Inside Job: Documentary exposing the ugly underbelly of the economic collapse now in public domain

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2011 5:13 PM GMT
    I just watched it online and, if you think you knew just how bad our financial system is, you probably don't. It's simply horrifying.

    [url]
    http://www.archive.org/details/InsideJob2010[/url]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2011 5:27 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidI just watched it online and, if you think you knew just how bad our financial system is, you probably don't. It's simply horrifying.

    [url]
    http://www.archive.org/details/InsideJob2010[/url]


    An alternative look with critical thinking from an economics prof who runs probably the most popular economics blog online:

    http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/01/inside-job.html

    The best parts are on excess leverage, the political economy of the crisis, and the attitudes of the economics profession. Overall it is remarkable how much economics is in the movie, even though some of it is quite bad. The visuals and pacing are excellent and many scenes deserve kudos.

    The worst parts are the misunderstandings of deregulation. Glass-Steagall repeal was not a major factor, much of the sector remained highly regulated, and there is no mention of the failure to oversee the shadow banking system. The entire discussion has more misses than hits. The smirky association of major bankers with expensive NYC prostitutes (on one hand based on very little evidence, on the other hand probably true) was inexcusable. There is talk of "predatory lending," but it is not mentioned that many borrowers committed felonies, or were complicit in felonies ("on the form, put down any income you would like"). Most generally, there is virtually no understanding of the complexity of the dilemmas involving in either public service or in running a major corporation.

    Overall, the movie's smug moralizing makes me wonder: is this a condescending posture, spooned out with contempt to an audience regarded, one way or another, as inferior and undeserving of better? Or are the moviemakers actually so juvenile and/or so ignorant of the Western tradition — from Thucydides to Montaigne to Pascal to Shakespeare to Ibsen to FILL IN THE BLANK — that they themselves accept the very same simplistic moral portrait? If so, most of all I feel sorry for how much of life's complexities they are missing and how impoverished their reading and moviegoing and theatregoing must be.

    Do you remember the scene in Hamlet, where Hamlet tries to judge the King by enacting a pantomime play in front of him, to see how the King would respond to a work of art? I think of that often.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2011 5:50 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidI just watched it online and, if you think you knew just how bad our financial system is, you probably don't. It's simply horrifying.

    [url]
    http://www.archive.org/details/InsideJob2010[/url]


    An alternative look with critical thinking from an economics prof who runs probably the most popular economics blog online:

    http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/01/inside-job.html

    The best parts are on excess leverage, the political economy of the crisis, and the attitudes of the economics profession. Overall it is remarkable how much economics is in the movie, even though some of it is quite bad. The visuals and pacing are excellent and many scenes deserve kudos.

    The worst parts are the misunderstandings of deregulation. Glass-Steagall repeal was not a major factor, much of the sector remained highly regulated, and there is no mention of the failure to oversee the shadow banking system. The entire discussion has more misses than hits. The smirky association of major bankers with expensive NYC prostitutes (on one hand based on very little evidence, on the other hand probably true) was inexcusable. There is talk of "predatory lending," but it is not mentioned that many borrowers committed felonies, or were complicit in felonies ("on the form, put down any income you would like"). Most generally, there is virtually no understanding of the complexity of the dilemmas involving in either public service or in running a major corporation.

    Overall, the movie's smug moralizing makes me wonder: is this a condescending posture, spooned out with contempt to an audience regarded, one way or another, as inferior and undeserving of better? Or are the moviemakers actually so juvenile and/or so ignorant of the Western tradition — from Thucydides to Montaigne to Pascal to Shakespeare to Ibsen to FILL IN THE BLANK — that they themselves accept the very same simplistic moral portrait? If so, most of all I feel sorry for how much of life's complexities they are missing and how impoverished their reading and moviegoing and theatregoing must be.

    Do you remember the scene in Hamlet, where Hamlet tries to judge the King by enacting a pantomime play in front of him, to see how the King would respond to a work of art? I think of that often.



    Given that one of the film's most important points is how the economists at most major universities have stunning conflicts of interest (e.g. they're often paid consultants to financial services companies to the tune of $250,000 per year), Cowen is a) not an impartial actor and b) not any more credible than Glenn Hubbard who should be immediately removed from his post at Columbia for being an immoral asshat.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2011 5:55 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidGiven that one of the film's most important points is how the economists at most major universities have stunning conflicts of interest (e.g. they're often paid consultants to financial services companies to the tune of $250,000 per year), Cowen is a) not an impartial actor and b) not any more credible than Glenn Hubbard who should be immediately removed from his post at Columbia for being an immoral asshat.


    Wow - that's a remarkably inept blanket statement - and what's worse is that I know you know better. Just because some of Group A may be part of Group B, doesn't mean that A = B. Further, it doesn't go anywhere close to discussing the issues that Cowan points out who is also very well and widely published.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2011 6:20 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidGiven that one of the film's most important points is how the economists at most major universities have stunning conflicts of interest (e.g. they're often paid consultants to financial services companies to the tune of $250,000 per year), Cowen is a) not an impartial actor and b) not any more credible than Glenn Hubbard who should be immediately removed from his post at Columbia for being an immoral asshat.


    Wow - that's a remarkably inept blanket statement - and what's worse is that I know you know better. Just because some of Group A may be part of Group B, doesn't mean that A = B. Further, it doesn't go anywhere close to discussing the issues that Cowan points out who is also very well and widely published.


    ____________________________________________________________

    Christian73, this is basicly the same situation that we were in when Bush and company were trying desperately to sell the war, or certain issues with it. He used ex-military personel who almost to a person were investing in military supply busineses,

    Remember what came out about so much effort to back I believe it was the Kurds? Turns out that Bush's pick over that issue "just happened" to be pushing a deal for oil contracts the he himself was heavily invested in.

    Riddler is old enough to know that those in high positions and/or getting rich off of shady actions, policies or lack of them that is to their benefit, will do anything and spend like crazy to protect their money interests.

    Riddler, you should try to make it your practice to "follow the money trail" before you comment in favor of the status quo on some of this crap. You embarass yourself by being so nieve.