You've used a buggy whip in meetings? Ohhhhhhh! I'd love to be in your meetings! Mmmmmmmmm So hot! So sexy! Discipline me with that buggy whip daddy! I've been bad!
@@ValkyrieZiege Valkyrie Ziege Says you. I've gotten 7 different hot and sexy dates from this comment thread alone! Hardcore lusty action that may or may not have included a buggy whip. Mmmmmmm. Spank me Mommy and Daddy! I've been bad!
Agree. And bear in mind, the characters are very different (at least imo). Larry may be a bit amoral, but at the end of they day I'd argue his motivation isn't just *pure* greed, but a belief system about how the economy should work, and the duty of a publicly traded company to it's stockholders. GG, on the other hand, was nothing but a conman who was willing to break laws and do anything else he could get away with in order to get ahead. Just for getting ahead's sake. Larry, to a degree, I think did legitimately care about his fellow investors, and what's best for them. Gekko I think couldn't care less about anyone other than himself.
Nokia wasn't in a horrible position until it was bought out by Microsoft. It had problems but it owned the Finnish market and had a large technology portfolio. Microsoft ham-fisted them into an unpopular OS choice and then cut them down and ran once their phones failed. Nokia was being outmaneuvered but if they had stuck with Android or branched out into wireless and networking equipment they would've been fine. Kodak on the other hand...
I just watched the Blackberry movie and after it was over I turned to my wife and said, "Buggywhips". She had no idea what the fuck I was talking about.
He's 100% correct. In college I worked at a RadioShack. My students today don't even know what that is. Oh, for the days of antennas, coaxial cable, and tape recorders again...
Even though "Larry" is the "bad guy" he is speaking the truth. People become emotionally attached to a company (Kodak is an excellent example) and refuse to see they are dying...feeling like not supporting them would be a betrayal. I loved Kodak. I loved their film. I loved their heritage. But I would not have wanted to be a stock holder with them 10 years ago.
Only problem was, wire and cable isn't dead. Won't be for a long time. The company wasn't losing money because of obsolescence, but because of poor leadership. His best point however was his "who cares" section of the speech. Employees aren't the reason a company exists. It exists to make money for the stock holders. If that isn't happening, there isn't a reason for a company.
MildCheddar ... and the company is circling the drain Because of the poor leadership that, for any number of 'reasonable reasons' decided to NOT change their tactics, strategies OR target markets. "Because we've always done it that way"? sound familiar? Managers all around the world are making these kinds of mistakes, to the detriment of their companies, shareholders and employees (and Customers!) every day. It's an interesting kind of blindness, and it's epidemic. If you think nobody's noticed this trend, you can find a benchmark from many decades ago, when the scenarios were laid out plain as could be by Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged and many of her other writings. As the bumper-sticker says.... "Atlas Shrugged... Now, Non-Fiction." Or you can disagree with reality...Good luck, everyone.
@Jvs Not true at all. I look around the room I am sitting in, and there are maybe 50 items connected by wire and cable. There still isn't a viable substitute for power delivery for electricity.
Demand isn't significantly increasing. Sure, the items you have are mostly powered by electricity. But the wire and cable inside them is much lower -- it's ICs, and circuit boards and much less wire and cable. The biggest US company in the industry had a stock price of $20-30 in late 1990s. Today the price is 15-20. With inflation, you've taken a huge LOSS on that. Maybe it will go up 5-10% over the next few years with increased infrastructure spending -- not likely. In which case, it will reach the level of "a company that isn't a complete drain on your portfolio". Because right now, the industry is worse than charity -- at least charity is a decent write-off. You can't write off the loss of individual stocks in a fund.
This is a classic. A must watch for anyone trying to master speaking on the big stage. Danny does a great job of changing up his style to appeal to all the various people he has in the audience.
[Note: I am not calling DeVito a Hitler- I am pointing out that fascists used to be good orators in the days before Trump and Bolsonaro- and that button-up-fascism is identical in its ability to persuade, to any boiler-room hack, because the whole point of this stuff is, you do not have to tell actual truths, you just have to have intense persuasion powers- and Hitler did have that, right up to a few days before the Bunker suicides.]
Hollywood prefers heroic teachers, firefighters, community activists, over investment bankers. As a fan of investing and Ayn Rand, I agree with you, his speech is amazing. I don't buy stocks to help anyone but myself.
I'm not saying that he (Mr Garfield) has a deep and profound sense and understanding of the Universe (which he obviously doesn't even remotely have time to comprehend during his busy schedule). However, Mr Garfield has a definite understanding of the human concept of economics and capitalism in this movie (and it shows during this speech).
@Time Warp The real people like Mr Garfield in this movie are our only hope for the future (for they speak an economic truth that is so essential to the continual workings of Capitalism (which is by far the best economic system created to this day)! Obviously, Capitalism is far from being perfect (there will always be people (like the real Mr Garfield's (and the Gordon Gecko's (just like in the movie Wall Street)) in life who will abuse it), but it is by far the best economic system ever created for us to this date! Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system ever created! There will always be a few people who will abuse Capitalism and thus come out of the system far economically richer (to an astonishing degree) than ever! However, so many other people (including the common man like myself)) were also lifted out of poverty (to also live a comfortable and well-deserved economic existence)! I myself am So Grateful to have hundred(s) of dollars in my pocket, and to come to a grocery store with more food awaiting me than I could possibly consume! Even as an average blue collar worker with a couple of hundred dollars in my pocket (knowing that more was coming for me on the next pay day), I can't help but to be spoiled at what I have coming!
@Time Warp Gordon Gecko (played by Michael Douglas) was a Corporate raider of companies (just like Richard Gere in the movie "Pretty Woman")! He (Michael Douglas) took advantage and abused the privileged system of Capitalism (as you could see while watching this movie)! Wall Street ((the movie (with Charlie Sheen and Michael Douglas)) came out in 1987.
@Time Warp people treat the truth like it's an evil. Me? I, like the Liquidator, care about making money and that sometimes means I have to check out something new. Even if my tech diploma doesn't have anything to do with it
This is a great speech, well delivered by Danny Devito, and it's all the better because it correctly understands economics and investments. Investors take risks with their personal money when they buy stocks, and they are constantly condemned and vilified. Meanwhile, poor management and low quality workmanship, combined with rising taxes and other increasing operating costs drain investors of their investment.
It is only correct if his assumption of obsoletion was correct, which may or may not be. Companies and the economy go through rough patches and often do recover. Buy high, sell low due to the lack of patience and vision is not a winning move most of the time.
@@wgemini4422 His assumption of obsolescence was correct though. Cable cannot compete in the long term with fiberoptics. It might not happen today, in 5 years, or even in 20 years. His point was that it will happen eventually, and, you don't want to be the last one still standing when the music stops.
@@NinetooNine I think the movie ended on the note that his assumption was incorrect. I am actually rather confused by why fiber optics was mentioned at all. It is used for communication not to replace steel cables (would make more sense if they were manufacturing copper wires?). I feels like the writer just heard a cool name and decided to throw it in. Or maybe he was trying to show Garfield was just BSing without knowing what he was talking about. Garfield actually didn't care since his business was solely to sell companies for short term gains.
@@wgemini4422 disruption technology doesn't takes off immediately. Take the automobile, invented in the late 19th century but it wasn't until the early 20th century in the US that the automobile became universally accessible. And it wasn't until the post war era in Germany . Another example is 3D printing. While a lot more common than in 1980s it is still relatively rare and far between from becoming mainstream. And the while fiber optics service is rare. It will eventually replace copper wire so Larry is right to about the need to innovate.
@@nathanracher2911 But I thought they produced steel (thus the line about building road and bridges, not communication) not copper. Also, Larry doesn't care. He wouldn't invest in fiber optics either. He builds nothing.
As a business owner for 30 years (construction) I started out like Gregory Peck's character. But; You end up like Danny because; he's right; Your employees don't care, the community doesn't care...Everyone wants the cheapest cost for the best work...
@@shadowofbosstown So when you get a quote from a company for goods and services, you insist on seeing their payroll bill, and if you perceive they are not paying enough, you insist on paying more for the same product right? You sir are a saint.
damn straight he was right; what I love so much about this movie is that they don't exactly present the "greedy corporate pig" in a negative light, and you don't entirely feel sympathy for the small business owner either; it's very honest and realistic; Ayn Rand only WISHED she could say her piece in these words.
This movie was made in 1991. What happened to Hollywood? They used to make great movies. This film shows both sides of the story, it's fair and balanced, it's original, it's compelling. Now it's Netflix and Amazon Prime that has the best entertainment, maybe Hulu too.
Good point. Both speeches are decent arguments for each side. If this was made today, the Larry character would have been made much less intelligent and formidable.
@@Michael-cb5nm What's also rare is that the Larry character isn't a crook, the movie doesn't end with him going to jail. This isn't like anti-finance films such as Wall Street, Boiler Room, The Wolf of Wall Street, etc. This seems realistic, like Barbarians at the Gate, a film based on a true story about a major corporate takeover.
The intelligence, the dare and the moneysupply was artificially murdered by the global elitist groups, that controlled and festered Hollywood, the secret childblood-drinking slaughterhouse.
@@EagleFang86 I love Netflix shows like Cobra Kai, The Sandman, Big Mouth, The Squid Game, Extraordinary Attorney Woo, The Crown, etc. I don't think they're done. Amazon Prime has more content, but a lot of it you have to pay for. I admit I pay per episode of Million Dollar Listing, Young Sheldon, and The Walking Dead when it was still on. Selling Sunset sucks compared to MDL.
@@EagleFang86 No company experiences growth forever, at some point they reach market saturation and start to decline. New competitors do chip away their business also. Ironically, today I watched The King's Speech and I'm watching Aretha on Prime, it's free, and it's better than the stuff on my Netflix queue. I also tried Hulu, but after a few seasons, I got tired of A Handmaid's Tale, it's too slow, and it became too unrealistic. Bitch could have gotten on the plane to Canada, with the kids he rescued, instead, she decided to stay. That's BS.
I'm reminded of Blockbuster. A well known name back when I was a kid. Each Friday, we'd head to the local Blockbuster, and pick out a movie or game to enjoy for the weekend. It was a part of the week. But then along came Netflix. And did Blockbuster muster the rights and contracts it already had to combat them? Did it leverage it's name to beat Netflix at their own game? No. They kept renting out their buggy whips. And now if I asked some teenager today, they'd probably never heard of the place. Whereas Netflix is a media giant, because not only were they able to see where the world was going, they were able to take the position they had, and continue to adapt until they've replaced not only Blockbuster, but became a cornerstone in the obsolescence of television itself.
And the worst part is: Netflix offered to JOIN FORCES with Blockbuster. And Blockbuster turned them down, because they didn't think to take advantage of changing times. I'm a Millennial who LOVED the old video stores...and if Blockbuster had taken that deal, we'd have the best of both worlds, today. But they didn't...and we don't.
Actually Blockbuster where victims of the whole Enron scandal they set up a video on demand service via Enron's fiber-optics network it was a 20 year contract when it turned out that Enron was basically a shell of a company Blockbuster terminated its partnership but by then they had lost the market. So I guess that's an even sadder story they had plans to change they just got screwed while doing it.
The strange part us that there is only ONE Blockbuster store left in the world and their stock is still worth $15 a share. I'll bet there are successful companies with lower stock prices.
I remember this changing dynamic when I saw it back in 2005. I moved in with a girl as a roommate, and she had a Netflix subscription. She'd get 3 DVD's and mail them back for 3 more. I was watching the routine of traditional movie-watching behavior change before my eyes (which was: head to Blockbuster on Friday night, browse isles for 30 minutes, and pick up between 1-3 movies for the weekend) Now you could watch anything that arrived in the mail, be it Tuesday night, Friday morning, or even hanging around on Sunday. Sad to witness something like crumble and you're right in the middle of it.
"For even if the prayers were answered, and a miracle occurred, and the yen did this, and the dollar did that, and the infrastructure did the other thing, we would still be dead. You know why? Fiber optics. New technologies. Obsolescence. We're dead alright. We're just not broke. And you know the surest way to go broke? Keep getting an increasing share of a shrinking market."
Alot of managers are convinced that as long as they maintain their % margins, they are doing everything perfectly. and they can run a business into the ground with a lack of innovation.
This is such a great scene. By the end of the speech, everyone in the room knows he's right. Even the people fighting his take over of the company. Great writing, acting and overall film making.
@@cobraelectric Don't forget the part of the speech that reminds us that is also a motivation to create jobs and maximize human happiness. Those workers and the town they lived in were spoiled, and when the company inevitably collapsed under their weight, the town would have been destroyed, workers and all.
This is one of the greatest pro-capitalism speeches ever given. I think about it often. It's hard to believe such a thing ever came out of Hollywood. :/
With the tons of movies these days getting modern remakes, I'd love to see this be on the list. This is a message the modern generation really needs to hear.
Don't fall for the trap. The women convinces him NOT to liquidate the company at the end of the film. Same in Pretty Women where he is convinced to not to take the money and run. Wall Street too as Gordon never does get to break up the airline. I'm not sure if this is a pro capital movie.
This speech- and the man himself- is certainly portrayed in a better, more realistic light than someone like Gordon Gekko, who was clearly committing crimes anyway
Reggie She convinced him there’s value in an alternate use for the cable (airbags), and so it’s happy news to the employees/management. Still, his capitalist approach was still good for him and fellow stockholders.
This is one of the best speech not only in movies but just in general and if you put it with the speech right before that Gregory Peck did. you start off hating Danny's character but as you listen to what he says your like dang he right.
I just want to point out that they're still making horse and buggy whips today. Great video clip. Love Danny Devito, just an incredible actor in every video he ever did.
1) I can believe there's a company that makes whips. 2) The number of whips purchased a year ago probably not close to what sold 125 years ago. It wasn't because there was a problem with the product. Technology made it less necessary as an everyday item...
I was in this. I was a little kid and felt like a puppy underfoot, but Gregory Peck was great, the kindest, most gracious guy. I met a lot of people in time, but he was a true star, up close.
The days of finding a solid company whose market cap is less than Net Tangible Book Value are over, unless you want to get burned by retail bank stocks.
One of the greatest movie speeches, along with Howard Beale in Network; I'm mad as Hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore, and of course, George C. Scott in front of the giant American Flag at the beginning of Patton.
This is the brutal truth. Stick with an old tech like A-tracks or cassette tapes. People get emotionally attached to companies without realizing the end is near.
As an investor I would say this speech is hit and miss. Garfield was correct to say that the sole existence of a company is to make money for the owner. However a good business is able to make enough to pay a healthy wage, reinvest in the business for the long term and generate a return for the owner. A business becomes bad when it fails to do ALL THREE at the same time. The idea of being in a shrinking or non growing market is a bad thing is erroneous. Put it this way being the only company left is a wonderful way to make money because you have no competition and you can charge whatever you like. The German economy is filled with small to midsized business in niche markets that operate in sectors where literally only one or two companies exist. On the other hand being in a business with many players leads to price cutting. Garfield view is representative of America land of giant corporation but being big doesn't guarantee longevity.
"I'm not your best friend, I'm your ONLY friend!" First he scares them, then he throws them a lifeline. it's a talent to convince wealthy people they're the victims.
He was shaking them of their misguided stay-the-course conservatism. Every wealthy person is one bad year away from being poor, and when they get frightened and tighten their budgets, the working class suffers.
You know there was a time when GE sold televisions and IBM sold personal computers. Those companies are still around today stronger than ever, why? Because they realized they needed to move onto goods and move into other sectors before they lost money. Today GE makes Jet Engines and lends capital and IBM makes all mainframe & server computers. It's too bad that so many corporations like he Buggy Whip companies didn't evolve to the changes of an economy.
+klabkebash the exact reverse of What Kodak did. It didn't put effort into the market for new products, kept trying to sell an outdated format. It invented a ton of technologies but didn't do anything with them and ended up selling most of the patents for the new technology dirt cheap to stay afloat, bad leadership. One thing is for certain, you cannot blame the employees. How can any company blame an employee, you lead them, you give them jobs, and you pay them? That's where you know Larry is a piece of crap, because he points the finger unto them instead of the actual cause. It's also reflective of the attitudes of many real life CEO's. *"The Unions are to blame, not my constant use of a private jet, the $10,000 carpet in my office, my lousy investments, or the golden parachute and bonuses I paid myself..."*
Spoiler: This fictional company responded the same way towards the end. Japanese businesses needed their materials for airbags so they simply re-configured the machines and survived. The real lesson is never stop thinking outside the box.
@@vguyver2 Your analysis is one-sided. Sometimes the employees DO indeed share the blame, and sometimes the unions ARE part of the problem. Sitting in my garage right now is a 1963 Studebaker Avanti. It was manufactured in South Bend, Indiana sometime in 1962 (sold in '63 and therefore badged as a '63). In January of that same year it was built, there was a strike at the Studebaker factory. The issue was "toilet time" for daily relief and washup -- of which Studebaker workers already had the most in the auto industry, at 39 minutes per day. The U.A.W. wanted it increased to 83. (Workers at the Big Three got 24. Studebaker employees were already more generously provided for than any other workers in their industry, and they wanted more. Studebaker was in the red, and apart from a one profitable recent year (1960), had been losing money for years. (That was thanks to a series of bad decisions by management.) Studebaker was a much smaller company than any of the Big Three, and therefore economy of scale was kicking their ass, and they were finding it increasingly hard to compete (as did all the other independent auto-makers), they couldn't afford a strike, and they couldn't afford to concede even more to workers who already had one of the best deals in the American automotive industry. But the workers went on strike anyway. The strike went on for 38 days, further eroding Studebaker's profitability. Two years later all those workers were out of a job when Studebaker, unable to compete any longer, and hemorrhaging money, finally closed down. Management had most certainly played it's part, but it is absolutely true that labor had also. When struggling Studebaker merged with struggling Packard (in a merger likened to two drunks trying to hold each other up), Packard president James Nance finally took a look at the complete state of Studebaker's finances after the merger he was appalled at how high the overhead at Studebaker was, and it turned out that Studebaker would have to sell nearly twice the number of cars he had been led to believe before the merger, just to break even. Nance assessed the high overhead at Studebaker to be largely due to a series of labor troubles and work stoppages going back to just after the 2nd World War, where Studebaker management quickly caved in to union demands in order to avoid or at least shorten strikes. The workers prevailed in strike after strike, but in the end, they struck themselves right into the unemployment line.
I got to see this live in a local production, great show. But I don't think it's in defense of capitalism specifically. It's against sentimentality in the face of changing times and hard facts.
Why are people saying this is a defence of capitalism? Both sides of this debate are capitalist. This is really a defence of shareholder primacy vs stakeholder theory of the corporation.
@@Drumsgoon this is a dumb response that makes you seem incapable of nuance. Stakeholder theory doesn’t undermine the notion that stockholders are essential. And it doesn’t even make sense in a communist context. I don’t know if I’ve ever heard a communist argue in favour of a limited liability corporation. Are you saying the CSR movement is commie because it’s basically just stakeholder theory. Are you saying that a corporations duties to its suppliers and creditors is communism? You realize that the notion of bond-holding creditors having priority over shareholders upon winding up a company already speaks to stakeholder theory because it’s recognizing the interests of creditors?
Yeah plus the guy vanishes right after that, rending the whole thing pointless. I figured the movie was going to be all about them trying to make top salesman with Baldwin pestering them like a drill sarge the whole time, but nope it didn't happen. In fact, no one even made a single sale in the entire movie.
Interestingly enough, the Broadway play that the movie GlennGarry GlennRoss is based on didn't have the Baldwin speech. That was something the film threw in on their own, which explains why it had nothing to do with movie's plot. But yeah the fact that the movie is about salesmen yet doesn't have anyone making a single sale (a single sale that doesn't get recalled anyway) was a pretty big let-down. What a waste of an all-star cast, That show you brought up looks interesting. I may have to check it out.
This goes down with not only the Ned Beatty speech in "Network," but also the Alec Baldwin's "put the coffee down" speech in "Glengarry Glen Ross" as another classic art-imitates-life business document.
Show this speech to today's Republican party who are busy bailing out airlines, cruise ship companies, banks and other losing businesses after they have them a tax break.
Or the Democratic Party bailing out outdated Unions (teachers/ manufacturing, etc), riot destroyed cities as a result of defunded lice departments, or their own corporate payouts....except now its leading to the greatest inflation levels in 40 years.
DeVito’s speech is the antithesis of Union mentality, and is so wonderful to hear. Remember folks…when Union is in the room, the shareholders are in DOOM!
Probably, and I’d be the first one to admit unions have morphed into something that doesn’t spell success for American company’s, or schools or……why go on. But things were so great before unions. Children in coal mines. 60 hour work weeks. Lose a limb, get hurt and you’ve lost your job. You could even crawl up to the foreman with a pie your wife baked just for him. But , hey, we got a free jumbo sandwich and a brass band in the gazebo on Sunday. Where do you think the insult hunky dory came from. With unions came more than safety and a living wage, health care, workers comp, and, most of all, DIGNITY. Go ahead, take the jobs to China and when have returned to normal we’ll have no tax base, no roads, no public education no health care, no defense and will be the third world nation we were before unions.
+WesIsaLeo So are you saying he should change his moral values just because of that? "I'm a loser so now I'm going to adopt the loser philosophy" type logic? You don't just become socialist when you're fired, because you being fired doesn't change the fact that Capitalism is still the most beneficial socio-economic system. Just like when you lie, you don't all of a sudden shift your entire mindset to believing "lying is good and telling the truth isn't". That's fucking retarded.
It would be cheaper to just get them new jobs and training than to keep obsolete, unionized factory jobs in the US. Those things should belong in developing countries where they are needed more.
It's interesting to see a scene like this given the state of the fed right now. Kodak could sell debt to the fed at a near zero interest rate, and then hand out revenue to shareholders as dividends or buybacks, effectively transferring fed dollars directly to wealthy equity owners pockets without a single dime of profit actually being made. Which would, of course, keep their stock price pretty elevated regardless of what they're doing economically. Rather different from the sky high interest rates back then. What even is "risk" in today's market? I guess that this scheme of "hand money to the wealthy" falls apart, but, if that happens there's no "safe" asset anymore, stock, bonds, or whatever. (That includes crypto for any crypto fiends)
Actually, both are right, only have different perspectives: Danny´s speech is looking for a global good, Mr. Peck was concentrating on a local issue, yet both are in the end caring about the economy.
That may be the best defense of free market capitalism ever recorded. And it goes down extra delicious because Danny DiVito must have been in actual physical pain while delivering it. He loathes free-market capitalism.... which is not what we've had in this country since the 1930s.
@@ab8588 Imagine being so naive to think we live in a free market capitalistic society while the federal reserve is currently printing out TRILLIONS of dollars to give to garbage companies. That doesn't sound like any free market capitalistic country I live in.
@@ab8588 No, he's a rich _entertainer_ who made his money in a still mostly capitalist society (but not a truly free market). Like a great many limousine liberals, he doesn't know a lot about things outside his own particular area of expertise, and buys into a lot of ideas because they _sound_ good. Unfortunately, he personally is wealthy enough to avoid suffering the consequences when these ideas don't work in practice. As a result, he never gets his nose rubbed in the failure, and keeps on believing the bad ideas.
Maybe the story would have been a lot different if the Japanese had approached Kate, Jorgy and Lawrence sooner with their intention of investing in the company to produce airbags? Jorgy said in his speech if Larry came to them saying he knows how to run the company better than them, it was something worth talking about? He sorta did at the beginning but they told him get out. I also wonder if Jorgy and Bill would’ve been receptive to completely changing the company’s product to airbags from wire and cable? In the end, I don’t like shutting down a company and putting hundreds out of work. If a transformation can occur, do that sooner. Give them a chance. Adapt or die?
Shrinking R & D and modernization budged ..make the stock price go up. ..selling off profitable divisions , make the stock price go up....laying off workers and lowering capacity ,,,makes the stock price go up... while this is what they teach in business school , you do not need a Crystal ball to figure out where those companies are going .
In college I used this scene in a presentation illustrating "Pride Goeth Before a Fall." I polled the other students as to who they would vote for if they were actual stockholders in the company. They all voted for Garfield. I got an A.
For the commenters that say they still use copper wire in America today... ...the difference is... USA isn't a heavyweight exporter... on anything the last 20 years. "The shrinking marketshare". Like Case New Holland (CNH) Manufacturers of farm equipment. Thing is... instead of making stuff here at US wage prices and shipping it to South America. Build a plant in South America somewhere and have that labor make it for sale in that market. The "free market" has been outsourcing the manufacturing of everything in the quest of cheap labor. Sometimes even importing the product instead of buying domestic. That's where Jorgy's problem could be. His labor costs have grown. His property taxes & utilities are increasing. His company sales... are not. If the business wasn't struggling... that elevator repair wouldn't be on hold.
