Documentary Post 2: Validity of Inside Job

Inside Job makes allegations that are very widespread, far-reaching, and controversial. To place blame for the 2008 economic crisis on anyone is a very lofty assumption and carries a great deal of weight. Because of the highly controversial subject of this documentary there has been a lot of questioning in regards to the accuracy of the claims made in Inside Job. Many economists have found the views to be slighted and narrow and have found that it is incredibly easy to portray wall street as an evil villain as they are the traditional direction to point blame. A major claim that Inside Job puts forth is that the treasury secretary under Ronald Reagan, George H.W Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush; Allan Greenspan, was a chief reason that the government started deregulating and giving into banks. Greenspan certainly was a major contributing factor to the entire banking crisis but one can not pin the entire economic disaster on one individual. Additionally, Inside Job takes direct attacks on derivatives and CDO investments saying that they are completely corrupt in nature and have no added value to markets. Derivatives have shown to be important to banks in providing insurance for investments, of course, they must be properly regulated and that was the major downfall of derivatives in the 2008 crisis. 

Alan Greenspan is perhaps one of the most controversial figures attributed to the banking crises. Due to his direct involvement in government deregulation of the banks and pressure on others to continue to deregulate, many of his actions have been called into question. Greenspan is a very strong libertarian and follows in the footsteps of Ayn Rand. Following his resignation in 2006, Greenspan has actually shown remorse for his actions and has shouldered some of the blame for the crises himself. In an a testimony to a house committee following the crises, Greenspan apologized and stated the following, “Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief,”(nytimes.com). Greenspan claimed that he put a great deal of faith into his own ideologies and thus disregarded the advice of others. Following more pressing from the primarily democratic house committee Greenspan further conceded that he found a flaw in his ideologies and commented, “I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I’ve been very distressed by that fact.”(nytimes.com). Following his time in office, Greenspan has spoken on multiple occasions on introducing further restrictions, particular on CDOs and credit default swaps. Whether Greenspan could see the crisis coming and was succumbing to outside pressures like Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Citigroup still remains a question. No doubt, the fact the Greenspan deliberately ignored the advice of others is incredibly concerning and raises many questions that will probably never be answered. One can only hope that other economists have seen the flaws in Greenspan's decisions and keep them in mind with future market regulation. 

 Inside Job portrays derivatives in a particularly negative light. Derivatives allow investors to bank on pretty much anything and invest in any interest. It is a very high risk environment, and because the banks placed a great deal into derivatives, there were incredible losses when the derivatives fell through.   Inside Job plays derivatives into the ground. But studies have actually shown derivatives to be beneficial in multiple shapes in forms (sify.com). It is because of this, that derivatives simply require more regulation to be effective and beneficial. Derivatives are often used as a form of insurance for businesses (businessinsider.com). For example, an airliner might invest in the fuel derivative to earn money in times of rising gas prices(and thus increased cost for their product.). Regulation in other nations has proven to be effective. Inside Job fails to address that derivatives, although highly volatile, have their benefits. The film exposes the failures of the SEC to properly impose any restrictions on derivatives, but goes further to the extent of making it seem like derivatives should be entirely eliminated. It is important to understand that derivatives now are planted in modern economies, and are essential to its proper function. 

Although controversial and flawed in some respects, Inside Job, does a proper job of bringing those who are responsible for the crises into the limelight and exposing the underlying flaws of worldwide economies predating the crises. It is certainly a cautionary tale. With Greenspan himself admitting his ideological flaws, it will be essential that those who believe in deregulation attempt to find a better balance between giving leniency to markets and tightening them up. Whatever economy it may be, humans are inherently greedy and will look for shortcuts. It may seem restrictive on the surface, but regulation is essential to proper functioning of markets and preventing major crises. One cannot also single out derivatives as a major cause of the crisis. For certain, a lack of regulation and rules on derivatives was a contributing factor to the recession, not the derivatives themselves. Hopefully, it has become apparent that regulation in the world of derivatives is important. As humans, mistakes are made often. These mistakes were tremendous in their scale and some of them were infuriating. The only way to make up for those mistakes is to learn from them and create a stable economy for our future. Otherwise, we may be entering into a never ending cycle of "boom and bust", something evident in our government dating back to the 1920s before the depression.

Sources:
 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/inside-job-or-internal-gr_b_790523.html
http://www.sify.com/finance/special-report-in-derivatives-trade-rip-otc-news-equity-lc2o4lgcdcd.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/is-inside-job-accurate-2011-2?op=1
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2011/04/01/inside-job-reveals-true-crime/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html?_r=0

Documentary Post 1: Inside Job

The 2008 economic crisis was one that rocked the world. Every single country in the world plunged into a recession; millions of homes foreclosed over bad mortgages, stocks plummeted, gigantic banks needed bailouts, and unprecedented amounts of individuals went unemployed. How could such a crises happen? Inside Job, narrated by Matt Damon(a Harvard graduate himself), explores the answer to this question. The basic premise of Inside Job is that the crises could have easily been avoided if it weren't for the greed of the banking industry. Inside Job also exposes who the banking industry has infested the government itself leading to dangerous deregulation and more risky lending on CDOs and faulty mortgages. Even more frightening, is that the banking industry has infiltrated economic classes at top universities such as Harvard, with top executives also being professors creating a conflict of interest. Inside Job takes interviews from those who saw the crises coming and also those who caused the mess but fail to realize the true consequences of their foolish actions. It is a documentary that left me astounded, shocked, and outraged.

Inside Job is one of the slickest documentaries I have ever watched, and I have seen many. From the beginning Inside Job seems to bill itself as more of a movie than anything else. The introduction starts out with flying cutover scenes of New York City highlighting the exorbitant lifestyles of New York executives. Of course, the most effective device used in Inside Job was all of the interviews of both the economists that knew that the economy would crash and those of the individuals who caused the crisis and failed to recognize the mess they were creating. Inside Job was very effective at stumping the interviewees who brought upon the crises making them seem incredibly foolish and causing the viewer to even laugh a few times at the ridiculousness. Inside Job also effectively debunks the myth that the economic crises was very complicated to understand and that it could not be avoided. Using flowcharts and diagrams the economic concepts behind the crisis are easily taught and allow the viewer to fully understand the true cause of the crisis and how stupidly simple it is. The documentary also makes full use of b-roll footage to supplement the arguments presented. Many of the footage is from C-SPAN and government hearings on the crisis issue to help portray the problems that the banking industry had created. Inside Job is a documentary that many saw essential to understand the true root causes of the 2008 crises. It is a documentary that would go on to win an Oscar and received great critical acclaim. The documentary was incredibly effective in riling up its audience and will hopefully lead to prevention of repeating mistakes made in the past.

TOW Reflection

 The progression of my TOWs of the course of the year is certainly evident. As a writer I have grew throughout the course and my TOWs show that. The writing style that was utilized in all of my pieces progressed from a more simple syntax and prose to a greater level of sophistication. Looking at the first post I wrote, on a more basic level of analysis. The rhetoric I identified in my pieces was fairly minimal and well-known. As the year progressed, I became more critical of the pieces I read and was able to better dissect the mind of the writer. One thing that I identified as a mistake in my pieces was the repetition of the same word starting all of my sentences. With time, I developed a sense of varying sentence structure and how they were composed. In doing so, my posts became even more sophisticated. This is important and essential for all branches of writing and will be helpful in the future.

Of course, there is still plenty of room for improvement in my posts. I always could use more and more analysis into rhetorical analysis of the pieces I read. Many times I would simply pick and choose some small rhetorical devices that did not have a massive impact on the audience. In doing so, I missed the larger point of the piece and possibly neglected more powerful devices. By reading closer and getting the entire gist of the piece, I would be better able to identify the overarching rhetorical devices; particularly when the author wields syntax, diction, and tone. I saw the TOWs as an experience to better hone my skills in regards to rhetorical devices. By better being able to identify them, I would also learn how to incorporate and integrate them into my own pieces similar to the pieces that I had already read.

The TOW pieces have made me a better rhetorical thinker. Without them, I would be not nearly as adept to the devices as I am today. I firmly believe that this identification had an influence on my own writing as I tried to mimic the sane style and prose of the writers that I had read. The one flaw that I can readily see in the TOWs is that sometimes they were hastily composed. Because of this, I was sometimes not able to derive the full benefit of doing the assignment and because of that TOWs may have seemed like a busywork assignment. If I took more time to sit and analyze the pieces I was reading, I would have benefited even more. All in all though, the TOWS have better developed me as both a critical reader and a writer.

Bashing the NRA: Using a touchy topic to arouse emotion.

The barrage of recent shootings in America has recently dominated public policy debates. Recently President Obama had promised to formulate legislation to enforce background checks on guns which eventually had been shot down. Many are blaming the very powerful NRA lobby for the failure of the bill. It has been argued that the NRA is blind to all of the pain and suffering that has stemmed from the recent gun violence.  In this cartoon the NRA is being portrayed as old and ignorant individuals. The various drawings of the NRA members essentially grab the stereotype of the person. For example, Wayne Lapierre has often been viewed as an angry gun-toting crooney whereas Sarah Palin has a stereotype unique to her own(I'm assuming you can figure out that one. The juxtaposition to the smiling young kids below the cartoons is very striking. This cartoon successfully accomplishes the task of bringing more anger in to the mix against the NRA. If one thing is for sure, the popularity of the NRA is rapidly diminishing. That being said, the NRA continues to be passionate in their endeavors  something that the gun control lobby has seemed to fail to accomplish.  

An interesting comparison: More interfaith marriages than marriages across political party lines

It's obvious; America has been moving in the direction of tolerance and that trend seems that it will only continue. (and we can only hope that it still will.) According to an Op-ed piece in USA Today by Naomi Riley an interesting trend is presented; there are far more interfaith marriages than those that go across party lines in politics. In fact, only 18% of married couples claimed that their other spouse was tied to an opposing political party. Riley presents a host of statistics which expose this underlying divide and also presents an example of a very high-profile marriage of a strong politician; Paul Ryan. She argues that views on religion take a backseat today than those of the views of on domestic political issues. But this isn't necessarily a bad thing; it shows that more and more Americans are aware of politics and actually care about it. Riley splits the piece up into a few different sections making the information presented easier to take in. The progression of the piece starts with the introduction of the statistics and trends, the Paul Ryan example, and her personal views on the issue. This article caused me to think about the different perspectives and the new trends and was an interesting take on how individuals choose the ones they marry.

Article: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/25/red-dates-blue-dates-column/2114133/

Special Post: A personal comment on the Boston Bombings

My Personal Comment on the Boston Bombings
Runners are a different breed, particularly marathon runners. To the vast majority of people; 26 miles seems like an unfathomable distance to run. It takes an immense amount of strength just to have someone convince themselves to run and train for such a distance. For runners, the Boston Marathon is the world series of races. It's hallowed ground. Hearing news of the bombings incited a convulsion of emotions which I have rarely felt. My friends really didn't understand why I could be so upset over something so remote. Eventually, I was forced to go on a run to relieve my feelings. And therein lies the problem; for all runners, running is an entire almost physical part of who they are. Runners all share the same connection. When that connection is interfered with it can be devastating. Surely, this was a tremendous attack on Boston and the American people, but it was also an attack on runners as a whole.

3 years ago, my mother ran in the marathon. For her, it had been a dream for all of her life and in the process it has become my dream as well. For her training, she would run incredible distances upwards of 24 miles(one time she had to run 6 mile laps around the island where our beach house is because it is so small). Every single runner that runs Boston has to qualify; these individuals have dedicated so much to the sport of running. It has been said that if you would like to restore your faith in humanity; go see a marathon. For Boston, the marathon is a holiday: Patriot's Day. Every business and every school in the area of Boston is closed just for the marathon. I can clearly remember the awe-inspiring energy which surrounded the race. For one day; everyone is united, everyone is jubilant, everyone is excited, and everyone cared for one another. I have participated in both the Philly half-marathon and Broad Street Run and although the energy surrounding those races brought out a massive adrenaline rush, nothing compared to Boston. Within an instant, that energy had been sucked away with these bombings.

When I watched my mom come into the finish I stood on Boylston street. To be exact; in Copley Square. Where the first bomb went off, was where I stood 3 years ago. That thought right there had hurt me enough. So many families surrounded me when I watched the marathon that year. As more news came out, more memories came back. I thought for all of the families in that area, waiting for their loved ones to come to the line. And then I imagined those who had ran 26 miles with the line in sight only to have shrapnel propelled at them from a bomb. Sickening, terrifying, and traumatizing, something I will never forget. From this point forward, my runs will never be the same.

It probably could be assumed that the terrorists responsible for this attack wanted to see people in pain and destroy put the nation into a state of grief. Without a doubt, we were knocked down. But as a country, we stand back up even taller. The terrorists chose to target the most resilient and dedicated group of people in the world; runners. President Obama could not have said it better himself;

“This time next year, on the third Monday in April, the world will return to this great American city to run even harder, and to cheer even louder, for the 118th Boston marathon.""Bet on it."

If there was a silver lining to this debacle; the strength of our country was reinforced. We might have our differences, and our government may not be looking too hot, but under it all we are all human. Every run from this point on carries a different purpose for me; to honor those who fell at the bombings. I have complete faith that the running community will be united in their support. In fact, I feel that this tragedy has given more purpose to runners. My obsession with the sport no longer seems like just a hobby, it has become an obligation. Terror never wins, and it certainly will not taint the sport to which I have dedicated my life. I only look forward to see the outpouring of enthusiasm at next year's marathon, and the eventual day when I run my first race in Boston. 

In memory of Krystle Campbell, Lu Lingzi, Martin Richard, and Sean Collier

The Complete U-Turn of Senator Portman

With the upcoming discussion on gay marriage in the supreme court, much controversy has surrounded the topic. It appears that the shift towards marriage equality has occurred very rapidly, and many politicians are jumping their original stance on the issue in support of gay marriage. One such person to jump ship was senator portman. The following cartoon serves to show how this actually ended up happening and states the irony in his situation. Portman has a son who came out to him as gay, and he cites that as the reason for his transition on the stance:

Source: http://www.cagle.com/news/gay-marriage-2013/page/35/#.UVxjaavwK9I

But under it all, Portman is still a conservative who needs to appeal to his conservative platform. The author juxtaposes Portman's stance on "family values" against his son's obvious support of gay marriage. The author makes it a point though to portray Portman as a politician and makes it obvious that politics gets in the way of his situation. The expression on the son is far more enthusiastic, whereas Portman looks like he is almost faking his support of his son. The use of juxtaposition in this cartoon is very strong and effective and works well in explaining the ironic predicament that Portman is in and the contradictions of his stance.