Inside Job

"If a bank forecloses on you, don't move and demand they produce a copy of your mortgage. In many cases, they can't." Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio)

In the course of the angry and benignly biased documentary, Inside Job, Marcy Kaptur predicts what is happening right now: Banks are being forced to halt foreclosures because of faulty paperwork. But such mistakes are only a symptom Charles Ferguson reveals of the 2008 world-wide financial crisis, which involves high-ranking government officials like Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner increasing their power while the policies they make cause certain harm to the people like us who have trusted them.

Like Fergusin's No End in Sight about the Iraq War, but more interesting and dramatic, Inside Job lays out logically the participation also of George Bush and Barack Obama in the global meltdown. Dispiriting are the derivative dispersal and shameful sub-prime lending that directly led to the breakdown of middle-class wealth while the purveyors of this massacre walked away with billions and no indictments. The Ponzi schemes of Kenneth Lay, Bernie Madoff, and their ilk are but small components of the charade that drew millions of hard-working, well-meaning citizens into debt and financial ruin as the value of their most cherished retirement vehicle, home value, dissipated right in front of their eyes.

Ferguson's documentary style is to remain behind the camera while letting the notables indict themselves. Unlike Michael Moore, he cares not to intrude or make a character of himself, something like Citizen Kane's reporter Thompson. Except when in a moment of profound pique he challenges the disaffection of Frederic Mishkin, a former member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors: "I'm sorry, I'm sure that your textbook is important and widely read, but didn't you think that more important things were going on in the world?"

Unlike the recent screed of Davis Guggenheim against organized education in Waiting for Superman, in which teachers' unions could do no right and charter schools no wrong, Ferguson seems more honest in presenting only the facts. As I demanded of him to present the other side of the financial crisis, I couldn't think of what he could say to counter the welter of facts indicting those in front of his camera.

One of the most telling moments is that of Bush's Chief Economic Adviser, Glenn Hubbard: "You have three more minutes. Give it your best shot!" That arrogance informs the documentary and our grim lives for the foreseeable future.

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.

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.

Inside Job belongs to a genre of new documentaries, like The Cove, Dear Zachary and Bowling For Columbine, that are not only made to document the background of a phenomenon but also to encourage people to do something about it. Dividing itself into five sections of a 'report', the film looks at the background and effect of the recession and its effect on politics, the world, society, the economy, public welfare, education, the present and the near and distant future.

Inside Job is undeniably motivational and does well to extract the hypocrisies and selfishness of the main perpetrators and other persons linked with the crisis. Indside Job depicts the global financial from only one perspective and does not give due weighting to the alternate point of view. Of course, it does not help that the main protagonists involved in the entire affair are obviously missing from this documentary, a fact that is rubbed on to the audience time and again.

On the flip side, economics, being a head scratcher for several budding commerce students by nature, the spoken narrative of figures and key personnel could perhaps have been better explained with a clearer use of graphics. However since the film makers are not lecturers it would be too much to expect them to be aware of the concepts of pedagogy.

Well crafted and edited, Inside Job is a good introduction to the cause and effect of the financial crisis, it falls just short of being the definitive version. It is a good watch nevertheless and provides sufficient food for thought and plenty of opportunity for future cocktail party discussion.

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!