<p>Given the recent Oscar win for documentary "Inside Job" re: the financial crisis, I was curious as to what people's thought are to the way business leaders are portrayed -- and in light of relevance to discussions on CC -- academic "experts" such as the Dean of Columbia B-School (who IMO came across very badly).</p>
<p>For those of you who have seen this, what are your thoughts? To begin, what struck me wasn't the mistakes or willful ignorance or even the flat out greed -- (that is almost to be expected out of Wall Streeters) -- what really struck me was the general lack of accountability or even acknowledgment that something had gone horribly wrong and that this had happened on their watch --> and the surprising continued defiance / hubris by those who were supposed to be in charge.</p>
<p>I’m surprised (well, not really) that none of this was tied back to the actual monetary system and the increasing money supply that indirectly causes such insane leverage to take place to begin with.</p>
<p>I think the most shocking revelation people will take from the documentary is the fact government and big business, before the “financial meltdown”, have and continue to be nearly interwoven.</p>
<p>How anyone can take the actions of Ben Bernanke or Henry Paulson seriously is beyond me. </p>
<p>Also disappointed how the author of The Two Trillion Dollar Meltdown’s views are portrayed. Comes across as wanting more regulations when in reality, if you read his book, he argues for less regulation in the industries and more regulation between the available actions of governments and business. And of course the Federal Reserve.</p>
<p>i think when all is said and done, and there is enough time and space between the events of the last few years (and perhaps more importantly the years leading up to those events), history will look very unkindly indeed upon Alan Greenspan. If there is one single person that can be blamed for the mess we currently find ourselves (which is of course incredibly unfair) I would say his name has to be on the shortlist.</p>
<p>My take on this is the federal government has known how fragile our economy has been for at least 10 years. The economy needed the cash provided from inflated real estate values that resulted in escalating prices of homes sold AND money taken out in form of CASH OUT refinances. If the money pumped into the economy as the result of inflated real estate were removed the country would have been in a recession/depression as early as 2002. The government artificially kept the economy rolling. Why? Who knows. Wall Street likely was not the cause. It is opportunistic. If the government is willing to back junk, Wall Street is willing to sell it. FNMA and FHLMC made the junk market possible. They were heavily involved as far back as 2000. The government could have stopped them. It CHOSE NOT To. Interesting that even Inside Job does not focus on this.</p>
<p>I thought Inside Job was absolutely excellent. It is a must see for anyone who cares about our country’s economy and how it is managed at the highest levels.</p>
<p>I don’t know how you can watch a movie which blatantly criminalizes Wall Street culture, incentives, as well as influential figures without coming to the conclusion that Wall Street had a part to play in causing the economic crisis.</p>
<p>This part of your post in particular is disturbing:</p>
<p>The most alarming part to me is how much academia are tied in to creating literature that they receive fees for…without ever letting anyone know about the fees.</p>