Generation Zero

arraamis · 08:07 PM

The film examines the causes of the economic collapse of September 18, 2008. The film surmises that the Greatest Generation, in their effort to prevent their children from having to suffer the horrors of The Great Depression and World War II overly nurtured and protected them, unwittingly instilling in them an outlook of selfishness and irresponsibility.

The Greatest Generation also put into place many institutional protections against the kind of financial recklessness that led to the Great Depression. After they all retired and died, the documentary alleges these protections and rules were gradually removed or ignored, and the financial crisis of 2008 happened as a result of the next generation's selfishness and irresponsibility.

It suggests the generation that grew up as the hippies of the 1960s eventually came to power and promoted their outlook upon the financial markets, taking reckless risks -- because having enjoyed prosperity all their lives, they believed there could be no downside to their decisions.

Pretty good documentary. It kinda over simplified the cause & effect. But the points raised, demonstrate how this recession took decades to finally happen. And because it was so catastrophic in scope, we still haven't seen the full effect of what is still to come.

Good watch .... 7 out of 10

Cupocity303

Quote:

Originally Posted by arraamis

Pretty good documentary. It kinda over simplified the cause & effect. But the points raised, demonstrate how this recession took decades to finally happen. And because it was so catastrophic in scope, we still haven't seen the full effect of what is still to come.

Good watch .... 7 out of 10

From what I understand, basically it was about 3 separate bubbles. The housing bubble that peaked in 2006, the financial bubble centered on leverage and exotic financial products that peaked around 2007, and then there was also a emerging markets bubble, centered on Russia, China, India, Brazil that peaked somewhere 2007 and 2nd quarter of 2008.

And in 2008 all of them started to unwind quite badly.

We're also a majority service economy. Manufacturing, technology, agricultural are all secondary. And too many people went into the wrong careers that are service based. Instead of going to engineering where they would make things, they went into financial engineering. Too many people with a MBA degree, instead of going into farming. More people go into non-productive jobs than Productive ones, where you make things and sell/export them to other countries, which contributes to the trade deficit.

So it's not just that there was all this capital allocated in the wrong things like people building too many houses, it's also that there was a enormous misallocation in human capital with people going into the wrong careers.

And then there is the whole business about interest rates Blah! I'll give this a look. You have a link to the full version?

arraamis · 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cupocity303

From what I understand, basically it was about 3 separate bubbles. The housing bubble that peaked in 2006, the financial bubble centered on leverage and exotic financial products that peaked around 2007, and then there was also a emerging markets bubble, centered on Russia, China, India, Brazil that peaked somewhere 2007 and 2nd quarter of 2008.

And in 2008 all of them started to unwind quite badly.

We're also a majority service economy. Manufacturing, technology, agricultural are all secondary. And too many people went into the wrong careers that are service based. Instead of going to engineering where they would make things, they went into financial engineering. Too many people with a MBA degree, instead of going into farming. More people go into non-productive jobs than Productive ones, where you make things and sell/export them to other countries, which contributes to the trade deficit.

So it's not just that there was all this capital allocated in the wrong things like people building too many houses, it's also that there was a enormous misallocation in human capital with people going into the wrong careers.

And then there is the whole business about interest rates Blah! I'll give this a look. You have a link to the full version?

I think the order was as follows:

emerging markets bubble, centered on Russia, China, India & South America

This occurred during the Clinton Presidency. I believe Clinton was the first to use US taxpayer money to bail out foreign markets

dot-com bubble 1995–2000 - Clinton

The Housing Bubble burst in 2007 - Bush Era

The Financial Bubble burst in 2008 - Bush Era

I sent you a files0nic link to the full

arraamis

INTERNAL US BAILOUTS

* Penn Central Railroad 1970 In May 1970, Penn Central Railroad, then on the verge of bankruptcy, appealed to the Federal Reserve for aid on the grounds that it provided crucial national defense transportation services. The Nixon administration and the Federal Reserve supported providing financial assistance to Penn Central, but Congress refused to adopt the measure. Penn Central declared bankruptcy on June 21, 1970, which freed the corporation from its commercial paper obligations. To counteract the devastating ripple effects to the money market, the Federal Reserve Board told commercial banks it would provide the reserves needed to allow them to meet the credit needs of their customers. (What happened after the bailout*) $3.2 billion

* Lockheed 1971 In August 1971, Congress passed the Emergency Loan Guarantee Act, which could provide funds to any major business enterprise in crisis. Lockheed was the first recipient. Its failure would have meant significant job loss in California, a loss to the GNP and an impact on national defense. (What happened after the bailout*) $1.4 billion

* Franklin National Bank 1974 In the first five months of 1974 the bank lost $63.6 million. The Federal Reserve stepped in with a loan of $1.75 billion. (What happened after the bailout*) $7.8 billion

* New York City 1975 During the 1970s, New York City became over-extended and entered a period of financial crisis. In 1975 President Ford signed the New York City Seasonal Financing Act, which released $2.3 billion in loans to the city. (What happened after the bailout*) $9.4 billion

* Chrysler 1980 In 1979 Chrysler suffered a loss of $1.1 billion. That year the corporation requested aid from the government. In 1980 the Chrysler Loan Guarantee Act was passed, which provided $1.5 billion in loans to rescue Chrysler from insolvency. In addition, the government's aid was to be matched by U.S. and foreign banks. (What happened after the bailout*) $4.0 billion

* Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company 1984 Then the nation's eighth largest bank, Continental Illinois had suffered significant losses after purchasing $1 billion in energy loans from the failed Penn Square Bank of Oklahoma. The FDIC and Federal Reserve devised a plan to rescue the bank that included replacing the bank's top executives. (What happened after the bailout*) $9.5 billion

* Savings & Loan 1989 After the widespread failure of savings and loan institutions, President George H. W. Bush signed and Congress enacted the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act in 1989. (What happened after the bailout*) $293.3 billion

* Airline Industry 2001 The terrorist attacks of September 11 crippled an already financially troubled industry. To bail out the airlines, President Bush signed into law the Air Transportation Safety and Stabilization Act, which compensated airlines for the mandatory grounding of aircraft after the attacks. The act released $5 billion in compensation and an additional $10 billion in loan guarantees or other federal credit instruments. (What happened after the bailout*) $18.6 billion

* Bear Stearns 2008 JP Morgan Chase and the federal government bailed out Bear Stearns when the financial giant neared collapse. JP Morgan purchased Bear Stearns for $236 million; the Federal Reserve provided a $30 billion credit line to ensure the sale could move forward. $30 billion

* Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac 2008 On Sep. 7, 2008, Fannie and Freddie were essentially nationalized: placed under the conservatorship of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Under the terms of the rescue, the Treasury has invested billions to cover the companies' losses. Initially, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson put a ceiling of $100 billion for investments in each company. In February, Tim Geithner raised it to $200 billion. The money was authorized by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. $400 billion

* American International Group (A.I.G.) 2008 On four separate occasions, the government has offered aid to AIG to keep it from collapsing, rising from an initial $85 billion credit line from the Federal Reserve to a combined $180 billion effort between the Treasury ($70 billion) and Fed ($110 billion). ($40 billion of the Treasury’s commitment is also included in the TARP total.) $180 billion

* Auto Industry 2008 In late September 2008, Congress approved a more than $630 billion spending bill, which included a measure for $25 billion in loans to the auto industry. These low-interest loans are intended to aid the industry in its push to build more fuel-efficient, environmentally-friendly vehicles. The Detroit 3 -- General Motors, Ford and Chrysler -- will be the primary beneficiaries. $25 billion

* Troubled Asset Relief Program 2008 In October 2008, Congress passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which authorized the Treasury Department to spend $700 billion to combat the financial crisis. Treasury has been doling out the money via an alphabet soup of different programs. Here’s our running tally of companies getting TARP funds. $700 billion

* Citigroup 2008 Citigroup received a $25 billion investment through the TARP in October and another $20 billion in November. (That $45 billion is also included in the TARP total.) Additional aid has come in the form of government guarantees to limit losses from a $301 billion pool of toxic assets. In addition to the Treasury's $5 billion commitment, the FDIC has committed $10 billion and the Federal Reserve up to about $220 billion. $280 billion

* Bank of America 2009 Bank of America has received $45 billion through the TARP, which includes $10 billion originally meant for Merrill Lynch. (That $45 billion is also included in the TARP total.) In addition, the government has made guarantees to limit losses from a $118 billion pool of troubled assets. In addition to the Treasury's $7.5 billion commitment, the FDIC has committed $2.5 billion and the Federal Reserve up to $87.2 billion. $142.2 billion

Cupocity303

I don't like some of the people on the list, who will appear in this documentary.

Complete interview list

Michael Barone
Bruce Bartlett, Former United States Treasury Department official
John Bolton, Former U.S. Ambassador
Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
Lou Dobbs, Former CNN anchor and talk radio host
David Frum, Former speechwriter for George W. Bush
John Fund, columnist for the Wall Street Journal
Victor Davis Hanson
Newt Gingrich, Former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives
Steven Hayward
Neil Howe
David Kaiser
Roger Kimball
Dr. Charles Krauthammer, columnist for The Washington Post
Lawrence Kudlow, television host of The Kudlow Report on CNBC
Heather Mac Donald
Myron Magnet
Thaddeus G. McCotter, Republican Congressman from Michigan
Richard Miniter, editor at The Washington Times and author
Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D., fellow at the CATO Institute and former economist for the United States Senate Finance Committee
Stephen Moore, editorial board of the Wall Street Journal
Peter Morici
Dick Morris, former advisor to President Bill Clinton
Michael Novak
Michael Panzner, author
James Quinn
Barry Ritholtz
Peter Schweizer
Amity Shlaes, Senior Fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations and member of the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal
Tobin Smith
Shelby Steele
John Xenakis, author of Generational Dynamics: Forecasting America's Destin

Also is it true that the film displays a Religion Vs Non-Religion sentiment, promoting Religion?

arraamis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cupocity303

Also is it true that the film displays a Religion Vs Non-Religion sentiment, promoting Religion?

I don't recall any religious overtones or discussions {none at all} .... It discusses in depth the cultural mindset established post Depression 1929 and how that era spawned a generation that never went without. Spoiled and feeling entitled, the generation born to those who suffered during the depression, grew up with a nurtured philosophy that their actions wouldn't bear consequences and they had no real value system. They could do whatever they wanted and someone else would suffer. i.e. the working class. And if they loss huge sums of money because of their wrecklessness, the government would ultimately bail them out.

Watch it and judge for yourself ...