So, I watched it. And wow. What a awful film. I can see why Mark likes it. The first and very obvious reason this film sucks - it isn't even trying to hide the fact that it is primarily aiming to provoke an emotional response in you. Even if you don't want to watch it all, watch the first 3 minutes, it's pretty funny. My narration would be this: (scenes of Iceland's natural beauty and clean, orderly cities.) Look at Iceland. It was paradise. (Cut in some interviews of Icelandic guys saying as much.) And then.. deregulation!!! See these nice Icelandic views and pretty music? At 2:42, they get BLOWN THE HELL UP. BY DEREGULATION. Or something. It really sets the tone for the kind of innuendo laden mess that follows. The second major problem with the movie is the medium, hinted at by Juris. You can't stop a movie and ask questions. And literally, unless you are *cough* predisposed to think that this movie is pure golden troof, there are hundreds of questions to ask. Such as:
What does it mean to do a "pure experiemnt of deregulation" in Iceland? Was there no regulation? Just a little bit? Less than the filmmaker thinks there should have been, apparently. What should Icelandic regulators have done to protect citizens? Who did Icelandic banks borrow money from? What was the borrowing for? In what manner were the banks privatized - were they entirely government owned before that? Of course, the film doesn't tell us any of that. It needs a bookful of cites. (Hey, maybe a book might be better than a movie eh Mark? But that just wouldn't be as sexy for you, would it. Gotta have the sorrowful music and the footage where some of the people being interviewed get flustered or seem shifty.)
The movie is full of bland assertions or innuendo that are crying out for validation or confirmation of being at all meaningful:
-Banks used to be small, and local. -Investment banks all used to be small, private partnerships. -There were no financial crises in the 40 years after the great depression, because regulations made things wonderful. -Why is it important that such and such a person did x, and then later went on to make a bunch of money doing something marginally related? It's as if someone making a lot of money is considered a sin in and of itself. -20:35: narrator says banks have been caught doing bad things again, and again, and again. But if you pause your way through the list of papers they flash by on the screen, you'll see most of them are either innocuous or simply unproven - "Citibank's records examined as part of Mexican Inquiry." "Bankrupt thinking: how the banks aided Enron's Deception" "US said to be investigating another Enron-Merrill Deal" "AIG Receives 2 Subpeonas" "Inquiry Said to Examine Citigroup Role in Enron Deal". It's quite a stretch to call those things "caught."
Why does the filmmaker constantly show short clips of interviews, giving the viewer no context of what was said around the time of the question? It's a very Michael Moore-ish technique of making things seem more sinister by cutting out context. Look at 21:58 - they caught that guy with a facial expression that looks very sinister. But didn't include his response. Why not? What was the context of his interview?
Well, that's some of the questions I had. In the first 22 minutes of the movie. Would take me hours to write out questions from the rest.
Here are the general themes from the rest of the film:
deregulation: bad
derivatives: bad
ratings agencies: possibly malevolent or incompetent, maybe both. Apparently when they rate something highly, that is supposed to be an ironclad guarantee of stability that anyone can rely on, and not their opinion. That financial companies might not have your best interests in mind, ever, is not discussed, for some reason.
regulations: never enough to do the right thing. And the problems were all so obvious and easily seen. In fact, you can find lots of people who will be happy to go on camera and tell you about how they saw those problems coming. I wanted to ask them if they actually put their money down on those obvious and easily seen things.
wall street people: evil. They make lots of money, use prostitutes constantly, and do lots of drugs. Wait, didn't Elliot Spitzer, one of the heros in this film, make lots of money, use prostitutes, and do lots of drugs? Well, he's good though, I guess. Whatever.
people who didn't agree to be interviewed for this film: they get their own black screen with text stating as much. One person didn't get a black screen, they got called out by Matt Damon in suitably disapproving tones for not being interviewed, though I forget who it was. There were a lot of people who didn't want to appear in the film.
the study of economics: apparently corrupted. That does explain why Mark doesn't understand economics though.
(Side note, I do like the first view of Alan Greenspan at 15:41. "Look at this shifty guy crossing the road!" No, the filmmaker didn't like Greenspan.)
(Another side note, there is no small amount of irony in Matt Damon narrating a movie that complains a lot about how much people make, when he himself is not exactly short on coin.)
Well, I have to give you credit, Hap, for watching the film. And you started off your critique fairly well. Your questions about more detail needed are fair points. I'd say Ferguson was hoping that people interested in learning the details would do their own research. Did you? What exactly happened in Iceland that the film didn't tell us?
The rest of your views, though, sadly are you basically throwing water on pants and saying, "Look, Mark and Charles Ferguason peed their pants." Not more of the reflection and critical thought I was hoping for. For example, do you think it is a conflict of interest for major economics professors to sit on the boards of financial firms? Why or why not? More importantly, given the evidence presented in the film, what sort of regulatory system would you envision that could prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future?
To me, the film is the very essence of why the "free market" is a complete fantasy. Greed is the natural state for the financial sector and we clearly saw what happens when they are left to their own devices.
>I'd say Ferguson was hoping that people interested in learning the details would do their own research.
Why? Why couldn't Ferguson present a sober analysis instead of endless innuendo and emotion-tugging visuals and anecdotes? (Well, it's obvious why, because for someone like you, who operates primarily on emotion, it will suck you right in. That doesn't mean I need to be a credulous dupe too.)
>The rest of your views, though,
Are views Mark doesn't like. FTFY.
>More importantly, given the evidence presented in the film,
What evidence? There is very little in the film that rises to the level of evidence. Occasionally, there are things that are pretty verifiable, though of course not by the film itself. Such as when they say, "Glass-Steagal did x until it was repealed." That's why I say Mark, why doesn't this movie come with a book full of cites to primary sources if it wanted to be taken seriously? This is simply a political polemic trying to disguise itself as something more.
>what sort of regulatory system would you envision that could prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future?
I would submit that there isn't one. The film actually touches on this a little bit in one of the interviews. Given perfect hindsight, it might seem obvious what was going on. At the time though, it was not obvious. Oh, sure, some people will tell you it was obvious and they totally saw it coming and why didn't the regulators do anything, but I doubt that the reality was anything like that. You wish for a world where regulators are omnicient, ratings agencies are 100% accurate, and irrational bubbles don't happen. Sorry. We don't live in that world and never will.
What sort of regulatory system do you envision that would have stopped all the bad stuff from happening? Try to do better than: 1. establish regulatory agency 2. apply a dollup of magic know-all-future-consequences powder 3. problem solved!
>For example, do you think it is a conflict of interest for major economics professors to sit on the boards of financial firms? Why or why not?
No. Why should it? Would it be a conflict of interest for a research doctor to sit on the boards of medical companies? Here's a newsflash - it might be valuable to have an economist on your board to give you advice on which direction he thinks the economy will go. Crazy, I know.
Now, if said professor is pumping out papers that say "this company is totally awesome" without disclosing that he's on the board could represent a conflict of interest, and the film kinda-sorta alleges that in a few cases, but categorically saying it's bad for an economics professor to be on a board is silly.
Why couldn't Ferguson present a sober analysis instead of endless innuendo and emotion-tugging visuals and anecdotes?
I think some of the reason might be that much of the information he covered in the film was detailed in a different way in CNBC's "House of Cards." I'll throw up the link to the hulu vid of that one soon. Last in Line recommended that one to me and it does have more specific info in it.
But at the end of the day, I view this film as summary and a primer. It's up to us to get into the details and make sure this never happens again. It's not up to Ferguson. We have to do the complex stuff and it's going to be difficult. We are going up against human greed, after all.
for someone like you, who operates primarily on emotion,
Thanks for the laugh. I needed it today:)
This is simply a political polemic trying to disguise itself as something more.
Political how, exactly? His criticism is leveled at all sides of the spectrum and isn't all that dissimilar from a few things I've heard from the Tea Party. The problem here, Hap, is I think you might be mistaking criticism of deregulation as "liberal." It's not. Especially when the fallout from deregulation is criminal behavior. What do you call an organization that tells its clients to invest in something that they KNOW is shit and then fixes things so they can benefit when it does turn to shit? I call that fraud.
We don't live in that world and never will.
Well, you may be right about that. But if you put a guy like Lloyd Blankfein in pound me in the ass prison for 6 months, this shit ends right away. Actually enforcing the laws would be a good start. After that, I'd like to see a return to the investment firms putting up their own money and not using mine.
And I'll tell you what world we don't in anymore either: Smith's. The invisible hand theory was created at a time when the understanding of "economics" was in its nascence if even there at all. It's absolutely insane, given what we have seen in the last 30 years, to think that somehow this magic world could exist without a high level of criminal activity. Smith had no way of envisioning a world like we have today so why is he still held up as sacred? It reminds of the same people that say we should interpret the Bible literally in EVERY possible way. Sheesh!
And your answer to this question would be?
Yes. If these guys are being paid by high dollar investment firms, they are going to preach the gospel of deregulation so these firms will continue to be supported in their fraud by a whole new generation of people. These profs are being bought off by what is essentially the mob, Hap. C'mon! They don't want any government involvement at all because they don't want to follow any rules. How can you look at what happened and not see that? And, please, I'm begging you...don't come back to me with CRA and Fannie/Freddie. That's such a "welfare mom with a Cadillac" argument.
And it sure is a conflict of interest for doctors to sit on boards of private medical companies or pharmaceutical firms.
At this point, I'm wondering, Hap. What kind of laws have to be broken on Wall Street for you NOT to go into ideologue mode and throw water on liberals' pants?
>I think some of the reason might be that much of the information he covered in the film was detailed in a different way in CNBC's "House of Cards." I'll throw up the link to the hulu vid of that one soon. Last in Line recommended that one to me and it does have more specific info in it.
Huh? So he figured he'd cover the emotional stuff and let someone else do the real work? Er, ok. Here's a far more likely explanation: money. He knew he'd get the most eyeballs for his movie if he went for the emotional angle. He knows that sober analysis is boring, and hard work.
>But at the end of the day, I view this film as summary and a primer. It's up to us to get into the details and make sure this never happens again.
So tell me Mark. After you saw this movie, what research did you do to make sure that Ferguson wasn't just playing you like a violin? After all, there is nothing in it that is sourced, except for things that can likely be found because the reference to it is well known and non-ambiguous.
>>for someone like you, who operates primarily on emotion, >Thanks for the laugh. I needed it today:) Like I said, it's obvious why you loved the film. :)
>Political how, exactly? His criticism is leveled at all sides of the spectrum and isn't all that dissimilar from a few things I've heard from the Tea Party.
You're kidding, right? What is the primary boogieman in the movie? Greed. Otherwise known as human nature. Perceptions of greed factor into at least 50% of the political conversation in the US IMO - tax policy, business policy, even foreign policy in some cases. Who complains about greed the most? Yes, that would be you. Liberals. Oh, right, he mentioned Clinton's name a few times. Wow.
>The problem here, Hap, is I think you might be mistaking criticism of deregulation as "liberal."
More accurately, "incoherent." Seriously - the most specific the film got was that when deregulation happens, bad things follow. Here's a hint - the word "deregulation" doesn't have a specific meaning. If you want to talk about regulation/deregulation in any meaningful way, you need to state what exact regulations existed, and what exact regulations were removed (deregulation) and how those missing regulations would have prevented certain bad things from happening, and why. (Not very sexy, is it. You can see why you wouldn't try to put that in a movie.)
>It's not. Especially when the fallout from deregulation is criminal behavior. What do you call an organization that tells its clients to invest in something that they KNOW is shit and then fixes things so they can benefit when it does turn to shit? I call that fraud.
See, now you're taking innuendo from the film and acting as it were verified fact. I would agree it is fraud if and only if the *exact* same people in the company who were pumping up and selling those securities also said privately that they were shit. Otherwise, the situation gets quite a bit murkier. Have you ever worked in a large company? (No, IIRC.) I have. Imagine a situation in which I look at what some other part of the company is doing, and I think it's shitty. I say as much to a coworker over email. Does that mean the "company" knows that something they are selling is shit? No, it doesn't. It means that in my opinion, the product is shit. I'm not saying that I know what happened in the cases referenced by the film (and I'm nearly 100% certain that you don't know either) but it isn't as simple as you seem to want it to be. It never is. And, to send this off in a completely different direction, this is what I think Anon was referring to the other day about apron strings. You cannot regulate away incompetence, stupidity, greed, or malice. And you also can't tell the difference between them. What have you learned from the financial crisis? How about, "even if financial companies say that something is a good buy, they may be wrong. In fact, they may be spectacularly wrong. They may even be lying. Maybe I shouldn't trust them." Seems like a valuable lesson, no? You want regulation to prevent bad outcomes, but if you were to succeed at preventing bad outcomes, you prevent the lesson from being learned, which means the same mistake will happen again. Guess what? People who want you to part with your money may not have your best interests in mind. The sooner you learn this the better. Apron strings, Mark.
>Well, you may be right about that. But if you put a guy like Lloyd Blankfein in pound me in the ass prison for 6 months, this shit ends right away.
Was he actually convicted by a court, rather than just a movie you watched?
>Actually enforcing the laws would be a good start. After that, I'd like to see a return to the investment firms putting up their own money and not using mine.
Crazy thought - try to avoid giving your money to them. Or have you not learned your lesson?
>And I'll tell you what world we don't in anymore either: Smith's. The invisible hand theory
You've mentioned this before and I confess I haven't a clue as to why you think the invisible hand theory is relevant to.. anything. He merely described how free trade leads to efficient allocation of resources, despite people primarily looking out for themselves. Nobody (that i know of) has come up with a better theory that explains why self interest (ie human nature) doesn't result in economic ruin as might seem superficially intuitive. Do you? Why does it bother you so much?
>Yes. If these guys are being paid by high dollar investment firms, they are going to preach the gospel of deregulation so these firms will continue to be supported in their fraud by a whole new generation of people.
So now you're back to unquestioningly eating the innuendo from the film. Which deregulation, preached by whom? How does this result in a new generation of people supporting fraud? You're just throwing catchphrases out there.
>These profs are being bought off by what is essentially the mob, Hap. C'mon! They don't want any government involvement at all because they don't want to follow any rules.
Apparently economics profs are far more powerful than I realized Mark. Except.. How exactly? Seriously, how does this process work? Corp pays prof $$. Prof writes paper. Step 3? Corp profits! What happens in step 3? Seems unlikely that members of the public read the profs paper. So, does the prof's paper affect government policy? Even if it did, how would that not fall under the right to lobby the government? Even if that didn't, how do you prove that the professor isn't writing something he already believed, rather than (as you imply) just regurgitating some new talking point fed to him by the company? Seems like you're just taking something which you believe led to bad outcomes and trying to call it criminal because.. well, just because.
>And it sure is a conflict of interest for doctors to sit on boards of private medical companies or pharmaceutical firms.
Why? Saying it doesn't make it so. You can't conceive of a reason for company in the medical field to want to have a practitioner of medicine on their board?
>At this point, I'm wondering, Hap. What kind of laws have to be broken on Wall Street for you NOT to go into ideologue mode and throw water on liberals' pants?
Which laws were broken Mark? Try to be specific. Here's the difference between us - I recognize that reality doesn't usually come wrapped in a nice neat package with a bow on top, and so I'm not as easily swayed by a movie with ominous music and a conveniently simple narrative.
he'd cover the emotional stuff and let someone else do the real work?
No, much of the information he presented in the film had come out already in various forms. "House of Cards" is one of them.
Here's a far more likely explanation: money.
If that's the case, then how was it that you got to watch the film for free? Ferguson has already made plenty of money from the film and the Oscar will help with his career. He's in it for the cause, Hap. I know this is tough for you to think that people (especially liberals) actually have ideals and are motivated by something other than money but in his case it's true. Michael Moore's as well. I doubt your mind will ever change because you need them to be adversaries.
what research did you do to make sure that Ferguson wasn't just playing you like a violin?
I didn't really have to do much because I knew most of it anyway. I spent a fair amount of time looking into what happened and why. The last showed me "House of Cards" so going into the film, I knew a great deal about the subject matter. What I didn't know was the info about the economics professors which is easily confirmed and the bit about brain stimulation.
My original point on this would related to the general population. It's up to them to be the..ahem...rugged individualists and find out for themselves:)
I think it's also interesting that you think he is "playing people." To what end?
You're kidding, right?
No. Correct me if I am wrong but aren't the Tea Party against bailouts? Didn't they want those companies to simply fail? Clearly, Ferguson did as well. I saw the film as being about accountability and not just greed.
Oh, right, he mentioned Clinton's name a few times. Wow.
Did you miss the whole bit about Larry Sommers, Geithner and the Obama administration?
I'd say it was more than a "few" times. Clinton's Treasury guy, Rubin, was one of the chief architects of the problems. His failure to regulate could be construed as criminal, no?
now you're taking innuendo from the film and acting as it were verified fact.
This is how you guys do this shit all the time. You introduce "doubt" so as to divert attention away from unpleasant truths about events as they transpired...truths that you don't like, that don't fit within your pathology, and that could ultimately result in you losing the argument. Of course you think it's "innuendo." It has to be, right? Just because you say it's innuendo doesn't mean that it is. Nice try, though. The film is filled with easily verifiable facts. To say that it's "not sourced" is a lie. What do you call all the testimonials? And then there is this.
What a simple way of looking it at. Not surprising at all. Hap, we're talking about systemic flaws here, not just one company behaving poorly. Unless you are advocating that I store my money in my mattress, your solution is ridiculous.
why you think the invisible hand theory is relevant to.. anything.
I'm not the one talking about it, Hap. That's the fantasy being peddled constantly by people on the right these days. If only the invisible hand were allowed to do its work, they say, then all would be well with the markets. I do agree with your statement, though. It's not relevant today at all.
You're just throwing catchphrases out there.
No, I'm not. And, again, it's not innuendo when you have people either admitting or clearly covering up their shenanigans. Hubbard is a fine example of this. I'm not sure if you are playing games with me here, being willfully ignorant, or honestly can't see the connection but having guys like Feldstein on the payroll of an investment firm is simply wrong.
Which laws were broken Mark? Try to be specific.
Fraud. I've said it. Ferguson said it. It happened. Is this the part where we devolve into game playing so you can avoid admitting inherent flaws in your ideology?
Goldman Sachs knowingly sold products that they knew were crap and profited from it by betting against it. Other firms did it as well. For evidence of this, I would point to the hearings (some of which were seen in the film) in which all these guys testified. In addition, the list of links above should provide with you plenty of reading material in your request for specificity.
Funny, it's actually pretty simple and does have a bow on top on an initial look. But throw in a ton of money, an army of lawyers and a neutered government (thanks to people like you, Hap) and everything's fucked up and no one goes to jail. Do you honestly think that government regulators have a chance against Goldman Sachs?
This is why you don't get it, Hap. You are operating under the mistaken belief that our government is bigger and more powerful than the private sector. It's not.
So I haven't had time to go through your nonsense Mark, as it will take awhile, but one thing of (sad) note. You linked was a "study guide" for teachers to use when showing this trash to their students. Did you show it to your students? (And ask them the first question listed in the study guide?)
"Do you honestly think that government regulators have a chance against Goldman Sachs?"
If you truly feel the outrage that you seem to be describing, then why would you prefer the D version of reality instead of the R version? GS and the Obama WH are just as cozy as the last administration. If not more so.
The study guide was very funny Mark, I can't imagine why you linked it. The author tells me the movie is next to sliced bread and then says '(I had a small part)'. Obviously you are a slave to marketing, and without reflection. Just like you said you were.
No, I haven't shown the film in class. It's not applicable to the standards and benchmarks in my areas of study. Of course, that hasn't stopped several of my students from watching it.
Trash, huh? Isn't a key component of critical thinking to step outside of bias? And emotion? I find it pretty amusing that (once again) a right winger accuses me of being overly emotional. Your ideology tells you, Hap, to hate stuff like this without thinking and personally attack what you perceive as a threat. Sad, because you've chosen not being wrong over eliminating the actual threat.
You asked for sources and I provided you a mammoth list. No prob if you don't have time to go through them all. As I have said many times, your life is more important than this blog. Many things are more important than this blog.
Right around now would be the time when Mark is accused of being "Brave Sir Robin" and running away from a fight. I know, it makes no sense, but it will happen. Haplo9 doesn't like the film so therefore it must be trash and drivel. It's just like climate change.
If you truly feel the outrage that you seem to be describing, then why would you prefer the D version of reality instead of the R version? GS and the Obama WH are just as cozy as the last administration. If not more so.What is it you want, exactly?
I prefer the D version because they passed a finreg bill whereas the R version would be one blank page. This doesn't mean that the Democrats are perfect but at least they move in a better direction. Most Democrats believe, as I do, that the middle class drives this economy, not the wealthy one percent.
This also doesn't except Obama from criticism. Contrary to the propaganda, Obama is not the messiah and people who support him don't believe he can do no wrong. The "doing no wrong" is part of another ideology and it isn't mine nor most Democrats.
Ferguson criticized the Obama administration in the film, a point that seemed to have been lost on Hap. What they have done so far hasn't been enough. President Obama needs to do more and, unlike anyone with an R next to his name, he's at least reflective and moving in the right direction.
>If that's the case, then how was it that you got to watch the film for free?
Apparently, by mistake. (Check the link again. It's not free anymore.) What was all that bs about him being in it for the cause, again?
>I think it's also interesting that you think he is "playing people." To what end?
Notice I didn't claim that - I asked you what you did to ensure that he isn't playing you. Here's the thing Mark - the reason that is a concern with this movie (and, incidentally, the reason I call it trash) is because it's primary purpose is to inflame, not to inform. Your study guide cracked me up for that reason - the very first question the study guide recommends to ask students: "Ask your students how angry they are about the events depicted in the film" and the second question is who is most to blame. Not, "was this film informative?" "Did the film help you understand things that you didn't understand before?" Why is it not a dispassionate explanation of the facts, rather than an emotionally charged polemic?
Speaking of facts, one claimed fact in the movie confused me when I thought it through, but I can't go back and verify that I heard what I thought I heard because the movie isn't available anymore. In the explanation as to how you go from mortgages to CDO's, I could swear that the movie claimed that investment banks purchase mortgages and then package them up into CDO's and sell them. But that doesn't make any sense - do you know anyone who sent their mortgage payments to Goldman Sachs? Investment banks actually buy mortgage backed securities, not the mortgages themselves, at least as I understand it. Did the movie get that wrong or am I misremember? You know, that would actually be a useful documentary. Explain in detail how CDO's and MBS's work, and how it all fits together from the time you pay your mortgage to the time money gets into the hands of investors of CDO's. It actually seems quite complicated - considerably more complicated than the movie made it out to be, in fact.
>This is how you guys do this shit all the time. You introduce "doubt" so as to divert attention away from unpleasant truths about events as they transpired...truths that you don't like, that don't fit within your pathology, and that could ultimately result in you losing the argument.
Utter. Horse. Shit. I introduce "doubt" because the movie is "doubtful" all by itself. Why are you even talking about truths? I repeat, once again, that there is very little information in the movie that is backed up. Where are the cites? Where are the unedited interviews and/or transcripts of the people in the movie? (Just fyi, when you slice and dice interviews, someone who is skeptical starts suspecting that you might not be honestly representing the views of the interviewees. Maybe you didn't get that.) Where are the links to reference material that skeptics can look at to find out where they are wrong? Ah. Yes. http://www.sonyclassics.com/insidejob/site/#/links. Well, I will give points for trying, I guess. Correct me if I'm wrong - that page is a bunch of links to newspaper articles that have topics about the financial crisis, most of which seem to be only tangentially related to the movie. Not quite what I meant by "reference material" or unedited interviews/transcripts, but you're right, he's trying to at least give the appearance of of backing up his stuff. Just so you know what I'm talking about for example: Ferguson makes specific assertions about how CDO's work. Now, I can accept that he can't go into great detail in a movie, being limited by time and especially because he's trying to present you with the whole shebang, but what he could provide which would really bolster his credibility in my eyes is a reference to some kind of unaffiliated resource that also describes how CDO's work, and goes into much greater detail if needed. That allows someone skeptical to compare the claims made in the movie with explanations detailed in another place. (Of course, there is the problem of making sure your 'other' source isn't actually the same source, such as where on his jargon page Ferguson appears to have simply copied and pasted from Wikipedia and Investopedia without attribution, which, incidentally, makes me wonder if he even understands the concepts himself if he can't use his own words to describe the concepts.)
>Unless you are advocating that I store my money in my mattress, your solution is ridiculous.
Let's review your statement: "after that, I'd like to see a return to the investment firms putting up their own money and not using mine." Your money Mark. I pointed out (or was trying to point out) that it wouldn't be very hard to ensure that your money (as in, money owned by you) stays far away from said investment firms. Foreign investments. Mutual funds that have very specific rules about what they invest in. Currencies. If you didn't really mean "your money", then feel free to revise your statement.
(referring to the invisible hand.) Er.. Neither am I?
>Fraud. I've said it. Ferguson said it. It happened. Is this the part where we devolve into game playing so you can avoid admitting inherent flaws in your ideology?
("Fraud" is not generally construed to be a law.) So to be clear, a movie told you it was fraud, and so in your world, that means its a fact. Ok, so out of curiosity, are there any convictions? You know, in a court of law, rather than in the court of i-watched-a-movie-and-it-told-me-they're-guilty? Fortunately, we are still generally "a government of laws and not of men."
>For evidence of this, I would point to the hearings (some of which were seen in the film) in which all these guys testified.
Do you have transcripts and unedited video? Why did these hearings not lead to convictions if, as you seem to claim, such ironclad evidence of fraud is there?
>In addition, the list of links above should provide with you plenty of reading material in your request for specificity.
No, I don't see any links in support the notion that Goldman Sachs committed fraud of the type you are alleging. Am I missing it? Note, Mark: I'm not claiming I know either way - just that neither the movie nor you have put forth anything resembling concrete evidence.
>But throw in a ton of money, an army of lawyers and a neutered government (thanks to people like you, Hap)
Ah yes, how dare I insist on convictions having actual, convincing evidence rather than your preferred torches and pitchforks style.
>and everything's fucked up and no one goes to jail. Do you honestly think that government regulators have a chance against Goldman Sachs?
Your question doesn't make sense. A chance.. at what? Preventing them from doing bad things? Putting them in jail? (No, because regulators alone don't put people in jail.)
>Your ideology tells you, Hap, to hate stuff like this without thinking and personally attack what you perceive as a threat.
Or, it could be that I'm extra skeptical of a movie whose primary purpose is to push your emotional buttons. Call me crazy, but I tend to think that if what you claim are presenting is some kind of irrefutable evidence of wrongdoing, you won't need to sex it up. You will, however, need to meet a fairly substantial level of evidence to be convincing.
>Isn't a key component of critical thinking to step outside of bias? And emotion?
Odd phrasing. I'd say a key component of critical thinking is to detect bias and emotion. Not try to enter some zen like state where you've stepped outside of it. Not only does that seem unrealistic, (though, for some reason, I wouldn't be surprised if you have managed to convince yourself that you are able to "step outside of" bias and emotion, which would be laugh-worthy if true) it is unnecessary. Someone who is biased or emotional can engage in critical thinking, though I'd imagine it is harder to do so the more biased or more emotional you get.
>You asked for sources and I provided you a mammoth list.
Just a nit, but I really hope you don't tell your students that newspaper articles represent primary sources, do you?
>Sad, because you've chosen not being wrong over eliminating the actual threat.
I get to choose to be not wrong? Wow! And here I was thinking that that wasn't something I could choose, that facts and evidence tended to, you know, be the arbiters of such. The slightly funny part of this whole thread is just how far away we actually are from discussing facts and evidence. The most backing you appear to have for your movie is a bunch of links to news articles and blogs. Which, as I'm sure you know, aren't primary sources. I haven't yet found any of those links to be particularly relevant to assertions that the movie made though. There are lots of them though, so I can't make a claim one way or the other at the moment.
>Right around now would be the time when Mark is accused of being "Brave Sir Robin" and running away from a fight.
No, actually, I think Mark has actually stuck around, more than he usually might in fact, to defend his movie. I could surmise that he is doing it because he has talked about how great the movie is and so he felt he had to defend it more when I said I thought it was pretty bad. Good on him in either case.
>Just because you say it's innuendo doesn't mean that it is.
Is it word definition time for Mark again? I think so.
Innuendo: a veiled or equivocal reflection on character or reputation
The movie implies widespread criminality on the part of a lot of people, even going so far as to talk about drugs and prostitutes, but it rarely names names. If that isn't innuendo, just what the hell do you think innuendo is?
>To say that it's "not sourced" is a lie. What do you call all the testimonials?
In the context of testimonials (by which I assume you mean the various interviews,) I have to ask - if you saw an interview with George W. Bush, and he said something that you don't already know is true, would you simply accept what he said as truth? Because he said it? Putting the shoe on the other foot - should I accept something Barney Frank said as truth? Because he said it?
because it's primary purpose is to inflame, not to inform.
Nope. That would be your perception playing tricks with you again. Honestly, that's a more appropriate description of the right wing media (save the few remaining intellects like Will or Krauthammer). Again, we have the "things I don't like" translated into "inflame." But this is how you guys control information so it's not surprising that you feel this way. As long as the ideology stands, that is all that matters.
Did the movie get that wrong or am I misremember? You know, that would actually be a useful documentary. Explain in detail how CDO's and MBS's work
The film's explanation was less technical partly to appeal to a wider audience. The other issue, though, is that there are people who work in the financial sector don't really know what a CDO is because they designed it that way on purpose to avoid regulation. A real problem, no? For the detail you request, I would watch "House of Cards" which is located here on my blog.
it wouldn't be very hard to ensure that your money (as in, money owned by you) stays far away from said investment firms.
Actually, it's much harder than you think and that's the problem. As Manzi said, "It's not that financial institutions are too big to fail...it's that they are to interconnected to fail." The finreg bill will help with some of this but at the end of the day you are still talking about unchecked greed. Now, I assume that you are not a Rousseau guy (neither am I) so what does your philosophy tell you when you leave people unchecked and without regulation?
Again, you are thinking that I perceive the world like someone who watches Fox News or listens to Rush Limbaugh. I knew most of this stuff before the film came out. I had done my own research and culled my data from a variety of sources. What I didn't know was that economics professors serve on the boards of companies like Goldman Sachs. Completely unacceptable.
Do you have transcripts and unedited video?
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Day1G
This is good starting point. I watched some of this live. There are plenty of transcripts and videos in the library.
but I really hope you don't tell your students that newspaper articles represent primary sources, do you?
No. Checking for bias is a key component in any critical reading. My grandfather (combat engineer, WWII) is an example of a primary source.
Regarding your comments on the links, I think you might need to look at them more closely. There are more than just newspaper links there. One is a link to the FAA. Several are from the Wall Street Journal...a newspaper, yes, but with a pro business bias, correct? There are several from other countries that cut out the inherent US bias. In short, there is a lot of information there so I wouldn't dismiss it so casually.
just what the hell do you think innuendo is?
I knew you couldn't resist this far without resorting to word games:) How I miss the "words have meanings" hilarity (words like socialism, for example). I'm well aware of what innuendo means. I disagree that it simply stopped there. The people that agreed to be interviewed (Hubbard and Miskin, for example) were confronted by Ferguson. How is that not "naming names?" Those two were absolutely responsible.
should I accept something Barney Frank said as truth? Because he said it?
No, but he is, along with several others in the film, a primary source. He was directly involved from the regulation end of the equation and partly responsible for the failure of it.
39 comments:
So, I watched it. And wow. What a awful film. I can see why Mark likes it. The first and very obvious reason this film sucks - it isn't even trying to hide the fact that it is primarily aiming to provoke an emotional response in you. Even if you don't want to watch it all, watch the first 3 minutes, it's pretty funny. My narration would be this: (scenes of Iceland's natural beauty and clean, orderly cities.) Look at Iceland. It was paradise. (Cut in some interviews of Icelandic guys saying as much.) And then.. deregulation!!! See these nice Icelandic views and pretty music? At 2:42, they get BLOWN THE HELL UP. BY DEREGULATION. Or something. It really sets the tone for the kind of innuendo laden mess that follows. The second major problem with the movie is the medium, hinted at by Juris. You can't stop a movie and ask questions. And literally, unless you are *cough* predisposed to think that this movie is pure golden troof, there are hundreds of questions to ask. Such as:
What does it mean to do a "pure experiemnt of deregulation" in Iceland? Was there no regulation? Just a little bit? Less than the filmmaker thinks there should have been, apparently. What should Icelandic regulators have done to protect citizens? Who did Icelandic banks borrow money from? What was the borrowing for? In what manner were the banks privatized - were they entirely government owned before that? Of course, the film doesn't tell us any of that. It needs a bookful of cites. (Hey, maybe a book might be better than a movie eh Mark? But that just wouldn't be as sexy for you, would it. Gotta have the sorrowful music and the footage where some of the people being interviewed get flustered or seem shifty.)
The movie is full of bland assertions or innuendo that are crying out for validation or confirmation of being at all meaningful:
-Banks used to be small, and local.
-Investment banks all used to be small, private partnerships.
-There were no financial crises in the 40 years after the great depression, because regulations made things wonderful.
-Why is it important that such and such a person did x, and then later went on to make a bunch of money doing something marginally related? It's as if someone making a lot of money is considered a sin in and of itself.
-20:35: narrator says banks have been caught doing bad things again, and again, and again. But if you pause your way through the list of papers they flash by on the screen, you'll see most of them are either innocuous or simply unproven - "Citibank's records examined as part of Mexican Inquiry." "Bankrupt thinking: how the banks aided Enron's Deception" "US said to be investigating another Enron-Merrill Deal" "AIG Receives 2 Subpeonas" "Inquiry Said to Examine Citigroup Role in Enron Deal". It's quite a stretch to call those things "caught."
Why does the filmmaker constantly show short clips of interviews, giving the viewer no context of what was said around the time of the question? It's a very Michael Moore-ish technique of making things seem more sinister by cutting out context. Look at 21:58 - they caught that guy with a facial expression that looks very sinister. But didn't include his response. Why not? What was the context of his interview?
Well, that's some of the questions I had. In the first 22 minutes of the movie. Would take me hours to write out questions from the rest.
Here are the general themes from the rest of the film:
deregulation: bad
derivatives: bad
ratings agencies: possibly malevolent or incompetent, maybe both. Apparently when they rate something highly, that is supposed to be an ironclad guarantee of stability that anyone can rely on, and not their opinion. That financial companies might not have your best interests in mind, ever, is not discussed, for some reason.
regulations: never enough to do the right thing. And the problems were all so obvious and easily seen. In fact, you can find lots of people who will be happy to go on camera and tell you about how they saw those problems coming. I wanted to ask them if they actually put their money down on those obvious and easily seen things.
wall street people: evil. They make lots of money, use prostitutes constantly, and do lots of drugs. Wait, didn't Elliot Spitzer, one of the heros in this film, make lots of money, use prostitutes, and do lots of drugs? Well, he's good though, I guess. Whatever.
people who didn't agree to be interviewed for this film: they get their own black screen with text stating as much. One person didn't get a black screen, they got called out by Matt Damon in suitably disapproving tones for not being interviewed, though I forget who it was. There were a lot of people who didn't want to appear in the film.
the study of economics: apparently corrupted. That does explain why Mark doesn't understand economics though.
(Side note, I do like the first view of Alan Greenspan at 15:41. "Look at this shifty guy crossing the road!" No, the filmmaker didn't like Greenspan.)
(Another side note, there is no small amount of irony in Matt Damon narrating a movie that complains a lot about how much people make, when he himself is not exactly short on coin.)
Well, I have to give you credit, Hap, for watching the film. And you started off your critique fairly well. Your questions about more detail needed are fair points. I'd say Ferguson was hoping that people interested in learning the details would do their own research. Did you? What exactly happened in Iceland that the film didn't tell us?
The rest of your views, though, sadly are you basically throwing water on pants and saying, "Look, Mark and Charles Ferguason peed their pants." Not more of the reflection and critical thought I was hoping for. For example, do you think it is a conflict of interest for major economics professors to sit on the boards of financial firms? Why or why not? More importantly, given the evidence presented in the film, what sort of regulatory system would you envision that could prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future?
To me, the film is the very essence of why the "free market" is a complete fantasy. Greed is the natural state for the financial sector and we clearly saw what happens when they are left to their own devices.
>I'd say Ferguson was hoping that people interested in learning the details would do their own research.
Why? Why couldn't Ferguson present a sober analysis instead of endless innuendo and emotion-tugging visuals and anecdotes? (Well, it's obvious why, because for someone like you, who operates primarily on emotion, it will suck you right in. That doesn't mean I need to be a credulous dupe too.)
>The rest of your views, though,
Are views Mark doesn't like. FTFY.
>More importantly, given the evidence presented in the film,
What evidence? There is very little in the film that rises to the level of evidence. Occasionally, there are things that are pretty verifiable, though of course not by the film itself. Such as when they say, "Glass-Steagal did x until it was repealed." That's why I say Mark, why doesn't this movie come with a book full of cites to primary sources if it wanted to be taken seriously? This is simply a political polemic trying to disguise itself as something more.
>what sort of regulatory system would you envision that could prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future?
I would submit that there isn't one. The film actually touches on this a little bit in one of the interviews. Given perfect hindsight, it might seem obvious what was going on. At the time though, it was not obvious. Oh, sure, some people will tell you it was obvious and they totally saw it coming and why didn't the regulators do anything, but I doubt that the reality was anything like that. You wish for a world where regulators are omnicient, ratings agencies are 100% accurate, and irrational bubbles don't happen. Sorry. We don't live in that world and never will.
What sort of regulatory system do you envision that would have stopped all the bad stuff from happening? Try to do better than:
1. establish regulatory agency
2. apply a dollup of magic know-all-future-consequences powder
3. problem solved!
>For example, do you think it is a conflict of interest for major economics professors to sit on the boards of financial firms? Why or why not?
No. Why should it? Would it be a conflict of interest for a research doctor to sit on the boards of medical companies? Here's a newsflash - it might be valuable to have an economist on your board to give you advice on which direction he thinks the economy will go. Crazy, I know.
Now, if said professor is pumping out papers that say "this company is totally awesome" without disclosing that he's on the board could represent a conflict of interest, and the film kinda-sorta alleges that in a few cases, but categorically saying it's bad for an economics professor to be on a board is silly.
And your answer to this question would be?
Why couldn't Ferguson present a sober analysis instead of endless innuendo and emotion-tugging visuals and anecdotes?
I think some of the reason might be that much of the information he covered in the film was detailed in a different way in CNBC's "House of Cards." I'll throw up the link to the hulu vid of that one soon. Last in Line recommended that one to me and it does have more specific info in it.
But at the end of the day, I view this film as summary and a primer. It's up to us to get into the details and make sure this never happens again. It's not up to Ferguson. We have to do the complex stuff and it's going to be difficult. We are going up against human greed, after all.
for someone like you, who operates primarily on emotion,
Thanks for the laugh. I needed it today:)
This is simply a political polemic trying to disguise itself as something more.
Political how, exactly? His criticism is leveled at all sides of the spectrum and isn't all that dissimilar from a few things I've heard from the Tea Party. The problem here, Hap, is I think you might be mistaking criticism of deregulation as "liberal." It's not. Especially when the fallout from deregulation is criminal behavior. What do you call an organization that tells its clients to invest in something that they KNOW is shit and then fixes things so they can benefit when it does turn to shit? I call that fraud.
We don't live in that world and never will.
Well, you may be right about that. But if you put a guy like Lloyd Blankfein in pound me in the ass prison for 6 months, this shit ends right away. Actually enforcing the laws would be a good start. After that, I'd like to see a return to the investment firms putting up their own money and not using mine.
And I'll tell you what world we don't in anymore either: Smith's. The invisible hand theory was created at a time when the understanding of "economics" was in its nascence if even there at all. It's absolutely insane, given what we have seen in the last 30 years, to think that somehow this magic world could exist without a high level of criminal activity. Smith had no way of envisioning a world like we have today so why is he still held up as sacred? It reminds of the same people that say we should interpret the Bible literally in EVERY possible way. Sheesh!
And your answer to this question would be?
Yes. If these guys are being paid by high dollar investment firms, they are going to preach the gospel of deregulation so these firms will continue to be supported in their fraud by a whole new generation of people. These profs are being bought off by what is essentially the mob, Hap. C'mon! They don't want any government involvement at all because they don't want to follow any rules. How can you look at what happened and not see that? And, please, I'm begging you...don't come back to me with CRA and Fannie/Freddie. That's such a "welfare mom with a Cadillac" argument.
And it sure is a conflict of interest for doctors to sit on boards of private medical companies or pharmaceutical firms.
At this point, I'm wondering, Hap. What kind of laws have to be broken on Wall Street for you NOT to go into ideologue mode and throw water on liberals' pants?
>I think some of the reason might be that much of the information he covered in the film was detailed in a different way in CNBC's "House of Cards." I'll throw up the link to the hulu vid of that one soon. Last in Line recommended that one to me and it does have more specific info in it.
Huh? So he figured he'd cover the emotional stuff and let someone else do the real work? Er, ok. Here's a far more likely explanation: money. He knew he'd get the most eyeballs for his movie if he went for the emotional angle. He knows that sober analysis is boring, and hard work.
>But at the end of the day, I view this film as summary and a primer. It's up to us to get into the details and make sure this never happens again.
So tell me Mark. After you saw this movie, what research did you do to make sure that Ferguson wasn't just playing you like a violin? After all, there is nothing in it that is sourced, except for things that can likely be found because the reference to it is well known and non-ambiguous.
>>for someone like you, who operates primarily on emotion,
>Thanks for the laugh. I needed it today:)
Like I said, it's obvious why you loved the film. :)
>Political how, exactly? His criticism is leveled at all sides of the spectrum and isn't all that dissimilar from a few things I've heard from the Tea Party.
You're kidding, right? What is the primary boogieman in the movie? Greed. Otherwise known as human nature. Perceptions of greed factor into at least 50% of the political conversation in the US IMO - tax policy, business policy, even foreign policy in some cases. Who complains about greed the most? Yes, that would be you. Liberals. Oh, right, he mentioned Clinton's name a few times. Wow.
>The problem here, Hap, is I think you might be mistaking criticism of deregulation as "liberal."
More accurately, "incoherent." Seriously - the most specific the film got was that when deregulation happens, bad things follow. Here's a hint - the word "deregulation" doesn't have a specific meaning. If you want to talk about regulation/deregulation in any meaningful way, you need to state what exact regulations existed, and what exact regulations were removed (deregulation) and how those missing regulations would have prevented certain bad things from happening, and why. (Not very sexy, is it. You can see why you wouldn't try to put that in a movie.)
>It's not. Especially when the fallout from deregulation is criminal behavior. What do you call an organization that tells its clients to invest in something that they KNOW is shit and then fixes things so they can benefit when it does turn to shit? I call that fraud.
See, now you're taking innuendo from the film and acting as it were verified fact. I would agree it is fraud if and only if the *exact* same people in the company who were pumping up and selling those securities also said privately that they were shit. Otherwise, the situation gets quite a bit murkier. Have you ever worked in a large company? (No, IIRC.) I have. Imagine a situation in which I look at what some other part of the company is doing, and I think it's shitty. I say as much to a coworker over email. Does that mean the "company" knows that something they are selling is shit? No, it doesn't. It means that in my opinion, the product is shit. I'm not saying that I know what happened in the cases referenced by the film (and I'm nearly 100% certain that you don't know either) but it isn't as simple as you seem to want it to be. It never is. And, to send this off in a completely different direction, this is what I think Anon was referring to the other day about apron strings. You cannot regulate away incompetence, stupidity, greed, or malice. And you also can't tell the difference between them. What have you learned from the financial crisis? How about, "even if financial companies say that something is a good buy, they may be wrong. In fact, they may be spectacularly wrong. They may even be lying. Maybe I shouldn't trust them." Seems like a valuable lesson, no? You want regulation to prevent bad outcomes, but if you were to succeed at preventing bad outcomes, you prevent the lesson from being learned, which means the same mistake will happen again. Guess what? People who want you to part with your money may not have your best interests in mind. The sooner you learn this the better. Apron strings, Mark.
>Well, you may be right about that. But if you put a guy like Lloyd Blankfein in pound me in the ass prison for 6 months, this shit ends right away.
Was he actually convicted by a court, rather than just a movie you watched?
>Actually enforcing the laws would be a good start. After that, I'd like to see a return to the investment firms putting up their own money and not using mine.
Crazy thought - try to avoid giving your money to them. Or have you not learned your lesson?
>And I'll tell you what world we don't in anymore either: Smith's. The invisible hand theory
You've mentioned this before and I confess I haven't a clue as to why you think the invisible hand theory is relevant to.. anything. He merely described how free trade leads to efficient allocation of resources, despite people primarily looking out for themselves. Nobody (that i know of) has come up with a better theory that explains why self interest (ie human nature) doesn't result in economic ruin as might seem superficially intuitive. Do you? Why does it bother you so much?
>Yes. If these guys are being paid by high dollar investment firms, they are going to preach the gospel of deregulation so these firms will continue to be supported in their fraud by a whole new generation of people.
So now you're back to unquestioningly eating the innuendo from the film. Which deregulation, preached by whom? How does this result in a new generation of people supporting fraud? You're just throwing catchphrases out there.
>These profs are being bought off by what is essentially the mob, Hap. C'mon! They don't want any government involvement at all because they don't want to follow any rules.
Apparently economics profs are far more powerful than I realized Mark. Except.. How exactly? Seriously, how does this process work? Corp pays prof $$. Prof writes paper. Step 3? Corp profits! What happens in step 3? Seems unlikely that members of the public read the profs paper. So, does the prof's paper affect government policy? Even if it did, how would that not fall under the right to lobby the government? Even if that didn't, how do you prove that the professor isn't writing something he already believed, rather than (as you imply) just regurgitating some new talking point fed to him by the company? Seems like you're just taking something which you believe led to bad outcomes and trying to call it criminal because.. well, just because.
>And it sure is a conflict of interest for doctors to sit on boards of private medical companies or pharmaceutical firms.
Why? Saying it doesn't make it so. You can't conceive of a reason for company in the medical field to want to have a practitioner of medicine on their board?
>At this point, I'm wondering, Hap. What kind of laws have to be broken on Wall Street for you NOT to go into ideologue mode and throw water on liberals' pants?
Which laws were broken Mark? Try to be specific. Here's the difference between us - I recognize that reality doesn't usually come wrapped in a nice neat package with a bow on top, and so I'm not as easily swayed by a movie with ominous music and a conveniently simple narrative.
he'd cover the emotional stuff and let someone else do the real work?
No, much of the information he presented in the film had come out already in various forms. "House of Cards" is one of them.
Here's a far more likely explanation: money.
If that's the case, then how was it that you got to watch the film for free? Ferguson has already made plenty of money from the film and the Oscar will help with his career. He's in it for the cause, Hap. I know this is tough for you to think that people (especially liberals) actually have ideals and are motivated by something other than money but in his case it's true. Michael Moore's as well. I doubt your mind will ever change because you need them to be adversaries.
what research did you do to make sure that Ferguson wasn't just playing you like a violin?
I didn't really have to do much because I knew most of it anyway. I spent a fair amount of time looking into what happened and why. The last showed me "House of Cards" so going into the film, I knew a great deal about the subject matter. What I didn't know was the info about the economics professors which is easily confirmed and the bit about brain stimulation.
My original point on this would related to the general population. It's up to them to be the..ahem...rugged individualists and find out for themselves:)
I think it's also interesting that you think he is "playing people." To what end?
You're kidding, right?
No. Correct me if I am wrong but aren't the Tea Party against bailouts? Didn't they want those companies to simply fail? Clearly, Ferguson did as well. I saw the film as being about accountability and not just greed.
Oh, right, he mentioned Clinton's name a few times. Wow.
Did you miss the whole bit about Larry Sommers, Geithner and the Obama administration?
I'd say it was more than a "few" times. Clinton's Treasury guy, Rubin, was one of the chief architects of the problems. His failure to regulate could be construed as criminal, no?
now you're taking innuendo from the film and acting as it were verified fact.
This is how you guys do this shit all the time. You introduce "doubt" so as to divert attention away from unpleasant truths about events as they transpired...truths that you don't like, that don't fit within your pathology, and that could ultimately result in you losing the argument. Of course you think it's "innuendo." It has to be, right? Just because you say it's innuendo doesn't mean that it is. Nice try, though. The film is filled with easily verifiable facts. To say that it's "not sourced" is a lie. What do you call all the testimonials? And then there is this.
http://www.sonyclassics.com/insidejob/site/#/links
And this:
http://www.sonyclassics.com/insidejob/_pdf/InsideJob_StudyGuide.pdf
Enough sources for you?
try to avoid giving your money to them.
What a simple way of looking it at. Not surprising at all. Hap, we're talking about systemic flaws here, not just one company behaving poorly. Unless you are advocating that I store my money in my mattress, your solution is ridiculous.
why you think the invisible hand theory is relevant to.. anything.
I'm not the one talking about it, Hap. That's the fantasy being peddled constantly by people on the right these days. If only the invisible hand were allowed to do its work, they say, then all would be well with the markets. I do agree with your statement, though. It's not relevant today at all.
You're just throwing catchphrases out there.
No, I'm not. And, again, it's not innuendo when you have people either admitting or clearly covering up their shenanigans. Hubbard is a fine example of this. I'm not sure if you are playing games with me here, being willfully ignorant, or honestly can't see the connection but having guys like Feldstein on the payroll of an investment firm is simply wrong.
Which laws were broken Mark? Try to be specific.
Fraud. I've said it. Ferguson said it. It happened. Is this the part where we devolve into game playing so you can avoid admitting inherent flaws in your ideology?
Goldman Sachs knowingly sold products that they knew were crap and profited from it by betting against it. Other firms did it as well. For evidence of this, I would point to the hearings (some of which were seen in the film) in which all these guys testified. In addition, the list of links above should provide with you plenty of reading material in your request for specificity.
Funny, it's actually pretty simple and does have a bow on top on an initial look. But throw in a ton of money, an army of lawyers and a neutered government (thanks to people like you, Hap) and everything's fucked up and no one goes to jail. Do you honestly think that government regulators have a chance against Goldman Sachs?
This is why you don't get it, Hap. You are operating under the mistaken belief that our government is bigger and more powerful than the private sector. It's not.
So I haven't had time to go through your nonsense Mark, as it will take awhile, but one thing of (sad) note. You linked was a "study guide" for teachers to use when showing this trash to their students. Did you show it to your students? (And ask them the first question listed in the study guide?)
"Do you honestly think that government regulators have a chance against Goldman Sachs?"
If you truly feel the outrage that you seem to be describing, then why would you prefer the D version of reality instead of the R version? GS and the Obama WH are just as cozy as the last administration. If not more so.
What is it you want, exactly?
The study guide was very funny Mark, I can't imagine why you linked it. The author tells me the movie is next to sliced bread and then says '(I had a small part)'. Obviously you are a slave to marketing, and without reflection. Just like you said you were.
No, I haven't shown the film in class. It's not applicable to the standards and benchmarks in my areas of study. Of course, that hasn't stopped several of my students from watching it.
Trash, huh? Isn't a key component of critical thinking to step outside of bias? And emotion? I find it pretty amusing that (once again) a right winger accuses me of being overly emotional. Your ideology tells you, Hap, to hate stuff like this without thinking and personally attack what you perceive as a threat. Sad, because you've chosen not being wrong over eliminating the actual threat.
You asked for sources and I provided you a mammoth list. No prob if you don't have time to go through them all. As I have said many times, your life is more important than this blog. Many things are more important than this blog.
Right around now would be the time when Mark is accused of being "Brave Sir Robin" and running away from a fight. I know, it makes no sense, but it will happen. Haplo9 doesn't like the film so therefore it must be trash and drivel. It's just like climate change.
If you truly feel the outrage that you seem to be describing, then why would you prefer the D version of reality instead of the R version? GS and the Obama WH are just as cozy as the last administration. If not more so.What is it you want, exactly?
I prefer the D version because they passed a finreg bill whereas the R version would be one blank page. This doesn't mean that the Democrats are perfect but at least they move in a better direction. Most Democrats believe, as I do, that the middle class drives this economy, not the wealthy one percent.
This also doesn't except Obama from criticism. Contrary to the propaganda, Obama is not the messiah and people who support him don't believe he can do no wrong. The "doing no wrong" is part of another ideology and it isn't mine nor most Democrats.
Ferguson criticized the Obama administration in the film, a point that seemed to have been lost on Hap. What they have done so far hasn't been enough. President Obama needs to do more and, unlike anyone with an R next to his name, he's at least reflective and moving in the right direction.
And what has the President done (in your opinion), to earn the "reflective and moving in the right direction" description?
He'll always be moving in the right direction to them because we have the same problems today that we had before he was elected.
(Whew, finally some free moments.)
>If that's the case, then how was it that you got to watch the film for free?
Apparently, by mistake. (Check the link again. It's not free anymore.) What was all that bs about him being in it for the cause, again?
>I think it's also interesting that you think he is "playing people." To what end?
Notice I didn't claim that - I asked you what you did to ensure that he isn't playing you. Here's the thing Mark - the reason that is a concern with this movie (and, incidentally, the reason I call it trash) is because it's primary purpose is to inflame, not to inform. Your study guide cracked me up for that reason - the very first question the study guide recommends to ask students: "Ask your students how angry they are about the events depicted in the film" and the second question is who is most to blame. Not, "was this film informative?" "Did the film help you understand things that you didn't understand before?" Why is it not a dispassionate explanation of the facts, rather than an emotionally charged polemic?
Speaking of facts, one claimed fact in the movie confused me when I thought it through, but I can't go back and verify that I heard what I thought I heard because the movie isn't available anymore. In the explanation as to how you go from mortgages to CDO's, I could swear that the movie claimed that investment banks purchase mortgages and then package them up into CDO's and sell them. But that doesn't make any sense - do you know anyone who sent their mortgage payments to Goldman Sachs? Investment banks actually buy mortgage backed securities, not the mortgages themselves, at least as I understand it. Did the movie get that wrong or am I misremember? You know, that would actually be a useful documentary. Explain in detail how CDO's and MBS's work, and how it all fits together from the time you pay your mortgage to the time money gets into the hands of investors of CDO's. It actually seems quite complicated - considerably more complicated than the movie made it out to be, in fact.
>This is how you guys do this shit all the time. You introduce "doubt" so as to divert attention away from unpleasant truths about events as they transpired...truths that you don't like, that don't fit within your pathology, and that could ultimately result in you losing the argument.
Utter. Horse. Shit. I introduce "doubt" because the movie is "doubtful" all by itself. Why are you even talking about truths? I repeat, once again, that there is very little information in the movie that is backed up. Where are the cites? Where are the unedited interviews and/or transcripts of the people in the movie? (Just fyi, when you slice and dice interviews, someone who is skeptical starts suspecting that you might not be honestly representing the views of the interviewees. Maybe you didn't get that.) Where are the links to reference material that skeptics can look at to find out where they are wrong? Ah. Yes. http://www.sonyclassics.com/insidejob/site/#/links. Well, I will give points for trying, I guess. Correct me if I'm wrong - that page is a bunch of links to newspaper articles that have topics about the financial crisis, most of which seem to be only tangentially related to the movie. Not quite what I meant by "reference material" or unedited interviews/transcripts, but you're right, he's trying to at least give the appearance of of backing up his stuff. Just so you know what I'm talking about for example: Ferguson makes specific assertions about how CDO's work. Now, I can accept that he can't go into great detail in a movie, being limited by time and especially because he's trying to present you with the whole shebang, but what he could provide which would really bolster his credibility in my eyes is a reference to some kind of unaffiliated resource that also describes how CDO's work, and goes into much greater detail if needed. That allows someone skeptical to compare the claims made in the movie with explanations detailed in another place. (Of course, there is the problem of making sure your 'other' source isn't actually the same source, such as where on his jargon page Ferguson appears to have simply copied and pasted from Wikipedia and Investopedia without attribution, which, incidentally, makes me wonder if he even understands the concepts himself if he can't use his own words to describe the concepts.)
>Unless you are advocating that I store my money in my mattress, your solution is ridiculous.
Let's review your statement: "after that, I'd like to see a return to the investment firms putting up their own money and not using mine." Your money Mark. I pointed out (or was trying to point out) that it wouldn't be very hard to ensure that your money (as in, money owned by you) stays far away from said investment firms. Foreign investments. Mutual funds that have very specific rules about what they invest in. Currencies. If you didn't really mean "your money", then feel free to revise your statement.
>I'm not the one talking about it, Hap.
(referring to the invisible hand.) Er.. Neither am I?
>Fraud. I've said it. Ferguson said it. It happened. Is this the part where we devolve into game playing so you can avoid admitting inherent flaws in your ideology?
("Fraud" is not generally construed to be a law.) So to be clear, a movie told you it was fraud, and so in your world, that means its a fact. Ok, so out of curiosity, are there any convictions? You know, in a court of law, rather than in the court of i-watched-a-movie-and-it-told-me-they're-guilty? Fortunately, we are still generally "a government of laws and not of men."
>For evidence of this, I would point to the hearings (some of which were seen in the film) in which all these guys testified.
Do you have transcripts and unedited video? Why did these hearings not lead to convictions if, as you seem to claim, such ironclad evidence of fraud is there?
>In addition, the list of links above should provide with you plenty of reading material in your request for specificity.
No, I don't see any links in support the notion that Goldman Sachs committed fraud of the type you are alleging. Am I missing it? Note, Mark: I'm not claiming I know either way - just that neither the movie nor you have put forth anything resembling concrete evidence.
>But throw in a ton of money, an army of lawyers and a neutered government (thanks to people like you, Hap)
Ah yes, how dare I insist on convictions having actual, convincing evidence rather than your preferred torches and pitchforks style.
>and everything's fucked up and no one goes to jail. Do you honestly think that government regulators have a chance against Goldman Sachs?
Your question doesn't make sense. A chance.. at what? Preventing them from doing bad things? Putting them in jail? (No, because regulators alone don't put people in jail.)
>Your ideology tells you, Hap, to hate stuff like this without thinking and personally attack what you perceive as a threat.
Or, it could be that I'm extra skeptical of a movie whose primary purpose is to push your emotional buttons. Call me crazy, but I tend to think that if what you claim are presenting is some kind of irrefutable evidence of wrongdoing, you won't need to sex it up. You will, however, need to meet a fairly substantial level of evidence to be convincing.
>Isn't a key component of critical thinking to step outside of bias? And emotion?
Odd phrasing. I'd say a key component of critical thinking is to detect bias and emotion. Not try to enter some zen like state where you've stepped outside of it. Not only does that seem unrealistic, (though, for some reason, I wouldn't be surprised if you have managed to convince yourself that you are able to "step outside of" bias and emotion, which would be laugh-worthy if true) it is unnecessary. Someone who is biased or emotional can engage in critical thinking, though I'd imagine it is harder to do so the more biased or more emotional you get.
>You asked for sources and I provided you a mammoth list.
Just a nit, but I really hope you don't tell your students that newspaper articles represent primary sources, do you?
>Sad, because you've chosen not being wrong over eliminating the actual threat.
I get to choose to be not wrong? Wow! And here I was thinking that that wasn't something I could choose, that facts and evidence tended to, you know, be the arbiters of such. The slightly funny part of this whole thread is just how far away we actually are from discussing facts and evidence. The most backing you appear to have for your movie is a bunch of links to news articles and blogs. Which, as I'm sure you know, aren't primary sources. I haven't yet found any of those links to be particularly relevant to assertions that the movie made though. There are lots of them though, so I can't make a claim one way or the other at the moment.
>Right around now would be the time when Mark is accused of being "Brave Sir Robin" and running away from a fight.
No, actually, I think Mark has actually stuck around, more than he usually might in fact, to defend his movie. I could surmise that he is doing it because he has talked about how great the movie is and so he felt he had to defend it more when I said I thought it was pretty bad. Good on him in either case.
Oh and I missed these gems:
>Just because you say it's innuendo doesn't mean that it is.
Is it word definition time for Mark again? I think so.
Innuendo: a veiled or equivocal reflection on character or reputation
The movie implies widespread criminality on the part of a lot of people, even going so far as to talk about drugs and prostitutes, but it rarely names names. If that isn't innuendo, just what the hell do you think innuendo is?
>To say that it's "not sourced" is a lie. What do you call all the testimonials?
In the context of testimonials (by which I assume you mean the various interviews,) I have to ask - if you saw an interview with George W. Bush, and he said something that you don't already know is true, would you simply accept what he said as truth? Because he said it? Putting the shoe on the other foot - should I accept something Barney Frank said as truth? Because he said it?
because it's primary purpose is to inflame, not to inform.
Nope. That would be your perception playing tricks with you again. Honestly, that's a more appropriate description of the right wing media (save the few remaining intellects like Will or Krauthammer). Again, we have the "things I don't like" translated into "inflame." But this is how you guys control information so it's not surprising that you feel this way. As long as the ideology stands, that is all that matters.
Did the movie get that wrong or am I misremember? You know, that would actually be a useful documentary. Explain in detail how CDO's and MBS's work
The film's explanation was less technical partly to appeal to a wider audience. The other issue, though, is that there are people who work in the financial sector don't really know what a CDO is because they designed it that way on purpose to avoid regulation. A real problem, no? For the detail you request, I would watch "House of Cards" which is located here on my blog.
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2011/04/house-of-cards.html
it wouldn't be very hard to ensure that your money (as in, money owned by you) stays far away from said investment firms.
Actually, it's much harder than you think and that's the problem. As Manzi said, "It's not that financial institutions are too big to fail...it's that they are to interconnected to fail." The finreg bill will help with some of this but at the end of the day you are still talking about unchecked greed. Now, I assume that you are not a Rousseau guy (neither am I) so what does your philosophy tell you when you leave people unchecked and without regulation?
a movie told you it was fraud
Again, you are thinking that I perceive the world like someone who watches Fox News or listens to Rush Limbaugh. I knew most of this stuff before the film came out. I had done my own research and culled my data from a variety of sources. What I didn't know was that economics professors serve on the boards of companies like Goldman Sachs. Completely unacceptable.
Do you have transcripts and unedited video?
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Day1G
This is good starting point. I watched some of this live. There are plenty of transcripts and videos in the library.
but I really hope you don't tell your students that newspaper articles represent primary sources, do you?
No. Checking for bias is a key component in any critical reading. My grandfather (combat engineer, WWII) is an example of a primary source.
Regarding your comments on the links, I think you might need to look at them more closely. There are more than just newspaper links there. One is a link to the FAA. Several are from the Wall Street Journal...a newspaper, yes, but with a pro business bias, correct? There are several from other countries that cut out the inherent US bias. In short, there is a lot of information there so I wouldn't dismiss it so casually.
just what the hell do you think innuendo is?
I knew you couldn't resist this far without resorting to word games:) How I miss the "words have meanings" hilarity (words like socialism, for example). I'm well aware of what innuendo means. I disagree that it simply stopped there. The people that agreed to be interviewed (Hubbard and Miskin, for example) were confronted by Ferguson. How is that not "naming names?" Those two were absolutely responsible.
should I accept something Barney Frank said as truth? Because he said it?
No, but he is, along with several others in the film, a primary source. He was directly involved from the regulation end of the equation and partly responsible for the failure of it.
Post a Comment