Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

In "Inside the Meltdown," airing Tuesday, February 17 at 9 pm on PBS, FRONTLINE investigates the causes of the worst economic crisis in 70 years and how the government responded. The film chronicles the inside stories of the Bear Stearns deal, Lehman Brothers' collapse, the propping up of insurance giant AIG, and the $700 billion bailout. Inside the Meltdown examines what Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke didn't see, couldn't stop and haven't been able to fix. Watch online at http://www.pbs.org/frontline/meltdown

Darn, they won't show that over here..... Interesting but rather depressing.

I'm bemused that apparently no-one with any swing saw the AIG trainwreck coming, let alone Lehman Brothers, Bear et al. AIG's exposure was on the public record for all to see well before it all hit the fan. The big problem may have been that there were too many crises and too few sets of eyes.

There are other, less charitable, explanations....

Everybody wanted to pah-tee. Now the bill is due. Unfortunately, the US taxpayers are bearing the brunt.... Can you say Happy April 15th??!!

antipodean wrote:There are other, less charitable, explanations....

Exactly.

When you let a drunk run the bar by himself........................

That and unbridled greed at many levels of the strata..... Not a good mix. It’s a shame that most of the ones directly responsible will probably never be held accountable.

Isn't it a bit early to be running shows like this? I would figure a few years should pass to get more historical context before actually releasing an analysis of the "meltdown." Most organizations that study accidents take months to file a full report. I have the same philosophy on legislation, too. I don't think any law should be passed immediately after an event because the laws then tend to be full of too much emotion and not enough analytical thought. Also, the economy in 1982 was worse than the economy now, so the whole worst economy in 70 years is a bit of an exaggeration.

The Economy was much worse 1980 through `82; high inflation, high interest rates, and high unemployment, the latter two in double digits, combined with a stagnant economy. That's not to say we couldn't end up with the worst economy in 70 years, it's just that it's economic fact that we're not there currently.

I bought my first house in SoCal in '81. I recall 15 3/4% interest!

Sold it in '83; nice profit...next mortgage was for 10%...I thiught I'd died and gone to RE heaven...

nukebass wrote:Isn't it a bit early to be running shows like this? I would figure a few years should pass to get more historical context before actually releasing an analysis of the "meltdown." Most organizations that study accidents take months to file a full report. I have the same philosophy on legislation, too. I don't think any law should be passed immediately after an event because the laws then tend to be full of too much emotion and not enough analytical thought. Also, the economy in 1982 was worse than the economy now, so the whole worst economy in 70 years is a bit of an exaggeration.

I totally agree Ryan, both with the idea that we need some passage of time to understand the context of the event and that the media has blown it out of proportion (which is what they do best).

In terms of the financial melt down, the seeds were sown in the early 00s, and the financial system was actually a "dead man walking" from at least late 2007 on, it's just that the vast majority of us (me included) had not been clued in, so it managed to cough and wheeze along for another year before the cascade of really bad news led to last year's crisis and bailout. I think that wenough data is out there to put us in a position to evaluate what happened, but I agree that the dispassionate environment required may not eventuate anytime soon.

In general, the media live for a good crisis. Global terrorism and armed conflict is passe, climate change is too highbrow and not immediate enough for many, so the economic meltdown is heaven-sent. Of course, sections of the media report the crisis in such a way as to erode confidence and exacerbate the downturn. To them, bad news is good news, and keeping the bad news coming (possibly unwittingly) and fueling the downward spiral is irresistible.

Oooh...that's smelling like a rant.

Nah, I think that's a fair, sober, observation.

The news media does live for a crisis, and the economy is something that affects everyone firsthand, which may not be the case with other crises: climate change does not present an immediate, apparent impact on most of us, nor, percentage-wise as a proportion of the population, does armed conflict, as our technical advantage reduces the number of troops in proportion to the general population is far smaller than in past wars.

As for the media living for a good crisis, gloom and doom reporting about the economy is not all that new. Recall that in `92, the media was quick to accept and repeat the campaign falshood that the relatively minor recession was "the worst economy in the last fifty years", and often times, positive economic news early in this decade often appeared to to be reported with a bit of disappointment.

The news media is misnamed; it should really be called the "bad news media".

paologregorio wrote:The news media is misnamed; it should really be called the "bad news media".

I would add overdramatize, sensationalism, hype, etc. to that!

http://www.amazon.com/How-News-Makes-Du ... 0830822038

Recommended reading!

Wait! You mean the news is not a factual, accurate portray of given events and occurrences????!!! I am shocked!

unfortunately over the past few years I dare say there aren't too many true journalists left... seems that mostthese days are spin doctors and event editorialists.... a shame that we are living in the information age and there is soooo little objective info out there.

You know it's bad when the local media is excited about shootings and robberies. It drives me nuts when a commercial comes on and the station's newscasters are excited about being the exclusive ones on the scene of some catastrophe. I can't help but think, "Somebody just died and you're worried about ratings!"