This film is not the evedance, the evedance is all around us. We have built a system that rapes the planet and keeps the vast majority of us from the comfort we have helped to create. That is being done so that a tiny minority can have staggering wealth and power. It does not have to work that way.
... Thus, there *were* people arguing vigorously against financial markets as motivators of economic expansion, but they weren't highlighted in the film.
Why? Because it doesn't make the film look good. If you are trying to paint a picture of corruption, you don't report any evidence to the contrary - like disclosure rules, that Geithner and Bernanke never worked on Wall St, etc ...
The film Inside Job is a biased, one sided inside job, guilty of the very corruption it claims to tackle.
@WaytheWestWasWon Anyone who has seen the film knows that many of those arguing against the financial markets WERE highlighted in the film. They were coerced, ignored, bullied, silenced, and dismissed. The film shows these very extensively. You're a shamless liar.
@386dx1Firstly, people were not bullied and silenced. They perhaps were ignored, and maybe not believed, but that's the definition of a bubble - people believe it cannot got wrong.
The point is the failures were intellectual, and collective - NOT MORAL.
Who wanted the financial system to collapse? Nobody. Who benefits? In the LR, nobody (esp not bankers).
You are nothing more than an intellectual slave to a bias film, seduced and manipulated by this left wing propaganda and lies.
... so while (surprise!) Goldman were arguing in that financial services motivated jobs growth, many others were arguing to the contrary. Welcome to democracy.
As for Hubbard, Goldman chose him to write a paper for them *because* he believed free financial markets promoted growth. They wouldn't very well choose a skeptic to say 'financial markets are bad', would they?
Would the Democrats pay guys to say "Obama is an idiot"? Would, say, WWE pay people to say its dangerous to watch? ....
... that, yes, outside consultancies should be fully disclosed and made public in order to prevent any perceptions of interest conflicts.
However, all of the articles he published are, by definition, refereed by numerous academics, some anonymous, and are therefore finely and fully scrutinized. If there is BS, it will be spotted.
Second, whats holding back the alternative point of view? Whilst Hubbard and GS say "financial services good", others - like P. Krugman - say they are flawed.
Professor Campbell is actually a great man, brilliant economist and a fine teacher. Yes, he advises funds - but Maynard Keynes actually *ran* King's College's Chest Fund, yet we all agree he changes economics on merit.
I'd bet he DID and does have a great answer to this question, but by only showing the emms and umms (which are fairly typical during the Oxford tutorials I was at) he did have a good answer.
For what its worth, the correct answer to the question is ...
@WaytheWestWasWon yes, that it is reprehensible how economics professors do not disclose the benefits or salaries that they receive from groups commissioning papers, or indeed for speaking before congress! A shame he wasn't honourable or honest enough to just come out with it. So instead he can and is made to look like an idiot, which his status and profession would suggest he isn't. He clearly has vested interests... or has friends who do.
@Vincecouk Mishkin did disclose how much he got paid. Thats where the movie makers got their information; from a public disclosure made by Mishkin. Didnt they put that in the movie? Must have been an accidental oversight. I cant imagine why they would leave it out.
@FinallyAFreeUsername A forced disclosure, Mishkin HAD to mention it when he was appointed for a public position. He didn't disclose it in the paper, the way he should have.
@FinallyAFreeUsername In the movie "McLibel" you hear a conversation between two protesters and high executives from McDonalds. One protester said something like "I feel sorry about McDonald's because it's the one highlighted while other corporations are doing the exact same thing we're protesting against". The same applies here.
@thetealady66 wasnt me. I dont think the comment was even supposed to be directed at me. If you can explain how it has anything to do with disclosure of payments for commissioned consulting work I would love to hear it.
@FinallyAFreeUsername Of course, the fact that everyone else is engaging in the same activities (in this case, the omision of that information; in iBarsk's example, the deeds of the fast food industry) isn't an excuse. One almost feels sorry for Mishkin. Through the film it is understood it's common practice in this field's academic texts and advocates for change. "The way nobody does" is a recognition that this omission isn't ideal, but goes on because that's the norm. Its a mediocre excuse.
@thetealady66 I wasnt saying "nobody does this" so as to excuse the actions in this one case. My point was that "nobody does it" for reasons other than "everyone is dishonest". It would be ridiculous to assume everyone is dishonest, so the non-disclosure itself doesnt prove the guy is dishonest. IBarsk said "he should have disclosed" for no other reason than IBarsk already considers the guy dishonest.
Atleast this guy isn't bullshitting his way out. He honestly needs time to think of an answer. To be credible or smart doesn't mean you should be able to answer any question right away. The man is trying to choose his words wisely.
Don't they have communications and media consultants at Harvard? I did not see the first part of this clip, so I lack context, but this fellow surely could have used some media training beforehand.
i can see your point, and i definitely understand what you are saying. i just would like to explain that the editor of the movie cut out what he said a moment later, and didn't let him finish what he was going to say. but i do agree that he should have been able to answer more directly, and faster.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
first of all, i would like to say that i know this man personally, and he is an extremely smart and competent man-- this is a dishonorable display of video editing, and the director of this movie should be ashamed to cut the real facts. don't believe everything you see in movies like this.
@GeraldPhord Where is the dishonourable editing? He had a comparison put to him, and he was unable to answer - even if he had come up with a decent answer afterwards, what is important is that the chairman of the economics department was unwilling or unable to justify the situation straight away, which he would have been able to do if it were justifiable. The rest of the film went into quite some detail about the facts.
@GeraldPhord Someone who acts as a scientist, but really follows his own economic interest. It is smart, you're right on that one. But in what way is that competent or honorable?
I agree with u that this video was posted solely to attack John Campbell, but blame the loser who edited this, not the director. If u watch the whole scene from the movie, then u realize that this question is pertaining to the conflict of interest of one of his superiors, the president of Harvard University, Larry Summers. Larry Summers is the real target of this movie, not John Campbell. Little Johnny here was just scared of getting the boot!
this is a shameful display of higher education at the best institution for higher learning. he can't even take an ethical stand against the insider corruption. harvard should be ashamed of itself, and that the president of harvard refused to be interviewed displays a pull up the drawbridge mentality, instead of an approach that seeks to understand and address the mess and unfairness and corruption in our economic system. if he gulped any harder he would have swallowed his adam's apple.
vimeo(dot)com/25491676
BananaHammockWW 3 months ago
This film is not the evedance, the evedance is all around us. We have built a system that rapes the planet and keeps the vast majority of us from the comfort we have helped to create. That is being done so that a tiny minority can have staggering wealth and power. It does not have to work that way.
lmjhoney 3 months ago
... Thus, there *were* people arguing vigorously against financial markets as motivators of economic expansion, but they weren't highlighted in the film.
Why? Because it doesn't make the film look good. If you are trying to paint a picture of corruption, you don't report any evidence to the contrary - like disclosure rules, that Geithner and Bernanke never worked on Wall St, etc ...
The film Inside Job is a biased, one sided inside job, guilty of the very corruption it claims to tackle.
WaytheWestWasWon 4 months ago
@WaytheWestWasWon Anyone who has seen the film knows that many of those arguing against the financial markets WERE highlighted in the film. They were coerced, ignored, bullied, silenced, and dismissed. The film shows these very extensively. You're a shamless liar.
386dx1 2 months ago 3
@386dx1Firstly, people were not bullied and silenced. They perhaps were ignored, and maybe not believed, but that's the definition of a bubble - people believe it cannot got wrong.
The point is the failures were intellectual, and collective - NOT MORAL.
Who wanted the financial system to collapse? Nobody. Who benefits? In the LR, nobody (esp not bankers).
You are nothing more than an intellectual slave to a bias film, seduced and manipulated by this left wing propaganda and lies.
WaytheWestWasWon 2 months ago
... so while (surprise!) Goldman were arguing in that financial services motivated jobs growth, many others were arguing to the contrary. Welcome to democracy.
As for Hubbard, Goldman chose him to write a paper for them *because* he believed free financial markets promoted growth. They wouldn't very well choose a skeptic to say 'financial markets are bad', would they?
Would the Democrats pay guys to say "Obama is an idiot"? Would, say, WWE pay people to say its dangerous to watch? ....
WaytheWestWasWon 4 months ago
... that, yes, outside consultancies should be fully disclosed and made public in order to prevent any perceptions of interest conflicts.
However, all of the articles he published are, by definition, refereed by numerous academics, some anonymous, and are therefore finely and fully scrutinized. If there is BS, it will be spotted.
Second, whats holding back the alternative point of view? Whilst Hubbard and GS say "financial services good", others - like P. Krugman - say they are flawed.
WaytheWestWasWon 4 months ago
Professor Campbell is actually a great man, brilliant economist and a fine teacher. Yes, he advises funds - but Maynard Keynes actually *ran* King's College's Chest Fund, yet we all agree he changes economics on merit.
I'd bet he DID and does have a great answer to this question, but by only showing the emms and umms (which are fairly typical during the Oxford tutorials I was at) he did have a good answer.
For what its worth, the correct answer to the question is ...
WaytheWestWasWon 4 months ago
@WaytheWestWasWon yes, that it is reprehensible how economics professors do not disclose the benefits or salaries that they receive from groups commissioning papers, or indeed for speaking before congress! A shame he wasn't honourable or honest enough to just come out with it. So instead he can and is made to look like an idiot, which his status and profession would suggest he isn't. He clearly has vested interests... or has friends who do.
Vincecouk 2 months ago
@Vincecouk Mishkin did disclose how much he got paid. Thats where the movie makers got their information; from a public disclosure made by Mishkin. Didnt they put that in the movie? Must have been an accidental oversight. I cant imagine why they would leave it out.
FinallyAFreeUsername 1 month ago
@FinallyAFreeUsername A forced disclosure, Mishkin HAD to mention it when he was appointed for a public position. He didn't disclose it in the paper, the way he should have.
lBarsk 1 month ago
@lBarsk you mean the way nobody does.
FinallyAFreeUsername 1 month ago
Comment removed
lBarsk 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FinallyAFreeUsername In the movie "McLibel" you hear a conversation between two protesters and high executives from McDonalds. One protester said something like "I feel sorry about McDonald's because it's the one highlighted while other corporations are doing the exact same thing we're protesting against". The same applies here.
lBarsk 1 month ago
@FinallyAFreeUsername Why did you mark IBarsk's response as spam? It has a very valid point. Arent you from the USA, supposed land of free speech??
thetealady66 3 weeks ago
@thetealady66 wasnt me. I dont think the comment was even supposed to be directed at me. If you can explain how it has anything to do with disclosure of payments for commissioned consulting work I would love to hear it.
FinallyAFreeUsername 3 weeks ago
@FinallyAFreeUsername Of course, the fact that everyone else is engaging in the same activities (in this case, the omision of that information; in iBarsk's example, the deeds of the fast food industry) isn't an excuse. One almost feels sorry for Mishkin. Through the film it is understood it's common practice in this field's academic texts and advocates for change. "The way nobody does" is a recognition that this omission isn't ideal, but goes on because that's the norm. Its a mediocre excuse.
thetealady66 3 weeks ago
@thetealady66 I wasnt saying "nobody does this" so as to excuse the actions in this one case. My point was that "nobody does it" for reasons other than "everyone is dishonest". It would be ridiculous to assume everyone is dishonest, so the non-disclosure itself doesnt prove the guy is dishonest. IBarsk said "he should have disclosed" for no other reason than IBarsk already considers the guy dishonest.
FinallyAFreeUsername 3 weeks ago
Atleast this guy isn't bullshitting his way out. He honestly needs time to think of an answer. To be credible or smart doesn't mean you should be able to answer any question right away. The man is trying to choose his words wisely.
PelikanM200 6 months ago
@PelikanM200 more like how to not accuse anyone like himself and not get caught with questions that he cant answer later.
MrBigEnchilada 6 months ago
My absolute #1 FAVOURITE scene in Inside Job, just finished watching it and dearly hoped this scene was on youtube. Thank you so much.
ASTSinmypants 6 months ago
It's a shame, please ALL watch the movie, you need the few minutes beforehand to really understand the matter.
This part is actually INCREDIBLE and is truly a masterpiece.
ncpatt 7 months ago
uummm uuummmm....ammmmm AMMMMMM, it makes the vid/movie seems fake cool if its not
EndureFocusEngageDie 9 months ago
lol, nice editing how 'bout you let him answer your fucking question. damn these clips are pissing me off lol
mrzipdisk 9 months ago
Don't they have communications and media consultants at Harvard? I did not see the first part of this clip, so I lack context, but this fellow surely could have used some media training beforehand.
prajnasword 10 months ago
i can see your point, and i definitely understand what you are saying. i just would like to explain that the editor of the movie cut out what he said a moment later, and didn't let him finish what he was going to say. but i do agree that he should have been able to answer more directly, and faster.
GeraldPhord 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
first of all, i would like to say that i know this man personally, and he is an extremely smart and competent man-- this is a dishonorable display of video editing, and the director of this movie should be ashamed to cut the real facts. don't believe everything you see in movies like this.
GeraldPhord 11 months ago
@GeraldPhord Where is the dishonourable editing? He had a comparison put to him, and he was unable to answer - even if he had come up with a decent answer afterwards, what is important is that the chairman of the economics department was unwilling or unable to justify the situation straight away, which he would have been able to do if it were justifiable. The rest of the film went into quite some detail about the facts.
andynye123 11 months ago 15
@GeraldPhord Someone who acts as a scientist, but really follows his own economic interest. It is smart, you're right on that one. But in what way is that competent or honorable?
HermanJ84 8 months ago
I agree with u that this video was posted solely to attack John Campbell, but blame the loser who edited this, not the director. If u watch the whole scene from the movie, then u realize that this question is pertaining to the conflict of interest of one of his superiors, the president of Harvard University, Larry Summers. Larry Summers is the real target of this movie, not John Campbell. Little Johnny here was just scared of getting the boot!
JeezusShuttlesworth 8 months ago
@GeraldPhord Yes and this man has dishonorably taken dishonest money. Plain and simple. I'm sure it's an honest mistake and he's a nice man.
SLCforLIFE 4 months ago
this is a shameful display of higher education at the best institution for higher learning. he can't even take an ethical stand against the insider corruption. harvard should be ashamed of itself, and that the president of harvard refused to be interviewed displays a pull up the drawbridge mentality, instead of an approach that seeks to understand and address the mess and unfairness and corruption in our economic system. if he gulped any harder he would have swallowed his adam's apple.
aharidop 11 months ago