.
Oh, for God’s sake! What a stupid article. Mr. Potter steals the bank funds from Uncle Billy - was he sleeping during that scene?!
What’s this guy’s next article...how Scrooge is the real Santa Claus?
I came here just for that.
In the alternate universe Bedford Falls becomes Pottersville and it looks like Berlin 1920 where everyone turned to live sex shows and prostitution and drinking.
“In other words, if you buy the story, you buy the WHOLE story. “
I disagree. That’s not how it should work.
Every movie has it’s own internal reality. None of these realities are just like real life, but they should be consistent within the framework of the movie. The world within a film that presents a hero with superhuman powers is different from one, say like Saving Private Ryan, which presents WWII combat in very realistic terms. Of course that’s setting aside the fact that Tom Hanks was really too old to be playing an army captain at that time. In the movie’s world he was 27 instead of 42.
Superman exists in a representation of the real world. While his superhuman strength is fictional the weight of the vehicle, the strength of the building, the laws of physics, etc. should remain consistent with reality, or at least close enough to allow the suspension of disbelief.
A classic example of this was in Blue Thunder, when the heat seeking missile was diverted by the reflection of the sun off a glass building. They don’t work that way. Of course everyone has to draw the line for themselves. I didn’t object to German soldiers anachronistically wearing Afrika Korps uniforms in the time period in which Raider of the Lost Ark was set, but the stupid scene in the wretched Crystal Skull where Indiana Jones survives an atomic blast inside a refrigerator was just too stupid.
I cry every time Colonel Potter cries. :)
My 7th grade teacher was a dead ringer for Donna Reed in this film. She killed us young boys when she wore pants that were very flattering for her. Oh the 70’s were fun...
Potter was a thief plan and simple. I know local people like him who obtained their wealth in some cases very questionably—illegally, they buy up buildings and houses and rent them out for outrageous prices, refuse to maintain them and they look like third world slums and buy off the local code enforcement officers. They are despicable human beings.
Yes he did to keep Potter from getting his hands on the B&L. But their rules were required the depositor to submit their request and their funds would be available in 30 or 60 days.
Interesting comment. I see your point. That’s why movies/shows have “continuity directors/supervisors”, I guess.
I guess I didn’t make my view too clear, though. If we are willing to accept plainly outrageous circumstances, we can’t hang our hat on small details. Tom Hanks is a great example of suspending belief, in that the actor was too old, but it didn’t kill the mood or message. To your point, a 95 year old would have completely ruined it, which is your comment about drawing the line. The last Raiders movie was horrible whether he survived a nuclear blast or not... :-)
In the case of “Wonderful Life”, it looks to me that the internal reality is spelled out, in that life with Potter in charge would be horrible - he’s the villain.
In a much more broad pet peeve of mine - this type of article is a furtherance of liberals trying to re-write not only real history, but our cultural history as well. The FICTIONAL villains of old are now being positioned as good guys, and heroes are now being positioned as the bad guys. (Potter, Malificent, and others...)
Have a great weekend, FRiend.
I’m 60 and I’ve never seen this movie. I’ve tried to watch it 4 or 5 times but even as a kid it seemed saccharin and very calculated and I’d bail.
Crap like this makes me ashamed to be a conservative capitalist.
The author of this article seems to think that a savings and loan bank operates like a huge piggy bank where the Bailey Savings and Loan merely holds its customers money safe until such time as they as need it back. He concentrates on the “savings” portions of the name but completely ignores the “loan” portion of the name because of his ignorance. The savings and loan model used by the company is that deposits from savers are loaned to borrowers and they only need to keep a small amount on hand, usually around 5% to 10% of the total deposits for the extraordinary needs of their customers’ limited withdrawals spending. They were not a check based bank. . . But a savings account, cash based bank. The money they held was not intended for day-to-day expenses but for life savings, retirement, college accounts, Christmas clubs, saving to buy a car, etc. George Bailey explained it quite well to the first customer who demanded everything in her account who wouldn’t listen despite her signing an agreement for demand deposits and still wanted it all.
There is zero evidence that Bailey’s made sub-prime loans. . . If they had the banking examiners would have shut them down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.