What does P&N think of the movie, "Inside Job"?

[GTaudiophile]

IMDB: Inside Job

Watched it last night.

And then woke up to this story on NPR this morning...kind of ironic.


My thoughts/impressions/emotions?

-Disgust! I would love to see some of these bankers in handcuffs for a bit, afraid to drop the soap (Bernanke, Geithner, Greenspan, Hubbard, Summers, Paulson, etc.).
-The "revolving-door" between Wall St. and DC/SEC, etc. must be closed shut.
-Same goes for the revolving door between Wall St. and Higher Ed where these "schemes" are being taught as legitimate business practices.
-The Financial Services Industry has been smart, putting people in power in DC (and Higher Ed) since the early 1980s. These people, along with the industry's lobbyists indeed deregulated themselves to massive short-term profits at the expense of the American taxpayer. Most of these players have since gotten off Scott-free, laughing their way to the bank. Then again, the American taxpayer is not 100% without blame either. I am talking about those janitors and bus drivers who were too stupid to be convinced that they could afford a $500 million home on a $30K/year income.
-These crooks were/are enabled by presidents and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle.
-I can't believe they were allowed to bail themselves out.
-Hilter was to the Third Reich what Goldman Sachs is to the Financial Services Industry?
-Nothing has changed since Obama. He lied to the American people. He did nothing to seek justice and in fact has promoted even more of these hooligans to positions of power in DC.
-If it's too good to be true, it is. This should be the moral of the story when it comes to anything.

 

[yllus]

I agree that the saddest/most disgusting thing about the movie is that not a single major investigation was launched, and people like Larry Summers have perpetually been pulling the strings to ensure that no matter what party is in power, the financial services industry gets its own. The amount of influence the industry has on schools like Harvard was also a sad surprise.

I think there are a number of things that stand out to me as needing a fix:

- The regulatory agencies of the U.S. need more funding - a lot more funding
- Derivatives need to be regulated/visible to regulatory agencies
- Economists writing a paper or publishing a column/editorial should have to disclose if they've been paid to do so, and if in the last X years they've worked for that company/industry
- Rating agencies being paid by the companies they're rating seems like a hell of a bad conflict of interest, but I don't know what can reasonably be done about it

For a short movie, I suppose it managed to convey the basics of the crisis. For a deeper understanding, the book The Big Short by Michael Lewis is very good (so says a layman anyways).

 

[GTaudiophile]

I agree that the saddest/most disgusting thing about the movie is that not a single major investigation was launched, and people like Larry Summers have perpetually been pulling the strings to ensure that no matter what party is in power, the financial services industry gets its own. The amount of influence the industry has on schools like Harvard was also a sad surprise.

I think there are a number of things that stand out to me as needing a fix:

- The regulatory agencies of the U.S. need more funding - a lot more funding
- Derivatives need to be regulated/visible to regulatory agencies
- Economists writing a paper or publishing a column/editorial should have to disclose if they've been paid to do so, and if in the last X years they've worked for that company/industry
- Rating agencies being paid by the companies they're rating seems like a hell of a bad conflict of interest, but I don't know what can reasonably be done about it

For a short movie, I suppose it managed to convey the basics of the crisis. For a deeper understanding, the book The Big Short by Michael Lewis is very good (so says a layman anyways).

Yeah, I forgot to mention the ratings agencies. What a farce!

 

[Martin]

I saw it over the weekend with the gf. I thought it was well done - it was clear, coherent, touched on all major aspects of the crisis, explained the major concepts (CDOs, CDSs, etc) well, their list of interviewees was top notch and everything was backed up with data.

For me, there wasn't really any new information, but seeing my gf's reaction to it was kinda funny (in a sad way). She was quite disgusted with the clear fraud that was going on (GS selling "shitty" investments as AAA), the complete lack of accountability or responsibility by anyone (Ratings agencies "oh, it's just our opinion!") and of course the double standards - these people really do live by an alternate set of laws which the rest of us do not. She's a dentist and if she recommends a medical product/procedure without disclosing her financial stake in it, she'll get her license revoked. When economists/business teachers do the same thing and cause billions in damage, it's perfectly fine and legal.

 

[wuliheron]

Quit yer winning.

The rich get richer, the poor get screwed, and everyone else is lucky if they don't have an STD. That's the way it's always been and always will be. The American people sold their government to the highest bidder long ago and then hit them up for a loan when the money ran out. We sold our children's future to them and any pretense that we have a soul left to sell is childish nonsense.

 

[NoStateofMind]

-Nothing has changed since Obama. He lied to the American people. He did nothing to seek justice and in fact has promoted even more of these hooligans to positions of power in DC.

Of all the people that were about hope and change in the end got none, as many told them before the election. The problem is we do not elect those with integrity and honesty into office. We like honey. Therefore, after being shown the same dog and pony show, we must either change the criteria in which we choose our represented officials or be subject to the continuation of corruption that has scarred our Republic.

 

[Craig234]

IMDB: Inside Job

Watched it last night.

And then woke up to this story on NPR this morning...kind of ironic.


My thoughts/impressions/emotions?

-Disgust! I would love to see some of these bankers in handcuffs for a bit, afraid to drop the soap (Bernanke, Geithner, Greenspan, Hubbard, Summers, Paulson, etc.).
-The "revolving-door" between Wall St. and DC/SEC, etc. must be closed shut.
-Same goes for the revolving door between Wall St. and Higher Ed where these "schemes" are being taught as legitimate business practices.
-The Financial Services Industry has been smart, putting people in power in DC (and Higher Ed) since the early 1980s. These people, along with the industry's lobbyists indeed deregulated themselves to massive short-term profits at the expense of the American taxpayer. Most of these players have since gotten off Scott-free, laughing their way to the bank. Then again, the American taxpayer is not 100% without blame either. I am talking about those janitors and bus drivers who were too stupid to be convinced that they could afford a $500 million home on a $30K/year income.
-These crooks were/are enabled by presidents and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle.
-I can't believe they were allowed to bail themselves out.
-Hilter was to the Third Reich what Goldman Sachs is to the Financial Services Industry?
-Nothing has changed since Obama. He lied to the American people. He did nothing to seek justice and in fact has promoted even more of these hooligans to positions of power in DC.
-If it's too good to be true, it is. This should be the moral of the story when it comes to anything.

So, you have largely come to the progressive position, finally.

Not the libertarian position of 'the government should not get in the way of private interests', the disastrous Alan Greenspan Ayn Rand ideologues.

Not the right-wing position to serve those interests, with rhetoric and propaganda that this is just the people doing well financially, and they're the job creators to you have to shut up, and you are only criticizing them because you are jealous, and that the 'free market' is best, and on and on.

And not the politicians who serve them from both parties simply because they're such a powerful interest in our elections, that it's important for them to get elected.

There's only one major US political faction who represents the interests of the public and opposes the Wall Street agenda's excesses - the progressives.

Now, are you going to reflexively refuse to understand that and support the right faction? Or are you going to understand the group you need to support to fight this?

 

[Craig234]

Of all the people that were about hope and change in the end got none, as many told them before the election. The problem is we do not elect those with integrity and honesty into office. We like honey. Therefore, after being shown the same dog and pony show, we must either change the criteria in which we choose our represented officials or be subject to the continuation of corruption that has scarred our Republic.

As long as the country has a layout of voters as it does that can only elect someone who wins 'the middle' in its current misguided, ignorant state (who do YOU want to have a beer with), and the progressives who challenge this corruption are a minority who can only support the candidate who is less bad, it can't be fixed.

If the voters changed to a majority of progressives and elected such, only then could we elect someone who represents the public.

Of course in theory we could elect a Republican or anyone else to do so - think Teddy Roosevelt - but no other major political faction has pretty much any chance to do so.

There are decades of repair needed for Republicans and they're getting worse.

 

[Matt1970]

So, you have largely come to the progressive position, finally.

Not the libertarian position of 'the government should not get in the way of private interests', the disastrous Alan Greenspan Ayn Rand ideologues.

Not the right-wing position to serve those interests, with rhetoric and propaganda that this is just the people doing well financially, and they're the job creators to you have to shut up, and you are only criticizing them because you are jealous, and that the 'free market' is best, and on and on.

And not the politicians who serve them from both parties simply because they're such a powerful interest in our elections, that it's important for them to get elected.

There's only one major US political faction who represents the interests of the public and opposes the Wall Street agenda's excesses - the progressives.

Now, are you going to reflexively refuse to understand that and support the right faction? Or are you going to understand the group you need to support to fight this?

Wow, I guess we are going to ignore the fact that the Republicans were pushing for regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which would have probably put the brakes on a lot of this shit but met very fierce resistence form the Democrats.

 

[xj0hnx]

Wow, I guess we are going to ignore the fact that the Republicans were pushing for regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which would have probably put the brakes on a lot of this shit but met very fierce resistence form the Democrats.

Fail234 can not accept that democrats had anything to do with it, and it's only the right that is wrong and evil.

 

[Craig234]

Of all the people that were about hope and change in the end got none, as many told them before the election. The problem is we do not elect those with integrity and honesty into office. We like honey. Therefore, after being shown the same dog and pony show, we must either change the criteria in which we choose our represented officials or be subject to the continuation of corruption that has scarred our Republic.

You're on to something but you miss it.

It's not that the American people liked 'honey' over 'honesty'. It's that so many voters are propagandized and ignorant supporters of a bad ideology.

And that is a result of a massive propaganda effort funded by a 'right-wing noise machine', with radical tycoons, propaganda 'think tanks', corporate media, and more.

The public isn't lacking choices of people who would fight Wall Street for the public - it's that they don't support them.

Part of that is this ideological indoctrination, and part is the money that influences so many voters.

Take John Edwards in 2008, for example. Forget the sex scandal we didn't go by during the election, and just look at the fact that this attractive, articulate politician directly took on the issues and said he wanted to stand for the public against these interests, and the public did not choose him - and most progressives have less chance than Edwards. Between the right-wing ideology poisoning voters and the money that feeds the propaganda machines that make Wall-Street supports look good, it's hard.

In fact, there's no movement in the right direction - at the height of the 2008 crash that could have gotten us another FDR, it did not and 47% chose *McCain/Palin*, and the disappointment with Obama led not to electing progressives to fight him for the people but to handing the House to *Republicans* who are the servants of these interests. There are no viable progressives in 2012 of course either, but none we can see for 2016 either.

But a documentary like this is some help - as long as it doesn't drive voters into the 'anti-government' camp that serves these interests best, instead of for GOOD government that is the only power the people have that can protect the public, as it has in the past such as a century ago when monolithic corporations colluding were forced into line and many broken up (oil, rail, and others - with anti-trust protections put in against all EXCEPT insurance).

 

[Anarchist420]

Not the libertarian position of 'the government should not get in the way of private interests', the disastrous Alan Greenspan Ayn Rand ideologues.

Not the right-wing position to serve those interests, with rhetoric and propaganda that this is just the people doing well financially, and they're the job creators to you have to shut up, and you are only criticizing them because you are jealous, and that the 'free market' is best, and on and on.

And not the politicians who serve them from both parties simply because they're such a powerful interest in our elections, that it's important for them to get elected.

There's only one major US political faction who represents the interests of the public and opposes the Wall Street agenda's excesses - the progressives.

Alan Greenspan isn't a libertarian, and Ayn Rand wasn't really one either.

The only three people to vote against Sarbanes-Oxley were all conservatives (one of whom was Dr. Ron Paul).

Teddy Roosevelt was also a corporatist. He was not a democratic socialist.

You also need to realize that Paul Krugman does not represent the interests of the people either. The guy has an agenda, a pro-Wall Street one.

 

[Craig234]

Wow, I guess we are going to ignore the fact that the Republicans were pushing for regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which would have probably put the brakes on a lot of this shit but met very fierce resistence form the Democrats.

You really don't deserve a reply with your posting history, and will only get a small comment that F & F were not the problem, they were a symptom, and you are quite ignorant of the history of the situation about the things that caused them to become part of the problem, including because of competitive pressures.

Go read any of 50 books I could suggest on the crisis and then come back instead of posting your ridiculous, ignorant Fox talking points to turn this into anti F&F.

Hint: when Wall Street schemes, protected by corruption, create a massive market for products based on ANY mortgages and fuel the market for sub-prime ones such that after the 'legitimate' market is saturated and they have to take more and more worse loans, creating the 'liars loans' and ''no verification' markets, incenting these bad loans with commissions to fuel the demand, and F&F are facing an outrageously reckless private mortgage industry eating up all the loans so they can't make any...

That's just one part of the story. In fact I've seen a very good book describing the specific history of the two men and their agendas, one leading the corrupt schemes of the subprime schemes, and the other heading up Fannie, and how the situation deteriorated. I can't remember the title, but there are many good books, if you could be bothered, which you can't, I can tell.

 

[Matt1970]

You're on to something but you miss it.

Take John Edwards in 2008, for example. Forget the sex scandal we didn't go by during the election, and just look at the fact that this attractive, articulate politician directly took on the issues and said he wanted to stand for the public against these interests, and the public did not choose him - and most progressives have less chance than Edwards. Between the right-wing ideology poisoning voters and the money that feeds the propaganda machines that make Wall-Street supports look good, it's hard.

John Edwards only represents people who think that because someone made money it somehow means that someone lost money. Success only proves unfair advantage, failure only proves unequal opportunity.

 

[Matt1970]

You really don't deserve a reply with your posting history, and will only get a small comment that F & F were not the problem, they were a symptom, and you are quite ignorant of the history of the situation about the things that caused them to become part of the problem, including because of competitive pressures.

Go read any of 50 books I could suggest on the crisis and then come back instead of posting your ridiculous, ignorant Fox talking points to turn this into anti F&F.

Hint: when Wall Street schemes, protected by corruption, create a massive market for products based on ANY mortgages and fuel the market for sub-prime ones such that after the 'legitimate' market is saturated and they have to take more and more worse loans, creating the 'liars loans' and ''no verification' markets, incenting these bad loans with commissions to fuel the demand, and F&F are facing an outrageously reckless private mortgage industry eating up all the loans so they can't make any...

That's just one part of the story. In fact I've seen a very good book describing the specific history of the two men and their agendas, one leading the corrupt schemes of the subprime schemes, and the other heading up Fannie, and how the situation deteriorated. I can't remember the title, but there are many good books, if you could be bothered, which you can't, I can tell.

I take issue with any report that says it isn't a problem that 10% of upper-price house sales were to lower income families.

 

[Craig234]

Alan Greenspan isn't a libertarian, and Ayn Rand wasn't really one either.

You are a narrow disciple of some flavor of Libertarians; it's like when one sect of Hare Krishnas proclaims that another sect who things PURPLE candles are better than YELLOW candles are a threat to world peace and scream against them in fury for their apostasy.

Sorry, they are libertarians, of whatever flavor they are, in representing the nutty anti-government radicalism in contrast to the rest of the political culture.

The bottom line is that Randian disciples like Greenspans' ideology was one main driving factor behind a lot of the problems, the 'ask no questions' de-regulation.

The only three people to vote against Sarbanes-Oxley were all conservatives (one of whom was Dr. Ron Paul).

He's not Dr. Ron Paul, he's Congressman Ron Paul for these issues. If we're talking about medical issues, he can be Dr. Ron Paul.

Seems like a somewhat pathetic appeal to pretend he's not a politician, as if 'Dr.' were a protection against the word politician after people like Dr. Frist and Dr. Coburn.

Teddy Roosevelt was also a corporatist. He was not a democratic socialist.

The topic here is that Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican who, more and more, was willing to stand up to corporate abuses that were against the public interest.

You don't have to be a "democratic socialist" to oppose those abuses.

He's also as common in the Republican Party as horse-driven carriages today.

You also need to realize that Paul Krugman does not represent the interests of the people either. The guy has an agenda, a pro-Wall Street one.

Actually, Krugman does represent the public interest to the best of his abilities IMO.

*If* he supports a bad policy, his motive is not corrupt.

I'm generaly in agreement with him, but there are many others I'd put up, some of whom I think often make the points even better.

Simon Johnson, James Galbraith, many non-economist and economist economics writers.

 

[Craig234]

John Edwards only represents people who think that because someone made money it somehow means that someone lost money. Success only proves unfair advantage, failure only proves unequal opportunity.

And you with your dishonest straw man show yet again why you don't deserve a reply.

 

[Delita]

I thought it was way too smug and was supported by third rate analysis.

 

[Craig234]

I thought it was way too smug and was supported by third rate analysis.

That description seems to fit your post.

 

[Matt1970]

And you with your dishonest straw man show yet again why you don't deserve a reply.

Put a cork in it windbag.

 

[Craig234]

Put a cork in it windbag.

And you show yet again why you don't deserve a reply, and won't get more.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Craig...I am sorry but I am hard to label with any particular ideology.

I just know injustice when I see it. I know the middle class is being fvcked over. I know both major political parties are slaves to corporate and special interests. I know true representation is dead. Our government is broken and insolvent.

But I also know that stealing (in ever increasing amounts) from the successful, those that have invented or self-made their wealth, is not right either, especially when their hard-earned money disappears into the hole of modern bureaucracy. What kind of incentive is that?

I guess I believe in a social-market economy where the rich care for the poor, the healthy care for the sick, the young care for the old, and where everyone cares for the environment...but I believe in a BIG caveat...I believe that these things cannot be governed or regulated but rather should be cultivated within a culture. Meaning, it should not be the government's job to do this but rather the will of the people. In my utopia, there would be no disincentives or limits to wealth creation but the biggest incentive of all would be the well-being of one's employees and immediate community and environment, even over that of one's own family.

At least, this is how I feel today.

 

[freegeeks]

This is not about Democrats or Republicans, they all had their greedy hands in the cookie jar as shown in this documentary. It goes beyond politics. For me it was an eye opener that all these well known respected professors from Hardvard, Berkeley, Columbia, ... are all involved in this ponzi scheme. You could really see the masks coming off during the interviews. They make millions "consulting" for financial institutions and they are in charge making policy as advisors or being members of the board of the federal reserve. Like someone said in the movie, it's all one giant ponzi scheme and the ones paying the bill are the middle class

 

[Matt1970]

And you show yet again why you don't deserve a reply, and won't get more.

Please give me a reply, Please Please Please...

What ever shall I do without my extreme left replies?

 

[Martin]

Craig...I am sorry but I am hard to label with any particular ideology.

I just know injustice when I see it. I know the middle class is being fvcked over. I know both major political parties are slaves to corporate and special interests. I know true representation is dead. Our government is broken and insolvent.

But I also know that stealing (in ever increasing amounts) from the successful, those that have invented or self-made their wealth, is not right either, especially when their hard-earned money disappears into the hole of modern bureaucracy. What kind of incentive is that?

I guess I believe in a social-market economy where the rich care for the poor, the healthy care for the sick, the young care for the old, and where everyone cares for the environment...but I believe in a BIG caveat...I believe that these things cannot be governed or regulated but rather should be cultivated within a culture. Meaning, it should not be the government's job to do this but rather the will of the people. In my utopia, there would be no disincentives or limits to wealth creation but the biggest incentive of all would be the well-being of one's employees and immediate community and environment, even over that of one's own family.

At least, this is how I feel today.

You'll find very few people on the left that object to the wealth enjoyed by the likes of Google, Apple, MS, etc, and there is no contradiction in demonizing Wall Street while celebrating real innovation and wealth creation.

The problem is, as soon as you say *anything* against Wall Street and about income inequality, you're branded a socialist/communist/maxist/muslim/whateverthefuck. Wall Street and their supporters won't allow you to make this distinction and they'll use the exact same rhetoric so as to appear in the same category as the real innovators and wealth creators. Hence the terms "Financial Engineer", "Financial Innovation" and all that other shit.