Charlie Rose Interviews Charles Ferguson on his documentary 'Inside Job'

[whirlygigspin]

Run time: 17:09 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS0hj4kiqsA   Posted on YouTube: February 26, 2011 By YouTube Member: tp1murray Views on YouTube: 121   Posted on DU: February 28, 2011 By DU Member: whirlygigspin Views on DU: 1096

 

[90-percent]

1. Simply put

America's bottom 98% do not have any representation in their own government!

However, the bottom 98% merely have to outspend right wing billionaires in the next election to get back some representation. Ain't Democracy grand?

-90% Jimmy

Boy do I have to see this film now!

[dotymed]

2. +10000

:kick:

Thank You whirlygigspin. I thought "Sicko" would change our health care system, it didn't.
I hope that "Inside Job" will change our financial system....we'll see.
I admire these journalists for putting the truth out there, it is up to us to act.

[HopeHoops]

3. K&R

[JonathanBrowne]

5. personally

I think Obama knows what he is doing and he made a smart decision to not go after the bankers at the present time.

I think Obama IS very politically calculating. I wouldn't say in a cold blooded way, just in a strategic way.

Now would not be the time to start arresting bankers.

The first consequence of that would be that it would cause an environment of fear, panic, and insecurity. It would lead to people pulling their money out of the stock market because they would distrust the financial institutions. While you might say that people SHOULD distrust the financial institutions, the fact of the matter is that if everyone starts pulling out their money, it leads to a massive downward spiral in the economy.

The second consequence would be that because of the emotional climate, the various factions on either side of the political and corporate fences, and the complexity of establishing clear legal wrongdoing, their would be a high risk of the whole thing turning into a hysterical fiasco where people are some people are strung up without actually being in the wrong and various guilty parties find ways to pinning wrongdoing on fallmen.

Think about how complex prosecuting this is.

It's a length process of years sometimes to find someone guilty of murder. Now imagine this magnified in complexity hundreds, perhaps thousands of times. NUMEROUS people are involved in this thing. It would take many years to actually build a case about each one of these people.

I actually suspect that if Obama wins a second term he will become more adversarial and begin moving toward prosecution. It's just NOT a good move right now.

The smart time to begin would be when the economy is normalized. Obama has to keep his focus tightly onto the future and keep a realistic but optimistic tone so that peoples confidence increases on both the consumer and the business side.

If he gets re-elected than he can take daring political risks. He needs that additional 4 years to be able to make serious changes of a systemic nature.

If I was president I would do exactly the same thing. I believe Obama is a patient man.

During the first term, coming into office with a battered economy in his hands, it would not make sense to go all guns blazing causing a political firestorm and eating up massive amounts of time and resources trying to prosecute people.

The main thing that keeps the economy running is hope and optimism. Yes, the economy DOES run on hopes and dreams. I'll explain further after people inevitably make their objections to what i'm saying.

[theFrankFactor]

6. What a Load of Shit.

[olegramps]

7. I will second that.

[elleng]

8. Good strategic thinking. Thanks.

[whirlygigspin]

9. oh how I wish...

"I think Obama knows what he is doing and he made a smart decision to not go after the bankers at the present time."

While it might be reassuring to think President Obama is working on a grand 'strategery' of wait until...perhaps a more simple explanation: that he gets a great deal of his campaign funding from wall street, prevents him from doing anything useful in that regard, seems to be more likely.

see Noam Chomsky re Thomas Ferguson on that question:
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/2/17/noam_chomsky_on_civil_rights_obama_latin_america_and_the_history_of_the_us_in_the_middle_east

and while it may seem useless to 'put bankers in jail' rousing the 'rabble' against the banks would be a good way to mobilize people and create the pressure needed to enact long overdue and needed changes included implementation of a Robinhood tax while moving the focus away from attacks on working people and unions that are economically regressive by nature.

Just sayin'

I pay my taxes, why doesn't Bank of America?

http://www.usuncut.org/

[Veronica.Franco]

4. From Huff Post ...

A unionized public employee, a teabagger, and a CEO are sitting at a table. In the middle of the table is a plate with a dozen cookies on it. The CEO reaches across and takes 11 cookies, looks at the teabagger and says, 'Watch out for that union guy. He wants a piece of your cookie."

[democracy1st]

10. K & R for later