PDA

View Full Version : Inside Job


BlueStreak
03-26-2011, 10:41 PM
Just watched this movie. Wow! Everyone should check it out. I'd like to see your thoughts on it.

Dave

bhunter
03-27-2011, 11:22 AM
Just watched this movie. Wow! Everyone should check it out. I'd like to see your thoughts on it.

Dave

Simplified Hollywood explanation for complicated economic interactions. Ferguson never met a regulation he didn't like. Come on, a movie that has Barney Frank, George Soros, and Matt Damon explaining the 2008 crash is like the Westboro Baptist Church explaining what is wrong with America. Asserting imagined evils don't make them true. The bad part is that for a lot of people; the Hollywood explanation is their only explanation. Entertaining? Perhaps, but certainly clouded by the blatant political bias of its left wing perspective.

CarlV
03-27-2011, 11:51 AM
I give everything a shot and make up my own mind thanks. I even watched every speech 43 made. :eek:
IMO, you have 1929, you learn from your mistakes and install checks and balances (regulation), remove said checks and balances (regulation) that prevents re-occurrence, and you have 2008.
I bookmarked the movie on Amazon so I won't forget it. I haven't rented a movie in at least 20 years. Seriously lol.



Carl

BlueStreak
03-27-2011, 11:59 AM
Then what did happen? Huh?

I tend to think that when people say, "Oh, it's so complicated, you wouldn't understand.", they're blowing smoke. The movie made sense and spared no one. Left or right. They hit the Clinton Administration pretty hard. They made mention of the fact that "the regulators" were/are horribly corrupt. They mentioned that the current administration has changed darn little, if anything at all. The basic premise was that the problem was lack of effective regulation, yes. Because that's the truth. The key word being "effective".

I can't believe that after all that has happened, people still don't see that when you either have no rules, or have rules that are not enforced---Some people WILL lie, cheat and steal. What? Hundreds of billions of dollars at play doesn't amount to potential motive? Spare me.

"Imagined evils"? Really? We just "imagine" that these people are insatiably greedy?
Please, again, spare me.

My position, broken down to it's simplest form;

I don't want a government that doesn't regulate. I want a government that regulates firmly, but responsibly. And, I don't get that from either party. I have one party that just piles one ineffective regulation on top of the last, and another party that seems to think the thieves are the good guys, that if we suck up to them they'll create jobs with the money they stole. They are both clueless.

Dave

merrylander
03-27-2011, 12:14 PM
They are both clueless.

Dave

True dat.:rolleyes:

JonL
03-27-2011, 01:34 PM
Asserting imagined evils don't make them true.

I just wish people on both sides of an argument would stop doing that. I'm tired of defending against strawman arguments and responding to posts that use inflammatory and derogatory names as shorthand for imagined evils in an attempt to distract from a substantive discussion.



I can't believe that after all that has happened, people still don't see that when you either have no rules, or have rules that are not enforced---Some people WILL lie, cheat and steal. What? Hundreds of billions of dollars at play doesn't amount to potential motive? Spare me.

"Imagined evils"? Really? We just "imagine" that these people are insatiably greedy?
Please, again, spare me.

My position, broken down to it's simplest form;

I don't want a government that doesn't regulate. I want a government that regulates firmly, but responsibly. And, I don't get that from either party. I have one party that just piles one ineffective regulation on top of the last, and another party that seems to think the thieves are the good guys, that if we suck up to them they'll create jobs with the money they stole. They are both clueless.

Dave

I agree wholeheartedly. I'm really astonished that the tea party movement, which seems to have started or at least gained traction since the financial meltdown and subsequent gov't bailouts, is manipulated by corporate interests to such an extent that these tea partiers want less government oversight of the people who caused the mess in the first place. Sure, the bailout was highly unpleasant and probably handled poorly. And sure, the government is at fault for not having effective regulation... BUT the major reason the regulations have been ineffective is that the govt is in the pockets of the industries it's supposed to regulate... just like the tea party is now. Instead of the tea party being a force for positive change in gov't, they're just a force to accelerate the rush towards corporate control of government which, by the way, is pretty close to the definition of facism.

noonereal
03-27-2011, 01:48 PM
Just watched this movie. Wow! Everyone should check it out. I'd like to see your thoughts on it.

Dave

I don't watch movies.

Give me a dry documentry and I am happy however.:)

BlueStreak
03-27-2011, 02:32 PM
I just wish people on both sides of an argument would stop doing that. I'm tired of defending against strawman arguments and responding to posts that use inflammatory and derogatory names as shorthand for imagined evils in an attempt to distract from a substantive discussion.



I agree wholeheartedly. I'm really astonished that the tea party movement, which seems to have started or at least gained traction since the financial meltdown and subsequent gov't bailouts, is manipulated by corporate interests to such an extent that these tea partiers want less government oversight of the people who caused the mess in the first place. Sure, the bailout was highly unpleasant and probably handled poorly. And sure, the government is at fault for not having effective regulation... BUT the major reason the regulations have been ineffective is that the govt is in the pockets of the industries it's supposed to regulate... just like the tea party is now. Instead of the tea party being a force for positive change in gov't, they're just a force to accelerate the rush towards corporate control of government which, by the way, is pretty close to the definition of facism.

Absolutely! And that's what makes the whole thing such a massive farce.

The government regulators have been corrupted by corporate lobbyists whose corrupt bosses tanked the economy. So, obviously the answer is to just get the regulators out of the way entirely, rather than make the system tighter and more efficient? Because the guys who made this mess have some (perceived) constitutional right to do things as they darn well see fit? :confused:

So, a thief robs your house, burns it down and kills your dog while you were on vacation because your security system didn't work. The only logical conclusion is that ALL security systems are bogus? And the answer is to remove the system, take all of the locks out of the house and leave the doors standing open, because the perpetrator says he hates pesky locks and alarms and that it's impossible for him to hire more thugs if he can't make money robbing people? The mentality is incredible. It truly is.:p

Dave

BlueStreak
03-27-2011, 02:53 PM
I don't watch movies.

Give me a dry documentry and I am happy however.:)

It is a documentary, Noone.

Dave

merrylander
03-27-2011, 02:56 PM
Absolutely! And that's what makes the whole thing such a massive farce.

The government regulators have been corrupted by corporate lobbyists whose corrupt bosses tanked the economy. So, obviously the answer is to just get the regulators out of the way entirely, rather than make the system tighter and more efficient? Because the guys who made this mess have some (perceived) constitutional right to do things as they darn well see fit? :confused:

So, a thief robs your house, burns it down and kills your dog while you were on vacation because your security system didn't work. The only logical conclusion is that ALL security systems are bogus? And the answer is to remove the system, take all of the locks out of the house and leave the doors standing open, because the perpetrator says he hates pesky locks and alarms and that it's impossible for him to hire more thugs if he can't make money robbing people? The mentality is incredible. It truly is.:p

Dave

Like the same mentality that blames Freddie and Fannie because they encouraged banks to loan to people. That is like the the mentality that says people rob banks because that is where the money is.

Wells Fargo; Really your honour it was not our fault we broke the law, they encouraged us to do it." Sweet Lord Jesus.

finnbow
03-27-2011, 03:26 PM
Matt Taibbi wrote an interesting, yet infuriating article about the revolving door between Wall St. and the regulators.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216

BlueStreak
03-27-2011, 03:39 PM
So, I'm not the only one who's noticed this;

If a poor man steals from another poor man, he goes to jail.
If a poor man steals from a rich man, he goes to jail.
If a rich man steals from another rich man, he might go to jail.
If a rich man steals from the poor,-----Nothing happens.

Dave

noonereal
03-27-2011, 03:58 PM
So, I'm not the only one who's noticed this;

If a poor man steals from another poor man, he goes to jail.
If a poor man steals from a rich man, he goes to jail.
If a rich man steals from another rich man, he might go to jail.
If a rich man steals from the poor,-----Nothing happens.

Dave

i did notice that

bhunter
03-27-2011, 06:53 PM
Then what did happen? Huh?

I tend to think that when people say, "Oh, it's so complicated, you wouldn't understand.", they're blowing smoke. The movie made sense and spared no one. Left or right. They hit the Clinton Administration pretty hard. They made mention of the fact that "the regulators" were/are horribly corrupt. They mentioned that the current administration has changed darn little, if anything at all. The basic premise was that the problem was lack of effective regulation, yes. Because that's the truth. The key word being "effective".


I'm not saying it can't be understood, but I'm saying that you can't do it in movie. A movie that if you agree with the conclusion you'll like it and if you do not agree you will not like it. I'll watch it again when it comes on satellite.



I can't believe that after all that has happened, people still don't see that when you either have no rules, or have rules that are not enforced---Some people WILL lie, cheat and steal. What? Hundreds of billions of dollars at play doesn't amount to potential motive? Spare me.


Who's fault was it that regulators failed?


"Imagined evils"? Really? We just "imagine" that these people are insatiably greedy?
Please, again, spare me.


No, we know people are greedy; however, that also includes the regulators and those that created the rules. Rational actors will always attempt to maximize their interests.


I don't want a government that doesn't regulate. I want a government that regulates firmly, but responsibly. And, I don't get that from either party. I have one party that just piles one ineffective regulation on top of the last, and another party that seems to think the thieves are the good guys, that if we suck up to them they'll create jobs with the money they stole. They are both clueless.


Agreed, they both suck. I'm currently reading a couple of Paul Krugman's books. I dislike his op-ed column, but find his books more palatable. Any Krugman fans?

bhunter
03-27-2011, 07:04 PM
Like the same mentality that blames Freddie and Fannie because they encouraged banks to loan to people. That is like the the mentality that says people rob banks because that is where the money is.


There was political pressure to loan to those that weren't qualified. That ought not be Freddie, Fannie, and Barney's job. The whole damn house of cards fell and everyone's pointing fingers at corporations that took advantage of public guarantees. If those guarantees weren't there then, perhaps, they'd think twice before making risky investments.

BlueStreak
03-27-2011, 08:51 PM
Who's fault was it that regulators failed?


Primarily their own, but also those that bribed them.

To my mind, saying they only did it "because they could" excuses nothing.

If you had an employee that was caught stealing from customers, would you retain him because the customers left their valuables unguarded and you don't recall telling him that stealing was against policy?

Of course not.

But, that's what we are doing that for these people. Why?
Wrong is wrong. Why are there no heads rolling? None?

As a matter of fact, we now have politicians telling us that
further deregulation is the answer. Forget cleaning house of corruption
and enforcing existing regulations, these loonies think less oversight
is the answer...........................

Had a recent crime spree in your neighborhood?
What you need is less police! Obviously they aren't earning their keep, so who needs them. Right?

I find this line of thought alarming. Don't you?

Dave

noonereal
03-28-2011, 06:29 AM
There was political pressure to loan to those that weren't qualified. That ought not be Freddie, Fannie, and Barney's job. The whole damn house of cards fell and everyone's pointing fingers at corporations that took advantage of public guarantees. If those guarantees weren't there then, perhaps, they'd think twice before making risky investments.

point fingers at folks who took a government initiative and bastardized it into a get rich scheme rather than a business opportunity

hardly as you describe

pressure to loan???? is that a joke?

we pressured the banks into loaning again with our money and they choose to reward their stock holders with it

saying the government pressured industry is naive as hell and only serves to advance a false agenda

merrylander
03-28-2011, 06:54 AM
There was political pressure to loan to those that weren't qualified. That ought not be Freddie, Fannie, and Barney's job. The whole damn house of cards fell and everyone's pointing fingers at corporations that took advantage of public guarantees. If those guarantees weren't there then, perhaps, they'd think twice before making risky investments.

As near as I recall the pressure was to stop the practice of red lining, not to make unqualified loans. What on earth would be the political point of putting people in houses they could not afford, knowing they would default? Dumbest spin I have ever heard, some folks at GOP HQ must think we are all stupid.

The way the mortgage system is set up there is loads of what free marketers love to call "Moral hazzard". It was designed by thieves for thieves. So the greedy thieves turned up in more than a few big banks and tanked the economy.

I note that even Samuelson has turned up this morning praising TARP and decrying the popular view. What the popular view is is not that TARP did not save the day, but where were all the crooks that belong in jail? Oh they were too busy spending their bonuses.:rolleyes:

On BTW thanks for the selective editing of my post.:p

bhunter
03-28-2011, 06:46 PM
point fingers at folks who took a government initiative and bastardized it into a get rich scheme rather than a business opportunity

hardly as you describe

pressure to loan???? is that a joke?



An expansion of affordable housing was the goal of both parties at different times. Frankly, why is the government even involved in the secondary loan market?

bhunter
03-28-2011, 06:55 PM
As near as I recall the pressure was to stop the practice of red lining, not to make unqualified loans. What on earth would be the political point of putting people in houses they could not afford, knowing they would default? Dumbest spin I have ever heard, some folks at GOP HQ must think we are all stupid.

The way the mortgage system is set up there is loads of what free marketers love to call "Moral hazzard". It was designed by thieves for thieves. So the greedy thieves turned up in more than a few big banks and tanked the economy.


Could the thieves have tanked the economy if the government created hazard didn't exist?


On BTW thanks for the selective editing of my post.:p

Sorry, I removed your example line. Putting people in houses that they can not afford gets you short term political points.

bhunter
03-28-2011, 07:11 PM
Primarily their own, but also those that bribed them.

To my mind, saying they only did it "because they could" excuses nothing.


True, but it does help tease out motivations. If people were bribed, then criminal sanctions ought be taken. How fine is the line between a political donation and a bribe. What happened to the two executives at Fannie that received favorable terms from Countrywide (Raines and Johnson)?


But, that's what we are doing that for these people. Why?
Wrong is wrong. Why are there no heads rolling? None?
As a matter of fact, we now have politicians telling us that
further deregulation is the answer. Forget cleaning house of corruption
and enforcing existing regulations, these loonies think less oversight
is the answer...........................


My position is that neither party really wants to open up the issue of blame. I think it can be argued that Fannie and Freddie ought not exist because of the implied guarantee of the U.S. Government, then again, if things continue the way they are going, that guarantee will not be worth much.

finnbow
03-28-2011, 07:19 PM
Could the thieves have tanked the economy if the government created hazard didn't exist?

Sorry, I removed your example line. Putting people in houses, that they can not afford, gets you short term political points.

Right or wrong, the American people and their government have long promoted the notion that home ownership is the fulfillment of the "American Dream." There is a firm belief that home ownership makes for better citizens and our tax and public policy reflects this.

Personally, I've never been convinced of this. It creates an artificially high demand for real estate as people chase the disproportionate tax benefits that derive from home ownership. This is a primary cause for the boom and bust cycles in American real estate and the securitization of mortgages to provide for increasing levels of capital to finance the upward spiral (until it all came crashing down).

noonereal
03-28-2011, 08:48 PM
An expansion of affordable housing was the goal of both parties at different times. Frankly, why is the government even involved in the secondary loan market?

because business cannot be trusted to keep it's social contract

bhunter
03-29-2011, 12:05 AM
Right or wrong, the American people and their government have long promoted the notion that home ownership is the fulfillment of the "American Dream." There is a firm belief that home ownership makes for better citizens and our tax and public policy reflects this.

Personally, I've never been convinced of this. It creates an artificially high demand for real estate as people chase the disproportionate tax benefits that derive from home ownership. This is a primary cause for the boom and bust cycles in American real estate and the securitization of mortgages to provide for increasing levels of capital to finance the upward spiral (until it all came crashing down).

Nicely stated FInnbow. Stimulated artificial high demand for real estate. Do you have any source for the amount of equity extracted by homeowners, say, from 2003-2007. Watching people purchase homes here in San Diego, I was always wondering how they were going to pay their $4500.00/month mortgage. I think at its height the average real estate was around $500k for a condo and billboards inland would pitch new detached housing saying from the " high $600s." In my isolated world, I thought everyone had a nice large trust fund and moved to San Diego.

bhunter
03-29-2011, 12:31 AM
because business cannot be trusted to keep it's social contract

I'm not sure that Rousseau would think that a business could form a social contract, then again, we do give corporations a sort of personhood. On the other hand, one can take Hume's position and question the validity of a "social contract." Is a contract valid if one is compelled to be part of it under threat of punishment? Interestingly, undergirding social contract theory is the concept of the rational actor. A rational actor that progressives tend to chastise in other contexts.

merrylander
03-29-2011, 07:45 AM
I don't know if it was the Federal Government or Wall Street who designed the current mortgage system but I am inclined to suspect it was Wall Street. Several things make me wonder about it, frex Canada has no Freddie or Fanny, the government does not guarantee loans. There are no mortgage brokers, no title companies, no securitization, no derivatives. Mortgage interest is not dedcutible from income tax but capital gains on your home are not taxed either.

The result - home ownership as a percentage of population is marginally higher in Canada, so what exactly did the 'ownership encouragement' do exactly? Besides make a lot of brokers, title companies and bankers rich.

noonereal
03-29-2011, 08:24 AM
The result - home ownership as a percentage of population is marginally higher in Canada, so what exactly did the 'ownership encouragement' do exactly? Besides make a lot of brokers, title companies and bankers rich.

it hurt untold numbers of good hard working lower class folks

they are the God damned victims

no one ever considers them, no one ever does

the working poor in america are the most victimized group of Americans and all we hear is that if you work hard you can be anything in this country

that is just trash

the truth is the working poor has very very little opportunity and is the most victimized group in the country

JonL
03-29-2011, 12:04 PM
^^^ +1.

bhunter
04-01-2011, 05:11 AM
it hurt untold numbers of good hard working lower class folks

they are the God damned victims

no one ever considers them, no one ever does

the working poor in america are the most victimized group of Americans and all we hear is that if you work hard you can be anything in this country

that is just trash

the truth is the working poor has very very little opportunity and is the most victimized group in the country

Given the plight of most people on this earth "working poor people" in the U.S. aren't going to get a lot of sympathy. I see working poor everyday in San Diego, They are still living comparatively good lives compared to say a hundred years ago. Life expectancy higher, infant mortality lower, working time substantially less, and greater leisure. If opportunity is so unavailable here, then why do our friends from the South continually come across the border?

bhunter
04-01-2011, 05:19 AM
I don't know if it was the Federal Government or Wall Street who designed the current mortgage system but I am inclined to suspect it was Wall Street. Several things make me wonder about it, frex Canada has no Freddie or Fanny, the government does not guarantee loans. There are no mortgage brokers, no title companies, no securitization, no derivatives. Mortgage interest is not dedcutible from income tax but capital gains on your home are not taxed either.

The result - home ownership as a percentage of population is marginally higher in Canada, so what exactly did the 'ownership encouragement' do exactly? Besides make a lot of brokers, title companies and bankers rich.

And make a lot of issues for democrats to complain about and pander for votes while slaying the supposed cold hearted capitalists. I question the validity of the assertion that home ownership makes for a better citizen in today's urban oriented society.

merrylander
04-01-2011, 08:10 AM
And make a lot of issues for democrats to complain about and pander for votes while slaying the supposed cold hearted capitalists. I question the validity of the assertion that home ownership makes for a better citizen in today's urban oriented society.

Never said it did, good citizenship has more to do with inner values. Sort of a value people and use things, not value things and use people attitude.

As to why the illegals come here, probably to escape the narcos, life is pretty cheap down there of late.

As to pandering for votes, the Goopers never do that, now do they.

finnbow
04-01-2011, 08:50 AM
Given the plight of most people on this earth "working poor people" in the U.S. aren't going to get a lot of sympathy. I see working poor everyday in San Diego, They are still living comparatively good lives compared to say a hundred years ago. Life expectancy higher, infant mortality lower, working time substantially less, and greater leisure. If opportunity is so unavailable here, then why do our friends from the South continually come across the border?

I guess it depends on your frame of reference. By several measures, we are considered the richest country in the world. Yet, the amount of poverty and hunger, even among the (under)employed is shameful. If you compare our situation with "our friends from the South," our country, top to bottom, looks pretty good with respect to the distribution of resources among our citizens. Compared to other First World industrialized nations, not so much.

merrylander
04-01-2011, 11:22 AM
I guess it depends on your frame of reference. By several measures, we are considered the richest country in the world. Yet, the amount of poverty and hunger, even among the (under)employed is shameful. If you compare our situation with "our friends from the South," our country, top to bottom, looks pretty good with respect to the distribution of resources among our citizens. Compared to other First World industrialized nations, not so much.

But we are not First World anymore - welcome to Baghdad on the Potomac

(Potomac Pnobscott, Piscataway - how come we got the Indian with the speech impediment?):rolleyes:

BlueStreak
04-01-2011, 11:25 AM
Given the plight of most people on this earth "working poor people" in the U.S. aren't going to get a lot of sympathy. I see working poor everyday in San Diego, They are still living comparatively good lives compared to say a hundred years ago. Life expectancy higher, infant mortality lower, working time substantially less, and greater leisure. If opportunity is so unavailable here, then why do our friends from the South continually come across the border?

Yes, I was at the corner 7-11 buying gas yesterday when I saw the clerk roll up in brand new Bentley decked out in mink and diamonds. She looked a lot different once she changed into her uniform and started selling Blunts and 40s of Colt..........................:confused: If were seeing that, we must whacked out on Oxycontin, because Limbaugh sees the same thing.

Our friends from the South come here to do the work that cheapskate employers don't want to pay real wages for.

Dave

finnbow
04-04-2011, 08:20 PM
I just finished watching "Inside Job." The incestuous relationships between the political class, regulators, investment banks, rating agencies and academia is shameful. There should be dozens of these clowns in prison, stripped of all assets.

Though this film certainly has a point-of-view, it's treatment and coverage of the economic collapse doesn't spare the rod on any of the miscreants involved in this mess. Those who haven't seen it should.

noonereal
04-04-2011, 08:27 PM
I just finished watching "Inside Job." The incestuous relationships between the political class, regulators, investment banks, rating agencies and academia is shameful. There should be dozens of these clowns in prison, stripped of all assets.

.

This is what I have been preaching.