On idealism

The fiction movie about Wall Street of late has done a thorough job in simulating the real-life crisis, while spicing it up with the script writer's speculations, as the movie's term, not about the causes of the crisis but also about how human beings make certain decisions, weighing a myriad of competing desires: power ("it's about the game and not the money" - it's about making the news and not reporting on news - it's about winning - it's about a chance to make a difference in the world), love (what the characters trade - what everyone was willing to trade for and forgive for at the end of the movie at the expense of moral judgments, irregardless of right and wrong).  To sum it up, the ego/ the self needs to feel good, which is the mind and body's motivator; whether it's through power or through love is just a manifestation of egocentricity.  

I was entertained by thinking of the real names of the banks and companies and by reflecting on how the year and the crisis got to be personal to me.  In August 2008, I found myself standing at the International Financial Center, Hong Kong, saying bye to a very good friend, at the time a trader at the famous bank.  As I walked away from the building, a big signage appeared in front of me: Expect the Unexpected, and I took a picture of it.  I then just walked away, leaving behind thoughts about the difference between me and the friend, between what we value, or about the out-of-place feeling as we roamed through the chaotically exciting party rooms of bankers, traders and consultants.

Indeed, one subtle theme throughout the movie is the conflicts between idealism and cynicism (cynicism here, I mean always believing that people act for their self-interests), from the romantic relationship between the two main characters, to the strikingly different office environments between the trading floor and the environmental non-profit.  A thought I developed is that idealists, when pushed to necessarily be pragmatists, are those in great pains.  The true cynics feel good when they act for their egos or it will take a long while before they realize what's important, since they don't know what they are losing.  The idealists are in misery when they go against their appreciation for family and love, just to be able to use pragmatic schemes to satisfy their ego's call for being paid, for revenge, for winning. They know the value of what they're trading and losing.

The dramatic movie painted only a part of the story, not highlighting much the rest of the picture: the regulators, many traders, investors all over the world.  Thinking about the system made me think about the importance of leaders' selflessness.  Which ideal social models they believe in is less important than whether they, when using and building power as their implicit job description entails, would still have the public interests in mind.  An interesting question piqued me: between the evil of greed of a few (when countries are ruled by a few) and that of many (when countries give power to more people) which one is the less evil?  I'm a bit inclined to the latter, and yet, I do remember the unique theme in Asia, particularly in countries like China, Vietnam, Singapore: being super-pragmatic delivers.