I'll save you the time: the "Great Moderation" that I began working during in 1984 is over. The stock market bubble became the housing bubble which became ... the Government Debt bubble (which has yet to burst). It's incredible to watch each crisis, and how each one has driven interest rates lower and lower, until we are at ... zero. We have created a scenario where we can't lower them again. Quantitative easing has kept us afloat but for how long?Inflation remains low but my understanding is the CPI no longer includes food or energy? And while unemployment has lowered my understanding is that is because people have left the workforce, and very few if any "real jobs" have been created. The films producers point out we are an economy that has consumed more than we have produced for an entire decade. They ask the question: "how long can this continue?"The film really got me thinking about a term they brought up: "moral hazard." If I know the Fed will bail me out on the downside why not accept the risk? It also applies in my mind to debt. In olden days people worried about putting debt on their children and grandchildren. That's no longer the case for many people like me. Free Heath care? Why not? Oh if an anti-viral will save me I can practice unsafe sex? Why not? I never knew it had a name but it does: "moral hazard" and I think it's becoming rapidly absent in modern society.It's especially applicable to the Justice System. I'm now officially a true crime addict. And one common thread in these horrendous cases is truly dangerous people are released into society time and time again. Criminals routinely violate their paroles with no negative consequences. Yes I'm against the "Prison State." But if we promise to punish but in the end "bail out" the truly bad guys, what are the consequences for a safe society? No easy answers.Anyway I suppose I should start a blog rather than meander in emails. This movie is kinda a snoozer but I wanted to share my thoughts.

One of the best documentaries I've seen demonstrating how the role of the Federal Reserve contributed to the Financial Crisis of 2008. In the wake of the financial collapse of 2008 creating a Recession which could have led to another Great Depression, a lot of blame was leveled against Investment Banks who were vilified as being greedy, particularly Lehman Brothers and Bear-Stearns, and insurance companies like AIG who undertook too many credit default swaps. The financial banks had taken on nearly as much debt as their assets, particularly in sub-prime mortgages, and AIG had insured them against default, i.e. "default swaps". When Lehman went bankrupt, AIG owed trillions of dollars in insurance against default, which nearly brought down the financial system.Now, while Lehman and Bear-Stearns share plenty of the blame in the recent crisis, these bad debts and faulty reliance on sub-prime mortgages were not solely private sector malfeasance. A US department agency also played a crucial role: The US Federal Reserve. The US Federal Reserve ("The Fed") since Alan Greenspan became Fed Chairman in the late 1980's under then President Ronald Reagan engaged a more "hands-off" policy in terms of financial regulation and at the same time allowed much more loan money to be acquired by these private financial institutions who in turn bought into risky investments. This documentary outlines why the Fed was created in the first place, its role over the years in terms of both regulating and stimulating financial markets and what it did and didn't do to contribute to the recent financial collapse. While I don't believe the Fed was solely responsible for the financial collapse, as suggested by the film, their policy approaches were vital as one of many contributing factors which created a financial "perfect storm".Two of the leading characters whose roles were crucial in the Fed's policy-making in this unfolding drama were the two Fed Chairmen Alan Greenspan (1987-2006) and Ben Bernanke (2006-2014). Greenspan in particular was touted as a financial guru who understood financial markets better than a Super Bowl winning football coach understands how to get first downs and touchdowns. If Greenspan didn't know the answer to an aspect of the financial market, the question itself must be flawed, or so went the conventional wisdom for nearly 30 years. To his credit, Greenspan had steered the US economy through several storms. What he didn't know was that a financial hurricane was descending upon Wall Street.Over and over, Greenspan had opportunities to regulate aspects of the financial markets, particularly the so-called credit default swap insurance policies, issued by the likes of AIG and others. He also could have reigned in loose lending practices. Once, early on as Fed Chairman, Greenspan hinted the stock market may be spiraling out of control, but was quickly vilified by Wall Street for his remarks. Since then, during much of his tenure, he took a position of deregulation in which "the market will figure it out" approach so prevalent in Conservative politics. Ben Bernanke, who is a self-described scholar of the Great Depression, also didn't see the financial collapse coming. In several interviews prior to the beginning of the collapse, Bernanke iterates the impossibility of a national drop in housing prices. His scholarship for some reason precluded him from seeing the coming crisis, first in terms of the bursting housing bubble, then the ensuing financial crisis which was spawned as a result.While scholars have debated and will continue to do so over the next century over the reasons for the financial crisis, several things are clear about the Recession. The Fed contributed to the collapse with certain policies, greed does not necessarily regulate itself, and no single individual can know everything about every aspect of the market. At the ensuing congressional hearings which Congress called after the collapse, Greenspan admitted the flaws of his policies. He said he assumed that financial institutions would always make the best decisions which would be in the interest of their companies. The reality is, just like everything else in a complex modern world, the private sector cannot always be counted on to make the best of decisions, be it for their companies or the worldwide economy. The Fed has a role to play in at least helping to thwart a possible crisis in the future. That role is always endlessly debated by politicians, congressmen, financiers, advisers and occasionally scholars. Let's hope the financiers won't always get 100% of their desires.

the best Documentary on the topic are the money master and Money As Debt,i assume the producer At least have seen them but they haven't.for the part where money was created，Borrowing is the major way ，when someone Borrow from bank where does the money come from，does it came from your Account? i don't think so . if this was the case you will notice. does it come from bank's money? i don't think so ,they need it for the Bonus. in fact it's money from nowhere created by the bank, it's a Obligation that bank has to pay the Borrower in exchange for the the Promise that the Borrower will pay back more, yes it's that twisted, for instance the Borrower spend the money and the money usually end up in some Account in the bank, bank's Assets(everyone's saving plus the Borrower's Promise) and its liability (Obligation to pay Depositor and the Borrower) both increase ,and as long as the bank's Assets is greater than its liability ,the came can continue forever.as for the fed which is a Private bank with its own share holders just as the Central Bank of the United Kingdom, it is responsible for the Creation of U.S. dollar. the Borrower is US government. as for Greenspan who has been Praised a lot by the movie (at least by the people they Interview) is not the Reason for the U.S. economy to be Prosperity in 1990. the true Reason is that sucker like china gone dollar-Fever , they pumping low-cost merchandise into US in exchange for green paper which keep the Cost of Living low while Destroy the manufacturing industry of US thus free the whole Country to work in Financial sector which Attract suckers all over the world to Invest in its Stock market. lots of Big shot Appear in the movie, but it didn't help, because they only help Themselvesin the end they try to Summary that the wallstreet did what they did because fed made the money easy and the fed did what they did because they are simply unware of the Consequence of their Behavior, which is so not true, anyone with a basic Knowledge of Economy knows what would happen if the Leverage was too higha better choose of Documentary on Financial crisis would be inside job and meltdown by cbc

A gem in the movie industry, conveying the federal reserve as pacifist who hates the idea of forcing people to come to grips with reality. Conveying the federal reserve as having foresight all the time,even though there is some denial of this near the end. The very pacifist mentality was the ideal of the federal reserve to act as a cushion to protect the delusions of the public rather than act as moralist dictator. So the federal reserve allowed investment out self interest that had no direct long term benefit to society this was more acceptable than forcing a moralist view on the economy. One of the prime reasons the fed always acted as a cushion rather than a moralist was the monetary gain, which were only asset inflation and this was the delusion of the people. Against there better judgement they obeyed the people's will in general. The asset inflation is inflation mistaken as monetary gain, however when ever individuals profit by inflation inequity rules as they got the money for free or nearly free. For the investors get rich, those who own stock and houses and so on, and everyone else suffers poverty. No one wishes to change this as that would create the appearance of monetary redistribution. Worse yet because the market gains where an illusion, there are no new jobs for the youth as there shall always be to many people and not enough jobs, as industry is very efficient in the new computer robotic global economy.Hence everyone must work less hours so everyone can work otherwise pay for a welfare state which has negative effects in itself, for if neither of these are done The People shall and will starve to death as there is lots of food and shelter, but no self dependence everyone is dependent upon jobs to get those things, as in past the majority had their own land to farm upon and now they do not. To any length the problem can never be solved by the monetary federal reserve. It was never their fault in the first place. Blaming a bunch of pacifist who would do anything to ensure the economy kept going given the conditions of a computer robotic global economy is a sad lie. These federal reserve people call it the free market but what they are meaning is forcefulness is rape, they simply hate pushing their morals upon a people who do not want them, people wanted free money and so they got what they desired. The sacrifices we must make to remain a compassionate society is something that is going to be token by force. Plainly none of us are honest enough to admit we have stolen from ourselves a fair and equitable society. Where money is earned by giving to society a long lasting benefit in service, rather than just profiting our selves, I can say being a pacifist myself, I have lost everything by a forceful economy that was self serving and now I have profited being self serving. If someone takes by force what I have token without any benefit to society, at least I can say its fair enough to me.