where the writers are

Of all the lies ever uttered in Hollywood movies, perhaps the most fictitious was what Oliver Stone had Michael Douglas say in WALL STREET: "It's a zero sum game, pal." First, the Gecko character would be THE LAST PERSON ON EARTH to say such a thing.


Consider this simple scenario. In 2000 Bill makes $1 million a year. In 2000 Tom makes $50,000 a year. Bill makes $950,000 more a year than Tom.


A decade-plus later, in 2011, Bill - through great family contacts, maybe a little luck, and great investments - now makes $10 million a year.


Tom works for a company that does business with one of Bill's investments. Through hard work and promotions, Tom now makes $110,000 a year.


11 years later, Bill's income has increased $9 million a year. Tom's income has gone up $60,000 a year. According to Stone's "zero sum game," Bill apparently "stole" almost $9 million million that otherwise would have gone to Bill. It is somehow "unfair" that Bill's income increased by $8,000,040 more than Tom's, that Bill's income has gone up by a far greater percentage than Tom's. The Left would have you believe that the only "fair" distribution of wealth would be if Tom's income increased by the same percentage as Bill's, which would mean he would have to increase to around $1 million a year even if he does not produce, create or earn that amount. Bill's income has gone up because he, or his money, or his ideas, or his creativity, earned and created this increase in wealth. This is capitalism.


Stone and his ilk do not conceive the notion that perhaps the likes of Bill CREAED business, income, wealth. In other words, a rising tide has lifted all the boats, including Tom's to the tune of a $60,000 increase in income. No doubt Tom feels blessed and perhaps even has an idea developed over the years that will somehow let him catch up with Bill, or get closer to his income level. If not, he no doubt supports his family and is happy with his lot in life!


Stone's "zero sum game" is based on the idea that anything Bill earns would otherwise have been earned by Tom if Bill had not stolen it. Under this theory, based upon the increase from $1 million to $10 million (Bill) and from $50,000 to $110,00 (Tom), in order for Bill to earn $10 million, he would have to have forced Tom into a debt of minus-$950,000.


The dumbasses would say, well, if not stolen from Tom, Bill has stolen from the poor, as if the collective poor have $9 million for Bill to steal, which they don't. Or they have resources stolen from them, even though they have no ability to convert those resources into wealth. Consider the Indians who lived on land but made no wealth out of it, but settlers who mined it and did, making something of it (minerals, railroads, real estate).


I wish I could believe liberals would read this, and suddenly, through the gift of common sense, understand why they are wrong, but I know that this will not happen. Instead they will utter, of their own free will, that I am a racist. They will know this is not true. They will say it anyway. I will simply have to go on being right with the knowledge they are wrong, sigh, and suffer their ignorance with grace. 


As Jesus said to Pilate, "As you say."