Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Watching "Inside Job." So. Horrified.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Is this a balanced description of what happened? |
Anonymous
| reference? If it's the Wall Street story thingy on HBO? That just seemed like they were taking creative license too far. |
Anonymous
|
Here's the IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1645089/
|
Anonymous
We just watched it last week as well. I'm not sure what kind of creative license the PP talks about because it is scrupulously accurate. DH rented it and I didn't even want to watch it because I thought that at this point I knew all there was to know about the crisis, but the one thing I didn't know was the extent of drug abuse and prostitution billed to clients on Wall Street (which, in the grand scheme of things, is really a drop in the bucket :evil .
It's a splendid description of our bought and paid for government at work doing the bankers' bidding, while we bleat at the polls... And nothing has changed since. |
Anonymous
| Actually, for a really delightful time, make it a documentary evening and watch that first and "Gasland" next. And then go vomit. |
Anonymous
| leftist propaganda. the problem wasnt the deregulation, it was too much govt involvement in the housing and financial markets. |
Anonymous
| It felt very propaganda-ish to me and I'm a dyed in the wool democrat. It just really felt over the top. I hate non-journalistic, fictionalized pablum of any kind. |
Anonymous
Bullshit. Glass-Steagall had worked great for 70 years, and they repealed it just in time for the I-banks to take down the commercial banks with them. Brooksley Borne was literally handcuffed in her job at the CFTC by Summers and his Wall Street patrons. And so on. The movie didn't make any of this up. It was all well documented long before anybody thought to make a movie about it. |
Anonymous
Truth is often stranger than fiction. You obviously don't understand anything about the financial markets. Some of us remember Glass-Steagall being repealed and thinking..."why the hell?..." We remember the dire warnings in the press about the subprime mortgages resetting--the only thing that wasn't readily apparent was that these crap mortgages were being stuffed in such massive quantities in MBS securities rated AAA that the lower tranches' exposures would devastate the supposedly higher tranches' as well. It wasn't readily apparent to most outsiders that banks were buying and selling CDSs (multiple insurance policies) on the same MBS in what amounts to a massive Ponzi scheme, because none of the OTC contracts were regulated or had to provide any sort of disclosure (thanks to Summers and friends, and Greenspan, that unquestioning disciple of Ayn Rand who still believes that the market can regulate itself--really?). I suppose all those people slowly dying in the Superdome during Katrina were also a piece of Hollywood propaganda? They put the poor blacks there to make a point? And, oh yes, there definitely are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And the earthquake in Japan--that's a rehearsal for Superman 4. |
Anonymous
Nope, it was definitely the deregulation. Greenspan admitted it and he was right there, and he was the #1 advocate of market self-regulation. When a guy like that calls it, you can't say it's leftist propaganda. |
Anonymous
This is the OP. No need to get saucy, pp. My reaction was similar to the other poster's. It seemed unreal. Too bad to possibly be true. And, no, I don't know a lot about the financial markets. Still learning. But I've seen enough Michael Moore to be suspicious of that kind of film as a general rule. From what you're telling us though, this was the real deal. Since the people on this post who are saying it was real are using evidence and the people who aren't are simply name calling (wtf does "too much government" mean? that's right-wing propaganda), I'm inclined to believe you. Utterly stunning. I've always known that the people who control the capital control the country, but I've never been afraid of people making money - even serious money - if they come by it honestly. How is it that none of these people went to jail? And why are we not turning massively inward and asking what about our culture would both create and tolerate this? |
Anonymous
| capitalism in it's pure form is very self-regulating. of course, then irresponsible people can't get loans. the govt steps in and takes away the risk of lending to morons while threatening responsible lenders for not lending to enough morons. when the banks find out they can make money lending to morons while the govt absorbs the risk, they love it. govt pretends that regulation can monitor millions of decisions based on faulty and illusionary risk assessments. if they just let people operate on the fear of losing money, the whole thing wouldn't have happened. govt involvement just becomes so conviluted and inefficient. the genious of the country is little government. the smaller the governmenr, the more we will kick ass economically. socialist/centralized countries really fear unbridled capitalist countries...they get trounced, economically. |
TheManWithAUsername
Member Offline
Member Offline
You read the above and you know that it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. I think about 30% of this country would (maybe will) be on the street, sleeping in boxes, selling their distended-bellied children into prostitution, and still nodding along with billionaires telling them how the government is too involved in their lives. |
Anonymous
You don't understand the mortgage market. The proof is all of the loans not backed by Freddie and Fannie. Wall Street created private competition to Freddie and Fannie. Private. Competition. And they created the riskiest classes of loans, funded without Freddie and Fannie. If the market was self-regulating, this would have never occurred. |
Anonymous
Good gravy. Such a tired refrain - all regulation is evil, it's the government's fault for forcing all of those loans to poor people, blah, blah, blah. Even if that's all true - and it's a horribly simplistic account of federal housing policy - it's not sufficient to bring down the financial system. It's not even close. But when you package those mortgages to create billion-dollar securities and CDOs, fraudulently get them rated AAA, sell insurance on them, and allow them to permeate the financial marketplace, you exponentially increase the consequences of widespread default and bring the whole damn system down. Even a modicum of oversight could have stopped the maddness - but there was none, and here we are. By the way, how'd the marketplace do controlling that risk? As it turns out, all they cared about is the huge profits they made - they didn't do anything to limit their risks, or the risks they imposed on the rest of us. Huh. Self-regulating, my ass. But I guess that doesn't conform to the talking points, does it? Go acquaint yourself with the concept of intervening cause, or superseding cause, and get back to us. |