Hollywood’s Hyperbolic Hypocrisy

e=2

Celebrity Matters. Just ask them.

The likes of mega millionaires Rosanne Barr, Michael Moore and Capital One’s own Alex Baldwin support the 99% who are angry at the current (and historical) distribution of wealth, the basic but not only theme of Occupy Wall Streeters.

Who but Hollywood elites can be so self centered and live on their own blue hyperbolic trajectory? Are they not the prime example of lopsided wealth?

They are in deed, not word, the supporters of Walls Street millionaires, not the 99%, as expressed so well in the New York Times by Frank Bruni.

But what really is the difference, when you show up looking for publicity and continued relevance while saying you care and identify and support the little guy?

Potentially, all the while hoping the limo is not late for the departure and the bodyguards guns are loaded ready to protect.

Thinking now of celebrities, I am reminded that I have always been fascinated by the term “windfall profits”.

The first time I remember it, was in connection with higher prices being charged for necessities in a situation like a natural disaster where mobility and supply disruptions forced people to pay whatever the vendor in front on them demanded.

In deed that does seems to be an ugly side of the law of supply and demand. The one the world basically relies on to delivery wanted services, no matter how much any one may want to deny.

Then of course, there were the oil companies who raised prices when shortages erupted due to, oh, say a foreign country cutting off supplied, or demand increasing. Good lord, the oil they were selling today at today’s market prices where produced with last decades risky investment costs of only a few billions with future devopment costs driven higher by supply and demand factors but also by political factors.

Nancy Pelosi has always been a big promoter of the populist sympathizing vote getting cry to charge then for their windfall profits.

All without even an obvious snicker knowing that her own extreme wealth was driven by windfall profits after clever political risk taking and speculating and benefiting from supply and demand and the luck that also accompanies wealth creation. It is better to have good luck that bad luck.

Why does she not find a way to democratize and redistribute luck?

So when Roseanne Bar finally showed up for the right casting call, and Michael Moore perfected gonzo mockumentarianism with his charachteristic slight of hand and when Alex Baldwin was born with good looks, charm and luck, why does Nancy not insist on taxing their windfall profits?

Because they belong to the same club and have fooled the populace into knee jerking that the other club wants them to be poor.