Inside Job

Charles Ferguson also directed the very good "No End In Sight" about the failures of the Bush administration with regard to Iraq and on how poorly thought-through their ideas were on that topic. His focus in this movie is also on the failure of power to prepare for what many could see was a nightmare in the making. Ferguson in this film traces the failure, and in many cases, the unwillingness of government, academic, and financial elites to make policy which ensures financial health for all. Ferguson made a lot of money as an Internet entrepreneur and can now make the film the way he wants, and it's caught on by word of mouth, by virtue of a little man named Oscar, and probably by the zeitgeist.

Ferguson tracks some of the key decisions which greased the rails for the meltdown-from the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which destroyed the division between investment and savings banks, to the destruction of the reputation of Brooksley Born who had desired to put derivatives under the regulation of the CFTC of which she was the head, to the laissez-faire attitude of Alan Greenspan during his tenure as Fed chief. He interviews academics whose imprimatur and intellectual reputation were made available at a price. Ferguson also notes the popularity of cocaine and prostitutes on Wall Street at the time of this boom.

Ferguson interviews some of the key movers and shakers. If they're unwilling to be interviewed for the film, a message saying that that person declined to be interviewed appears on the screen. This is nearly more damning than if they do participate as it suggests they have something to hide. Ferguson doesn't suffer fools lightly and if he feels that an interviewee is not being straight with him, he is not shy about noting this. This is to our benefit as viewers and ensures that we see who is responsible for what. The movie is paced well, Ferguson is an intelligent, detail-oriented director and Matt Damon narrates the film quite ably.

If you don't know what derivatives are, this is a good film to fill you in, in a substantive and adequate way, on all the key points you need to know in order to understand the crisis. If you have followed the economics news closely, this is an excellent summary of the crisis. This really should be required viewing for all in the US.

Inside Job is an enthralling documentary about how the reckless actions of Wall Street lead to the near collapse of the financial sector and subsequently the deepest recession since the 1930s. This is the second film by director Charles Ferguson, the first being No End in Sight an equally engaging indictment of the Bush Administration's handling of the occupation of Iraq.

Ferguson focuses on the Wall Street culture and the blatant arrogance of a half dozen men as the main causes of the financial turmoil. Inside Job begins in Iceland where the deregulation of the financial system in the 1990s lead to three banks accumulating assets almost ten times the small country's gross domestic product.

It becomes clear by the midpoint of the film that Iceland is a micro example of what has become a global problem. Runaway banks have been accumulating assets through toxic loans and other manoeuvres while paying themselves lavish bonuses.

Inside Job is easily one of the most frustrating documentaries ever made. And that is undoubtedly Ferguson's intention. The film is critical of Wall Street executives, credit agencies and especially regulatory agencies for the crisis.

Inside Job includes interviews from IMF head Dominique Strauss-Khan, congressmen Barney Frank, former New York attorney general Eliot Spitzer and many others. Ferguson traces the evolution of the banks from a small, largely local service to an out of control industry. He does not hold back criticizing every administration since Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.

Ferguson argues that despite what most people think, there were many people warning of an impending crisis in global financial markets. Ben Bernanke, Alan Greenspan and Timothy Geithner ignored various signs of impending doom. Not to mention former treasury secretary and incidentally former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson.

Inside Job makes the argument that the federal regulators are as responsible for the breakdown of the system as are the executives of Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns. More frustrating still is the revolving door between Wall Street and government agencies.

As the banks became more deregulated, the more speculation became a problem. Derivatives, and credit default swaps, complicated trading schemes that most people do not understand is what caused the collapse of Lehman Brothers sending shockwaves through financial centres all over the world.

Credit agencies like Moody's and Standard and Poor gave firms like Bear Stearns, Lehman brothers, and Morgan Stanley A grade credit ratings within weeks before they nearly collapsed. And also having one of their executives standing up in front of a congressional committee and telling congressmen that their ratings are just merely 'opinion'.

It becomes clear that this is not a problem that emerged from the housing boom early in president George W. Bush's second term. Rather this was a systematic breakdown driven by a neoliberal ideology supported by Ivey league economic schools across the United States.

Inside Job is simply a story of bankers more interested in collecting bonuses and making more money than providing what should be an essential service. What makes it even more frustrating is that many of the key figures behind the crisis are currently on Barak Obama's staff. The film leaves us with a bitter pill to swallow.

As Ferguson notes, Wall Street has returned to normal with no federal prosecutions against any of the guilty. And one of the most poignant scenes in the film comes from Robert Gnaizda, the former head of the Greenlining Institute, a consumer lobbyist group who laughingly dismisses recent legislation to regulate banks with a simple 'Hah'.

Inside Job helps explain many of the complex terms such as derivatives and insurance backed securities that confuse those not immersed in the banking community. It is essential viewing for any citizen concerned about our broken system.

It was the last thing I wanted to see as the holiday Season sets off: A documentary explaining the World wide economic depression. But it was probably something I should have put before, say, "Burlesque." This is a serious film that has no particular political axe to grind in terms of "Republican" vs. "Democrat" since each successive administration beginning with Ronald Reagan is thrashed for bowing down to Wall Street rather than protecting American citizens from the most immoral graft and greed, that I can remember in my 60 years as a U.S. Citizen. While it's true that "deregulation" is the hue and cry of one particular political party, what occurs with investment and banking firms is so entwined with our national representatives, that it does no good whatsoever to point fingers at one party.

The film opens with the simplest explanation of the impact of investment banking firms in the tiny country of Iceland. When investors move in and create a financial "bubble" for the sole purpose of letting it burst while taking off with enormous profits for themselves, the opening credits then start and introduce us to the players who would come to power with Reagan (Volker and Greenspan) and remove restrictions that had been put in place—we should all remember for good reason; regulations were set up because people had abused an open market—we see the rise and fall of the U.S. economy which became based on nothing but investment since all our "production" had been poorly managed and sent abroad, i.e. steel, automobiles, etc. What was left was goods and services and a tiny, though prosperous, "information technology." When Reagan gutted regulation and regulatory agencies, a system of credit developed where finance agencies sold risky loans to entities, and at the same time "bet" on those loans to fail, setting up a situation that the more risky the loan, the bigger the profit for lender. Various "talking heads" and bar graphs come across the screen, and they're all helpful in explaining what happened. But it's the deeply amoral points of view that get stated by people who were or are still in control of the financial banks and markets of this country that really appall.

And we're left with a sense of outrage and not more than a little sense of futility because there's nowhere to go for either compensation or redress. At the end of the film "Fair Game" about another kind of government takeover, we're given a civic's speech about how the country belongs to the people and it's up to us to make it work. Here, in "Inside Job" there's nothing anyone can do. We elected a president who was sent to prevent the problem from happening again, but instead he appoints many of the same people who set up the situation and profited from the first round.

I didn't find the small section of the film describing the "type A" personality of the players involved who use prostitutes and drugs to be either relevant or convincing. We see a former call girl allude to many in the financial world, but so what? There's a small dig at Elliot Spitzer, but he offers it himself. As well, we're given a psychiatrist who "can't reveal names" but can say for certain many in the financial industry are addicted to drugs and prostitutes, but so are many outside that world. It came across as a cheap shot in a film that brings forward many significant players (and names many who refused to appear in the film) and exposes them for what they are. They need no further tarnishing.

I did see one area that could be addressed as a beginning of reform. Various economic professors who are brought from institutions of higher learning to "advise" the government and then return to their teaching jobs aren't—for baffling reasons—prohibited from making profit off the policies they recommend. That needs to be stopped. In most disciplines, university professors can't use their research and publications for personal gain. Those in the field of economics need the same kinds of restrictions. And students should demand it.

We should all demand a lot more than we're getting from our government, but I guess we hope we're going to be one of the few to reap those enormous profits (which is a real sucker's bet). It's baffling and infuriating to watch this film and walk out into the light of day where the practices on display are still going on.

About 30 people at the 7PM show in the Music Box theater in Chicago last nite, and I was one of them.

I am always looking for two things on this economic disaster: 1) A better understanding, and 2) a means of explaining it better to others. This film delivers in both counts.

For me the key sequence came when the graphics, under solid narration, illustrated how 3rd tier investors were placing bets on bets. I.e., that's what derivatives are. I always knew this was happening, but the film made it very clear. That was the break point (in my analysis of the problem).

The film was nearly void of political leanings, which made it an important contribution. The only part that bothered me is that Congressman Barney Frank was framed as an expert looking back with wisdom on the ill-conceived passage of the "Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000", and, behold! Barney Frank *voted* for it. It would be better to interview all 4 Congressmen who voted against it: Ron Paul, Nick Smith, Gene Taylor and Peter DeFazio. [2 from each Party! How's that for Bipartism opposition? It took me 10 minutes to confirm these names, and I'm not even making a movie.]

It is significant that a continuum of hoodlums are seen on the podium with a continuum of Prsidents: Regan through Obama. The infestation of their ilk into the Political World is there for all to see.

Please see this film any way you can, and lock it in!

Charles Ferguson's "Inside Job" is strong, fair, and rational. The director tries mightily to untangle the complex architecture of the financial meltdown that has cost millions their jobs, their homes, and their savings. If you consider skipping it because it sounds boring, please think again. My blood is still boiling.

Why does this documentary leave us sunk in despair? Because it confirms the certainty that there is no one left we can trust. The fact that much of what brought the economy to its knees was legal, not criminal, signals a financial sector run by ethical nihilists who will pursue every legal loophole to enrich themselves. Human nature, you say? Then bring back the stringent regulation that gave the industry forty years of reasonable corporate success before Reagan era deregulation. The schoolyard bullies need supervision.

America's bubble of private gain and public loss was pierced by the collapse of Lehman Bros. and AIG. Banks merged into "too big to fail" behemoths; safeguards were overturned; regulation of derivatives was banned; This vacuum quickly filled with money laundering, defrauding of customers, cooking the books, and stuffing of the pockets of top officers with money. Larry Summers took 20 million as adviser to a hedge fund. Lehman's CEO took 485 million, the CEO of the failing AIG 315 million. Fired by Merrill, CEO Stan O'Neal departed with a severance bonus of 161 million.

When Mortgages were bundled and sold to the bloated investment banks, lenders no longer cared if they were repaid. Goldman, Lehman, and Merrill were all players. Summers, Bernanke, and Geithner all stood against corrective measures and would play pivotal roles in the Obama administration.

Absent limits on the impulsive risk takers, Wall Street plunged into personal pleasure. There was never enough: penthouses on Park, private jets (six for Lehman alone), vacation homes, art collections, drivers, private elevators, drugs, alcohol, strip bars, and prostitution - one private supplier within spitting distance of the stock exchange counted 10,000 men among her customers..

Three ratings agencies made fortunes bestowing unwarranted ratings right up to two days before Lehman failed, later testifying before congress that these were merely "opinions", not guides for investors. The crowning disgrace is the corruption of the universities. Business school professors consult with companies. Glenn Hubbard, dean of Columbia Business School, takes $250,000 as a board member of Met Life. Larry Summers, back at Harvard, continues to rake in consulting and lecture fees.

The presidents of Harvard and Columbia refused comment. You will appreciate the honesty of Raghuram Rajan who wrote strong warnings and French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde, who spoke with disgust of the debacle.

It used to be that respected academics could be counted on to be the conscience of democracy. Now they are reduced to being interchangeable components in the conflict of interest chain that links business/government/university. Credit Charles Ferguson with a superb investigation and give thanks that we still have a free investigative press to wake the sleeping citizenry.