Boom Bust Boom

It was an enjoyable hour but by no means was it groundbreaking. For someone who is not intimately acquainted with economics Boom Bust Boom could be an enjoyable lighthearted crash course in the 2008 recession and a few other basic economic theories/concepts. For economists and anyone studying economics, such as myself, the film is lacking any kind of in depth discussion of the finer details relating to the 2008 recession and does not really tell you anything that you do not already know about the recession and the field of economics. It relies almost entirely on quotes and discussion by some notable, and some not notable, economists and academics. I can only recall a few actual data points being used, such as the size of the government bailouts paid to failing banks. So, Boom Bust Boom should not be taken as a serious economic analysis, it gives you the quick and dirty outline of the 2008 recession and the crisis tendency of capitalism but does not go much further.

Greetings again from the darkness. On the heels of Adam McKay's scathing and entertaining explanation of the 2008 financial collapse comes Terry Jones (of Monty Python fame) with a more global perspective of the same era. McKay's Oscar nominated The Big Short was designed to let us know who did what and why, while Jones' version applies a British spin and his wildly creative approach in breaking down the long-standing economic models that wreak havoc with our money.

Jones has joined forces with Economics Professor Theo Kocken to school us on the "leftover" strategies and economic models used by Politicians and Bankers … models that assume the market (investors and institutions) will act rationally. Our education comes courtesy of a multi-media show featuring animation, puppets, music and expert interviews (economists, authors, academic leaders, and at least 3 Nobel Prize winners).

According to the movie (and it's difficult to argue otherwise), human nature is the Achilles heel of Capitalism. In fact, they use the term euphoria to describe the phenomenon that occurs as "stable" economic times lead to more risk and more debt. Debt clearly is the most profound 4-letter word in economics.

A film within the film … "Terry Jones' Short History of Financial Crisis" takes us back to the 1500's and through modern times, as the same mistakes recur. One of the more effective sequences shows State of the Union addresses from President Calvin Coolidge (1928) and President George W Bush (2006). Both speeches proclaim solid economies only 1-2 years prior to the two biggest collapses in U.S. history … just two extreme examples that the experts have no idea where the economy is headed as long as they continue to utilize the models that have proved to be ineffective.

It's fascinating to get specifics on Hyman Minsky's "Financial Instability Hypothesis", as well as an explanation of the Neoclassical Economic Model (better known as the Free Market). Insight is provided by University of Texas Professor James Galbraith, son of famed economist John K Galbraith, and it's quite enlightening to hear Allan Greenspan (a long time believer in the Free Market system) admit to being wrong about expecting rational behavior from those in the market.

The movie will forever act as a reminder for us to pinch ourselves should we think "this time is different". In fact there is a movement by Economics students to change the way Economics degrees and PhD programs are structured – more emphasis on learning from history, and re-thinking and re-designing economic models. The applicable websites are: http://www.rethinkeconomics.org/ http://www.ecnmy.org/

The movie is perfect at its intended purpose. I'm not doing this as an economist but considering that economists have watched ships fall off the edge of the earth I'm not sure that would be helpful. Towards the ending I find the best tool by finding a very useful group or think tank to follow. In fact I will follow many people in this movie. I found it obvious the 2008 crash was going to happen. I tried to convince my spouse to sell our house but he didn't understand what we would do. I said we're gonna buy the house back or another one in a few months because obviously the markets about to crash. Humans act like humans. Silly economics where you listen to experts talk about jibber and jabber while they make money no matter what happens is ridiculous economics. Economics and all that stuff is generally just the science of how to rip people off who can be taken advantage of. It's no different than any other scam system. People in the government, people outside the government, people in banks, people who are smart realize that there's a big pyramid scheme going on and they just play along and get out on time if they can. If I could've seen it anybody could've seen it. I think it's funny that some people put that their review contain spoilers. All the spoilers are in the news and on the Internet. This is a movie about what happens in the economy and what happened in the economy and what will happen again in the economy.

OK, so maybe you have to be an economist (like me) or a financial analyst to enjoy this 70 minute trip through the periodic financial crises (like the one in 2008) that seem to plague capitalism, but I believe any educated person interested in the causes and after-effects of the 2008 crisis can enjoy this film. It's an interesting combination of animation, puppetry, and original songs that's melded with serious commentary by a number of well-known and influential economists including three Nobel Prize winners. We learn about the various "asset price bubbles" that preceded the unsustainable run-up in home prices prior to the financial crisis and stock market crash of 2008, like the tulip bubble in 17th century Holland, the South Seas bubble in 18th century Britain, and of course the Wall Street crash of 1929. Terry Jones, one of the filmmakers, proves once again that the Monty Python comedy troupe harbored some of the most intelligent, if zany, comedians you'll find anywhere.

The larger issue in this unusual and amusing documentary is the inability of the prevailing mainstream paradigm in economics (the "neo-classical synthesis" for you aficionados) to reflect the mass psychology of financial markets and institutions and their periodic proclivity to either "irrational exuberance" or morbid fear. In addition, the regulatory authorities periodically accommodate market excesses by deregulation and then become more restrictive when the financial excesses have already wrecked the real economy as shown in this film. I am largely sympathetic with this point of view and have long felt that economics suffers from "physics envy" with its elaborate mathematical models (made possible by the assumption that economic agents are optimizing and calculating machines) and its emphasis on market equilibriums. Some of the speakers in this film suggest that economics would be more realistic if it became more of a narrative and descriptive discipline similar to the other social sciences and made less heroic assumptions about the rationality of its agents. Of course, that would be at the expense of the "rigor" of the discipline. Unfortunately, there were no counter-arguments presented by the filmmakers, and at the end we have one economist say: "we have to re-design a new economy." When I hear that, I'm left with the thought that just maybe the periodic excesses in financial markets are the necessary price we must pay for the dynamism of a market economy.

Okay, so we know why the 2008 financial crisis occurred. Basically western economies grew at 3% but investments grew at 6%, creating a bubble. As the bubble hit its natural peak, financial institutions and government institutions basically kept the process going, as they always do.

But this documentary says the economists don't understand this. They also say that they don't predict bubbles, despite the fact that economists know exactly how to predict bubbles.

The take one out of date and somewhat discredited economist from the 1950s, Minsky, who argues for regulation over free market principles, despite the fact that we know that regulated economies are far less stable than free market economies.

They even say that economics at university doesn't teach you how to manage the economy. Which is true, as most economics graduates just do basic financial calculations in businesses. You know, working out how much it is feasible to borrow for a business, how to manage business risk and so on, and not on how to manage a countries economy.

Basically they set up a strawman who doesn't get a right of reply to their BS. Their whole argument is that the current financial system is not perfect, therefore we need a new one. They talk vaguely about Minsky and regulation, but don't propose an alternative solution.

Basically pathetic, and a waste your time. The first paragraph of this review contains more information about the 2008 financial crisis than the entire hour and 10 minutes of this rubbish.