Inside Job - John Campbell Stumped

John Campbell, chairman of Harvard Economics Department, is asked to justify a situation where economics professors do not disclose the benefits or salaries that they receive from groups commissioning papers.

To his credit, he doesn't ask for the interview to be ended, unlike other interviewees.

From Inside Job (2010).

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• harvard economics
• harvard
• economics
• john campbell
• stumped
• um
• inside job
• economics interview

[GeraldPhord]

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.

[andynye123]

@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.

[386dx1]

@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.

[FinallyAFreeUsername]

@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.

[thetealady66]

@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.

[FinallyAFreeUsername]

@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.

[thetealady66]

@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??

[FinallyAFreeUsername]

@lBarsk you mean the way nobody does.

[lBarsk]

@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]

@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.

[WaytheWestWasWon]

@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.