File 031826
Email Discussion of Inside Job Documentary Review (File 031826)
Jeffrey Epstein forwards a New York Times film review of the documentary 'Inside Job' examining the 2008 financial crisis and regulatory failures. The review discusses the film's critique of government and financial industry deregulation.
Summary
This document contains a New York Times film review of the 2008 financial crisis documentary 'Inside Job,' shared via email by Jeffrey Epstein. The review, by A.O. Scott, analyzes director Charles Ferguson's examination of deregulation in the financial services industry from the Reagan era through 2008. The film features interviews with economists and government officials regarding the systemic failures that led to the economic collapse, including critiques of figures like Lawrence Summers, Alan Greenspan, and President George W. Bush's administration's financial policies.
From:Sent:To:Subject:Attachments:I haveJeffrey Epstein [jeevacation@gmail.com]2/6/2011 11:18:44 AMRe: You should see this movie/documentaryimage001.jpgOn Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 3:26 AM,Inside Job (2010)wrote:NYT Critics' Pick This movie has been designated a Critic's Pick by the film reviewers of The New York Times.Henry Paulson, Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner in the documentary "Inside Job."Sony Pictures ClassicsWho Maimed the Economy, and HowBy A. 0. SCOTT"Inside Job," a sleek, briskly paced film whose title suggests a heist movie, is the story of a crime withoutpunishment, of an outrage that has so far largely escaped legal sanction and societal stigma. The betrayalof public trust and collective values that Mr. Ferguson chronicles was far more brazen and damaging thanthe adultery in Nathaniel Hawthorne's novel, which treated Hester more as scapegoat than villain.The gist of this movie, which begins in a mood of calm reflection and grows angrier and more incredulousas it goes on, is unmistakably punitive. The density of information and the complexity of the subjectmatter make "Inside Job" feel like a classroom lecture at times, but by the end Mr. Ferguson hassummoned the scourging moral force of a pulpit-shaking sermon. That he delivers it with rigor, restraintand good humor makes his case all the more devastating.HOUSE OVERSIGHT 031826He is hardly alone in making it. Numerous journalists have published books and articles retracing thepaths that led the world economy to the precipice two years ago. The deregulation of the financialservices industry in the 1980s and '9os; the growing popularity of complex and risky derivatives; the realestate bubble and the explosion of subprime lending — none of these developments were exactly secret.On the contrary, they were celebrated as vindications of the power and wisdom of markets. Accordingly,Mr. Ferguson recycles choice moments of triumphalism, courtesy of Lawrence H. Summers, George W.Bush, Alan Greenspan and various cable television ranters and squawkers.Even as stock indexes soared and profits swelled, there were always at least a few investors, economistsand government officials who warned that the frenzied speculation was leading to the abyss. Some ofthese prophets without honor show up in front of Mr. Ferguson's camera, less to gloat than to present,once again, the analyses that were dismissed and ignored by their peers for so long.Dozens of interviews — along with news clips and arresting aerial shots of New York, Iceland and otherdisaster areas — are folded into a clear and absorbing history, narrated by Matt Damon. The music (anopening song, "Big Time," by Peter Gabriel, and a score by Alex Heffes) and the clean wide-screencinematography provide an aesthetic polish that is welcome for its own sake and also important to themovie's themes. The handsomely lighted and appointed interiors convey a sense of the rarefied,privileged worlds in which the Wall Street operators and their political enablers flourished, and theelegance of the presentation also subliminally bolsters the film's authority. This is not a piece of raggedmuckraking or breathless advocacy. It rests its outrage on reason, research and careful argument.The same was true of Mr. Ferguson's previous documentary, "No End in Sight," which focused oncatastrophic policies carried out in Iraq by President George W. Bush's administration just after theoverthrow of Saddam Hussein. But whereas that film concentrated on a narrow view of a complex subject— the conduct of the war rather than the at least equally controversial rationale for fighting it — "InsideJob" offers a sweeping synthesis, going as far back as the Reagan administration and as far afield asIceland in its anatomy of the financial crisis.Perhaps unsurprisingly, many of the highest-profile players declined to be interviewed. Mr. Summersappears only in news footage, and none of his predecessors or successors as Treasury secretary — notRobert E. Rubin or Henry M. Paulson Jr. or Timothy F. Geithner — submit to Mr. Ferguson's questions.Nor do any of the top executives at Goldman Sachs or the other big banks. Most of the interviewees are,at least from the perspective of the filmmaker, friendly witnesses, adding fuel to the director'scomprehensive critique of the way business has been done in the United States and the other advancedcapitalist countries for the past two decades.Both American political parties are indicted; "Inside Job" is not simply another belated settling ofaccounts with Mr. Bush and his advisers, though they are hardly ignored. The scaling back of governmentoversight and the weakening of checks on speculative activity by banks began under Reagan andcontinued during the Clinton administration. And with each administration the market in derivativesexpanded, and alarms about the dangers of this type of investment were ignored. Raghuram Raj an, chiefHOUSE OVERSIGHT 031827economist at the International Monetary Fund, presented a paper in 2005 warning of a "catastrophicmeltdown" and was mocked as a "Luddite" by Mr. Summers.Meanwhile, some investment bankers — at Goldman Sachs in particular — were betting against thepositions they were pushing on their customers. An elaborate house of cards had been constructed inwhich bad consumer loans were bundled into securities, which, were certified as sound by rating agenciespaid by the banks and then insured via credit-default swaps. One risky bet was stacked on top of another,and in retrospect the collapse of the whole edifice, along with the loss of jobs, homes, pensions andpolitical confidence, seems inevitable.How did this happen? Mr. Ferguson is no conspiracy theorist; nor is he inclined toward structural orsystemic explanations. Markets are not like tectonic plates, shifting on their own. Visible hands write lawsand make deals, and in this case a combination of warped values and groupthink seems to have drivenvery intelligent men (and they were mostly men) toward folly. In addition to business and government,Mr. Ferguson aims his critique at academia, suggesting that the discipline of economics and more than afew prominent economists were corrupted by consulting fees, seats on boards of directors andmembership in the masters of the universe club.When he challenges some of these professors, in particular those who held positions of responsibility inthe White House or in the Federal Reserve, they are reduced to stammering obfuscation — Markets arecomplicated! Who could have predicted? I don't see any conflict of interest — and occasionally provokedto testiness. Mr. Ferguson, for his part, cannot always contain his incredulity or rein in his sarcasm.Occasionally his voice pipes up from off camera, saying things like, "You can't be serious!"But it is hard to imagine a movie more serious, and more urgent, than "Inside Job." There are a fewavenues that might have been explored more thoroughly, in particular the effects of the crisis onordinary, non-Wall-Street-connected workers and homeowners. The end of the film raises a disturbingquestion, as Mr. Damon exhorts viewers to demand changes in the status quo so that the trendsassociated with unchecked speculation of the kind that caused the last crisis — rising inequality, neglectof productive capacity, endless cycles of boom and bust — might be reversed.This call to arms makes you wonder why anger of the kind so eloquently expressed in "Inside Job" hasbeen so inchoate. And through no fault of its own, the film may leave you dispirited as well as enraged. Itsfate is likely to be that of other documentaries: praised in some quarters, nitpicked in others andshrugged off by those who need its message most. Which is a shame."Inside Job" is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). Some drug and sex references and pervasiveobscenity, though not the verbal kind.--***********************************************************HOUSE OVERSIGHT 031828The information contained in this communication isconfidential, may be attorney-client privileged, mayconstitute inside information, and is intended only forthe use of the addressee. It is the property ofJeffrey EpsteinUnauthorized use, disclosure or copying of thiscommunication or any part thereof is strictly prohibitedand may be unlawful. If you have received thiscommunication in error, please notify us immediately byreturn e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, anddestroy this communication and all copies thereof,including all attachments. copyright -all rights reservedHOUSE OVERSIGHT 031829