Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

The Big Short (3 reasons to dislike this movie)


Recommended Posts

All the key Hollywood players look good in this movie. Brad Pitt's character is a nice ex-trader who cares about the unemployed. Steve Carell's character is an offended Jew. Christian Bale has one eye and suffers while he waits to make money. Ryan Gosling's character was smart - because he foresaw all this. The movie is the same-old, same-old. The capitalist banksters are dishonest thieves - but Hollywood tells the truth. The movie even has a Leftist final comment: "They'll blame immigrants and poor people."

Loud music. Why did the producers include rap/rock/drums? The noise seriously misses the point, and wastes time/real estate.

The small role of the Miami stripper. If I had been a producer on this movie, I would have made the Miami stripper more, uh, prominent: Wolf of Wall Street style. Because she's the underlying story to this Big Short - not the banksters, or the players. Why did she buy five houses, and a condo? (Queen of Versailles explains all this better.)

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This movie has become a demonstration to me of what happens when people finally see a disaster on the horizon.  The attempts to stave it off were a study in human nature.  Treat the symptoms not the r

All the key Hollywood players look good in this movie. Brad Pitt's character is a nice ex-trader who cares about the unemployed. Steve Carell's character is an offended Jew. Christian Bale has one eye and suffers while he waits to make money. Ryan Gosling's character was smart - because he foresaw all this. The movie is the same-old, same-old. The capitalist banksters are dishonest thieves - but Hollywood tells the truth. The movie even has a Leftist final comment: "They'll blame immigrants and poor people."

Wondering why a movie about the 2008 financial collapse would portray the Wall Street guys as bad-guys is kind of like wondering why a movie about World War 2 would portray the Germans as bad-guys.

They come across as the bad-guys because they were the bad-guys, and there's not much you can do to spin them as anything else.

A significant point that you may have missed is that this movie is based on a non-fiction book by veteran financial journalist Michael Lewis. The characters in the movie are actual figures in the finance industry, not "Hollywood stereotypes".

The book was on the short-list for the Financial Times/Goldman Sachs Business Book Of The Year award, so you might want to resist your initial impulse to dismiss it as you generally do with material that doesn't agree with your ideological biases.

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

The housing bubble was caused by government policy.

You've repeated this many, many times, and I've corrected you many many times. It's just as wrong as it always has been. It's still wrong.

And each time I correct you, you vanish from the thread.

The housing bubble was caused by private lenders, who issued the vast majority of subprime mortgages.

Private-label subprime mortgages also failed at a much higher rate than subprime mortgages.

The vast majority of subprime mortgages weren't mandated by ANY government policy. They were issued because private companies WANTED to.

They short-cut their own "due diligence" processes because they needed more mortgages to bundle into Mortgage Backed Securities that they could sell to suckers.

You've been told all this many times, and you always put your fingers in your ears and say "la-la-la can't hear you" and vanish.

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wondering why a movie about the 2008 financial collapse would portray the Wall Street guys as bad-guys is kind of like wondering why a movie about World War 2 would portray the Germans as bad-guys.

WTF? Are you comparing the "banksters" to Hitler?

====

Make no mistake: The financial crisis of 2008 was the collapse of a speculative bubble: standard/typical/plain vanilla. And why was there a bubble? Well, some ordinary people thought they could be rich buying tulip bulbs, RCA stocks or houses near Las Vegas.

Briefly, far too briefly, this movie shows a stripper who apparently owns five houses and a condo. Who to blame for this bubble: the stripper or the bank?

Canada has largely avoided such speculative bubbles and yet our banks have little if any regulation. (Canadian banks write the regulations.)

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites

The housing bubble was caused by private lenders, who issued the vast majority of subprime mortgages.

Uh, no. The housing bubble was caused by ordinary people who borrowed and wanted to become rich.

It has happened before, and it will/may happen again.

=====

Some people are bipolar, they think that it is a new paradigm. And some in the crowd believe them.

Bubbles happen. (Hence, my great skepticism of the Trudeau charisma - or, if you'll forgive my comparison, his charisma to other fanatical leaders.)

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites

Shady, this Hollywood movie blames Greenspan (aka government policy).

You and the movie are wrong.

Greenspan isn't to blame. Lowering mortgage standards, redlining, federal lawsuits against supposed discrimination, Freddie and Fannie are to blame.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Briefly, far too briefly, this movie shows a stripper who apparently owns five houses and a condo. Who to blame for this bubble: the stripper or the bank?

The bank. You see people who have nothing to lose (i.e. no fear of bankruptcy because they have no savings) would love to live like royalty for a few months or years if someone was stupid enough to let them. In this case, the banks failed to adequately vet mortgage candidates before lending money. They did this, in part, because government regulations classed CDOs as 'safe' which meant there was lots of demand for 'risk free' products that produced good returns.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Greenspan isn't to blame. Lowering mortgage standards, redlining, federal lawsuits against supposed discrimination, Freddie and Fannie are to blame.

WTF? Most Canadians don't borrow more than they can pay back.

Then again, Americans love their bubbles.

=========

The different monetary history of Canada and the US in fact defines the two countries.

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites

The bank. You see people who have nothing to lose (i.e. no fear of bankruptcy because they have no savings) would love to live like royalty for a few months or years if someone was stupid enough to let them. In this case, the banks failed to adequately vet mortgage candidates before lending money. They did this, in part, because government regulations classed CDOs as 'safe' which meant there was lots of demand for 'risk free' products that produced good returns.

Tne bank? TimG, you take a mistaken view of human behaviour.

Be honest: if you take a chocolate bar without paying, are you guilty of shoplifting or is the shop wrong because it left the chocolate bar near the exit?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tne bank? TimG, you take a mistaken view of human behaviour.

Be honest: if you take a chocolate bar without paying, are you guilty of shoplifting or is the shop wrong because it left the chocolate bar near the exit?

What a ridiculous analogy. Getting a mortgage is not remotely comparable to shoplifting. You can't shoplift a mortgage. Banks didn't leave hundreds of thousands of dollars on the shelf next to the exit. They advertised heavily to get these "shoplifters" to come apply for mortgages.

The part that Shady gets wrong, and that you clearly don't get at all, is that the mortgage lenders had the option of saying "No" to people who they knew were unlikely to pay back their mortgages.

They chose to say "Yes" to "Anybody who can fog a mirror", because they had a strategy to pass along the financial risk to suckers further along the line.

And it worked, until the suckers started wising up and stopped buying these "securities" from the banks.

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF? Are you comparing the "banksters" to Hitler?

Only in the sense that their actions are impossible to spin in a positive way. You seem unhappy that the financial sector has been portrayed in a negative life for their role in the disaster of 2008. But there's simply no other light that they could be portrayed in. You can't put lipstick on that pig.

If you want a movie about a capitalist with a heart of gold, maybe go rent Pretty Woman or something.

Briefly, far too briefly, this movie shows a stripper who apparently owns five houses and a condo. Who to blame for this bubble: the stripper or the bank?

How did she get the money to buy 5 houses and a condo? Did she go into the bank armed with a gun or a bomb? Or did she go into the bank with a pen and sign papers that they prepared for her?

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

The housing bubble was caused by government policy. I wonder if they mentioned that at all in the movie.

While the ineptitude of the US government and its regulatory arms certainly played a major role in allowing bankers to steal money, it was the bankers who stole the money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, no. The housing bubble was caused by ordinary people who borrowed and wanted to become rich.

And banks which deliberately sought out lower income people, or anyone, to sign mortgages. Why? Because the banks had found a way to pass those sucker mortgages on, to package them into complex 'investment grade' derivatives which would be bought in a large package by pension funds and the like. Then the ratings agencies like Moodies, who were making big money off the banks, certified them as virtually risk free even while the banks, like Goldman Sachs, knew very well they were going to fail.

Add in a US law which allows people to 'walk away' from their mortgage without penalty as soon as house prices collapsed below what they'd borrowed and you had a snowball racing downhill, getting bigger and bigger as it moved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All the key Hollywood players look good in this movie. Brad Pitt's character is a nice ex-trader who cares about the unemployed. Steve Carell's character is an offended Jew. Christian Bale has one eye and suffers while he waits to make money. Ryan Gosling's character was smart - because he foresaw all this. The movie is the same-old, same-old. The capitalist banksters are dishonest thieves - but Hollywood tells the truth. The movie even has a Leftist final comment: "They'll blame immigrants and poor people."

Loud music. Why did the producers include rap/rock/drums? The noise seriously misses the point, and wastes time/real estate.

The small role of the Miami stripper. If I had been a producer on this movie, I would have made the Miami stripper more, uh, prominent: Wolf of Wall Street style. Because she's the underlying story to this Big Short - not the banksters, or the players. Why did she buy five houses, and a condo? (Queen of Versailles explains all this better.)

Once again I am convinced that the OP has not seen the movie he critiques.

It defies logic that he could miss the point in all of them. His consistency in this is admirable.

Yes, Goslings character foresaw all this. So did Bale. So dis the two provincials who hired Pitt. So did Carrell. They saw the opportunity for a big short trade. You may have noticed the relationship between that consistent theme and the title of the movie. I don;t know why I;d expect that though.

None of the leads look good, they all are made to look like goobers with makeup, clothes and hair.

The stripper is symbolic of the great ease that EveryMan could get mortgages, often several mortgages.

My take: it is smart. funny and intriguing look at how the scam that triggered a global worked, to great effect. The director employs a cinematic trick - the fourth wall- to explain some complex financial instruments. It has been an annoying ploy in other movies, in this one it works very well and it essential to explaining the sequence of events. The final sequence is not what the OP states, what is actually revealed is quite frightening.

Highly recommended movie, and certainly in my Ten Best of 2015.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only in the sense that their actions are impossible to spin in a positive way.

In reality, everybody that was involved was complicit in this greedfest. Everybody.

IMO, the largest blame goes to the US government who refused- and refuses to this day- to regulate high ratio mortgages. The insanity has not changed at all, just taking a little breather.

I will point out that Canada was not directly affected by this for one simple reason: every person who takes a high ratio mortgage in Canuckistan must qualify for that mortgage. And the rules are pretty strict. . Not so in America in 2008 or today

Link to post
Share on other sites

...IMO, the largest blame goes to the US government who refused- and refuses to this day- to regulate high ratio mortgages. The insanity has not changed at all, just taking a little breather.

That's how it is supposed to be....risk taking for higher returns / gains. They don't make movies about the rise and fall of Canada's capital or equity markets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's how it is supposed to be....risk taking for higher returns / gains. They don't make movies about the rise and fall of Canada's capital or equity markets.

Easy to say, not so easy if you are living in your car and not quite sure how that happened. This movie explains how and why it happened in the USA.

It does not explain why it did not happen in Canada. I guess the sequel would be "Nothing Happened: The Non Short in Canuckistan".

I know specifically why this very human tragedy did not happen in Canada then, and is unlikely to happen here in this manner, but I am pretty sure you don't care.

I hope it doesn't happen to you in the next cycle of rape, and there will be a next cycle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy to say, not so easy if you are living in your car and not quite sure how that happened. This movie explains how and why it happened in the USA.

I understand your sentiment, but ultimately they had no business taking on the mortgage debt. Homes/farms have been foreclosed on in the past many times without so much attention.

It does not explain why it did not happen in Canada. I guess the sequel would be "Nothing Happened: The Non Short in Canuckistan".

Canada says it cannot happen in Canada....much tighter lending rules. This is both good and bad.

I know specifically why this very human tragedy did not happen in Canada then, and is unlikely to happen here in this manner, but I am pretty sure you don't care.

I hope it doesn't happen to you in the next cycle of rape, and there will be a next cycle.

It doesn't matter whether I care or not....or if you care or not in Canada. I don't know how it could happen to me when there is no mortgage or HELOC...our modest home is paid for (had much higher interest rates). My sister lost her home in 2008...never should have had it....she learned a valuable lesson. There is no shame in renting.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand your sentiment, but ultimately they had no business taking on the mortgage debt.

But you don't understand at all if you think the recently homeless took on the debt. American taxpayers took on the big debt.

Canada says it cannot happen in Canada....much tighter lending rules. This is both good and bad.

Much tighter lending rules that apply to all high ratio mortgages . For regular mortgages, banks can do more or less whatever they want. Explain how it is bad to avoid a collapse of the financial system and loading trillions of doallrs of debt onto taxpayers?

I don't know how it could happen to me

So sorry, I was mistaken in thinking you are a US taxpayer. Because if you are, it did happen to you.

Just curious, I don't give a shit really but why wouldn't you want your country to have a stable housing and banking sector? Is it a Communist incursion to oblige people to qualify for a high ratio mortgage? Our countries have similar rates of home ownership so obviously it does not prevent people from buying houses.

2008 saw 8 million people lose their jobs and 6 million lose their homes, and you are paying for it. It's going to happen again.. Explain the upside of that to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...