Inside job 观后感
坚守自盗观后感
《inside job》观后感《Inside job》这部影片探讨了2008年金融危机产生的原因。
影片通过冰岛债务问题展开，讨论了这场前所未有危机发生原理的影片。
从片名我们可以清晰的感觉到导演想要传达一种可靠而坚定的信息给观众，inside job翻译成监守自盗也很适合导演的本意，导演本身就是非常确定并带有谴责的意味去将危机的始作俑者如何暗地操纵并策划了这场危机的始末呈现给观众。
华尔街和政府勾结，雇佣知名学者来游说，但是这些导致金融危机的罪魁祸首却能在这场浩劫中安然无事。
甚至在金融风暴过后，继续坐收名利。
影片试图揭露金融危机的本质以及这场危机造成全球股市大跌、大银行倒闭和接踵而至的社会影响。
“The poorest pay the most"这似乎成了真理。
在2小时的过程中，《监守自盗》汇集了了来自亚洲、欧洲和美洲的众多专家的调查和见证。
影片记录了和不同的政治人物、金融专家、大学老师和记者的访谈，由美国演员马特·达蒙来负责旁白。
有趣的一点是整个电影流程中运用的数据，导演在事先设置了一个框架然后通过采访那些在这场危机中扮演重要角色的人来填充，并假以数据来支持其说法。
然而，整个影片都是一个个小小的采访片段组合起来，只是截取被采访人中对某一细节的只言片语，真正发挥作用让观众信服的是这背后令人震惊的数据。
而这些数据不是空穴来风都是有据可查。
从统计学的绝度来说，这些数据证据都是客观性存在的。
统计是调查研究活动，由专门的机构收集整理和分析，并整理在案。
导演在拍摄之前定然对这些统计机构进行了采访或其他途径获得相关的统计数据来支持其说法。
然而令人失望的是华尔街和政府的勾结，世界大金融机构的腐败黑暗，利欲倾心地大金融家，将整个金融体系玩弄于鼓掌。
由此可见，所谓的汇集了了来自亚洲、欧洲和美洲的众多专家权威统计部门的统计数据也未必可信，因为数据的来源就存在问题。
如果假真如此，那支撑整部电影的基础轰然倒塌，不过是小丑主角的一场戏而已。
inside job
《inside job》观后感《Inside job》这部被翻译家翻为监守自盗的电影在2011年被评为最佳纪录长片。
2008年，全球金融海啸，多国陷入金融危机，损失高达20万亿美元，数以百万计人加入失业大军，甚至丧失家园……这部片子通过详尽的资料搜集，追访全球金融业界猛人、政客、财经记者，披露金融大鳄的崛兴之路，公开业内和学界贪污腐败的政策背后的惊人真相。
总的来说本片的可看性相当的高，采访的人物都很大牌，涉及美国高级行政人员，顶级银行家，金融分析师，大学教授，甚至新加坡，中国，法国的政府官员等等。
可以说市面上一部分的金融著作都出自这些人之手。
对于我们这些学习金融的同学，这部片子可以说是一部很好的教育片众所周知，本次经融危机最大的受害者就是冰岛，作为一个全民炒股的国家，经融危机的发生让这个国家的群众背上了全民负债的可笑帽子。
冰岛在2000年起开始放松管制、宽松经济政策，银行大胆举债、一手主导的过度膨胀使经济体系变得极其脆弱，金融监管机构无所作为，冰岛可谓是作茧自缚。
过度的膨胀最终使这个国家在面对金融危机时被打的毫无还手之力。
片子主要分为了四章来讲述。
第一章是How we got here。
讲华尔街投资银行从早期的partner模式来到Deregulation的时代。
第二章泡沫，描述了房间的不断攀升，银行业的去管制化还继续着不断地加剧。
第三章危机，描述了危机是如何扩散，人民失业，失去自己的家园，并逐渐波及到全世界。
第四章Accountability 。
这是我认为本部电影最精彩也是最尖锐的一章。
每个宣称无辜的面孔和他们的百万甚至千万美元的收入数字亲密的出现在同一画面上，每个人都宣称自己没有责任从AIG到冰岛委托为它做宣传的学者，每个人都不承认自己的行为在这次危机中进行了一点点的推动。
推脱责任似乎成为了这些人的采访主要任务。
学术界的先生们还用论文来衬托他们的咨询费用单，甚至找出了税单，这些人在采访里的表现可谓无比精彩。
监守自盗（InsideJob）观后感（5篇）
监守自盗（InsideJob）观后感（5篇）第一篇：监守自盗(Inside Job)观后感影片《监守自盗》观后感Inside job，翻译成中文——监守自盗，很巧妙的翻译。
该电影是探究2008年金融危机爆发原因的纪录片，本片主要是通过采访华尔街金融精英、经济学家、政府要员、金融消费者等和展示客观真实的数据材料，给观众呈现出了金融危机爆发的诸多原因。
片子引子部分描述2008年世界经济危机及冰岛危机的现状，然后按时间顺序依次通过五个部分（How we got here、The Bubble、The Crisis、Accountability和Where We Are Now）从二十世纪七十年代开始追根溯源，将看似复杂又混乱的美国金融业发展历程有层次有侧重点的逐步回顾。
整个片子看下来，呈现在我们观众面前的就是一个很残酷的现实——金融业已经把政治、学术和民众都拖入了一个庞大的多米诺骨牌阵——牵头这个骨牌阵的正是金融业金字塔顶尖的那些“名人”——是他们在监守自盗。
一、利益驱使--明知不可为而为之“没有永远的朋友，只有永远的利益”——丘吉尔片中有这样一段描述：一个七十年代的债券交易员，因为家里有三个孩子，所以他需要在晚上打另外一份工，这样才能养活全家。
但是十年后，他已经年薪几百万美元。
这是由于他所从事的行业，到了八十年代，开始爆炸性地增长。
2000年之后，金融创新（包括抵押集合债券）开始呈爆炸性增长。
在证券化这条利益链上的每一个人，从头至尾，没有人关心住房抵押贷款的质量，关心的只是怎样把贷款的规模做到最大，以便从中牟利。
一些金融机构为了更快更多的发放次级贷款，有意放松对贷款人基本贷款资质和条件的审查，由于过度竞争一些机构和开发商达成“默契”，部分借贷人购房时可以是“零首付”。
每个人都可以申请抵押贷款，借款人用高额的次贷置地，房价和对房的需求急剧增加，形成了历史上最大的经济泡沫。
以高盛为例，销售团队一边卖掉6亿美元的“森林狼”债券，一边在卖这些债券之前，成员之间的对话却是“哥们，森林狼可够烂的”。
InsideJob英文字幕
Iceland is a stable democracy with a high standard of living -- and, until recently -and government debt.We had the complete infrastructure of a modern society.Clean energy, food production.Fisheries with a quota system to manage them.Good healthcare, education, clean air.Not much crime.It's a good place for families to live.We had almost e nd-of-history status.But in 2000, Iceland's government began a broad policy of deregulation - disastrous consequences -and then for the economy.They started by allowing multinational corporations like Alcoa - aluminum-smelting plants -- and exploit lceland's geothermal and hydroelectric energy sources. Many of the most beautiful areas in the highlands -are geothermal.So nothing comes without consequence.At the same time -Iceland's three largest banks.The result was one of the purest experiments -ever conducted.We have had enough. How could all of this happen?Finance took over and more or less wrecked the place.In a five-year period, these three tiny banks -outside of lceland -- borrowed 1 20 billion dollars -- 1 0 times the size of Iceland's economy.The bankers showered money o n themselves -There was a massive bubble.Stock prices went up by a factor of nine.House prices more than doubled.Iceland's bubble gave rise to people like Jon Asgeir Johannesson.He borrowed billions to buy up high-end retail businesses in London. He also bought a pinstriped private jet -- a 40-million-dollar yacht -Newspapers always had the headline:This millionaire bought this company -or in France or wherever -- instead of saying:This millionaire took>a billion-dollar loan -- to buy this company, and he took it from your local bank."The banks set up money market funds -deposit-holders to withdraw money -in the money market funds.The Ponzi scheme needed everything it could.American accounting firms like KPMG -and investment firms -And American credit-rating agencies said lceland was wonderful.In February 2007 -to the highest possible rate, triple-A.It went so far as the government here traveling with the bankers -When Iceland's banks collapsed at the end of 2008 -in six months.There is nobody unaffected in Iceland.A lot of people lost their savings.Yes, that's the case.Government regulators who should've been protecting the citizens -You have two lawyers from the regulator going down to a bank -When they approach the bank -- they would see 1 9 SUVs outside the bank.You enter the bank -- and you have the 1 9 lawyers sitting in front of you, right -- very well prepared, ready to kill any argument you make.And then, if you do really well, they'll offer you a job.One-third of Iceland's financial regulators -But this is a universal problem, huh?In New York, you have the same problem, right?What do you think of Wall Street incomes these days?Excessive.I've been told it's extremely difficult for the lMF -I wouldn't say that.We deeply regret our breaches of U.S. law.They're amazed at how much cocaine these Wall Streeters can use -and go to work the next day.I didn't know what credit default swaps are.I'm a little bit old-fashioned.Has Larry Summers ever expressed remorse?I don't hear confessions.The government's just writing checks.That's plan A, that's plan B and that's plan C.Would you support legal controls on executive pay?I would not.Are you comfortable with the level of compensation in financial services? If they've earned it, yes, I am.-Do you think they've earned it?And so you've helped these people blow the world up?You could say that.They were having massive private gains at public loss.When you think you can create something out of nothing -- it's difficult to resist.I'm concerned people want to go back to the old way -prior to the crisis.I was getting a lot of anonymous e-mails from bankers saying:You can't quote me,>but I'm really concerned.Why do you think there isn't -being undertaken?Because then you'll find the culprits.You think Columbia Business School has any conflict-of-interest problem?I don't see that we do.The regulators didn't do their job.They had the power to do every case that I made. They just didn't want to. Lehman Brothers, one of the most venerable -- and biggest investment banks, was forced to declare itself bankrupt. Another, Merrill Lynch, was forced to sell itself today.World financial markets are way down, following dramatic developments - . In September 2008 -investment bank Lehman Brothers -- and the collapse of the world's largest insurance company, AIG - Fears gripped markets overnight - .Stocks fell off a cliff.The largest single point drop in history.Share prices continued to tumble -of the Lehman collapse.The result was a global recession -tens of trillions of dollars -- rendered 30 million people unemployed -of the United States.With the destruction of equity and housing wealth -- the destruction of income, of jobs -- 50 million people globally could end up below the poverty line again. This is just a hugely, hugely expensive crisis.This crisis was not an accident.It was caused by an out-of-control industry.Since the 1 980s -has led to a series -financial crises.Each crisis has caused more damage -more and more money.After the Great Depression -- the United States had 40 years of economic growth -The financial industry was tightly regulated.Most regular banks were local businesses -- prohibited from speculating -- with depositors' savings.lnvestment banks, which handled stock and bond trading -In the traditional investment banking model -- the partners put the money up -very carefully.They wanted to live well -- but they didn't want to bet the ranch on anything.Paul V olcker served i n the Treasury Department -Federal Reserve from 1 979 to 1 987.Before going into government -at Chase Manhattan Bank.When I left Chase to go in the Treasury in 1 969 -of $45,000 a year.Forty-five thousand dollars a year.Morgan Stanley, in 1 972 -1 1 0 total personnel -- one office, and capital of 1 2 million dollars.Now Morgan Stanley has 50,000 workers -- and has capital of several billion -in the 1 980s, the financial industry exploded.The investment banks went public -of stockholder money.People on Wall Street started getting rich.I had a friend who was a bond trader -- at Merrill Lynch in the 1 970s.He had a job as a train conductor at night -and couldn't support them -By 1 986, h e was making millions of dollars -it was because he was smart.The highest order of business before the nation -our economic prosperity.In 1 981 , President Ronald Reagan chose as Treasury secretary - Merrill Lynch, Donald Regan.Wall Street and the president see eye to eye.I've talked to leaders of Wall Street.They say, "We're behind the president 1 00 percent."The Reagan administration -and financial lobbyists -- started a 30-year period of financial deregulation.in 1 982, the Reagan administration -savings-and-loan companies -investments with depositors' money.By the end of the decade -companies had failed.This crisis cost taxpayers $1 24 billion -their life savings.It may be the biggest bank heist in our history.Thousands of executives went to jail for looting their companies. One of the most extreme cases was Charles Keating.Mr. Keating, got a word?In 1 985, when federal regulators began investigating him - named Alan Greenspan.In this letter to regulators -- Greenspan praised Keating's s ound business plans and expertise - Keating to invest customers' money.Keating reportedly paid Greenspan $40,000.Keating went to prison shortly afterwards.As for Alan Greenspan -chairman of America's central bank -Greenspan was reappointed -and George W. Bush.During the Clinton administration -under Greenspan -Robert Rubin -investment bank Goldman Sachs -- and Larry Summers, a Harvard economics professor.The financial sector, Wall Street being powerful -- having lobbies, lots of money -- step by step, captured the political system.Both on the Democratic and the Republican side.By the late 1 990s, the financial sector had consolidated -- into a few gigantic firms, each of them so large -the whole system.And the Clinton administration helped them grow even larger.ln 1 998, Citicorp and Travelers merged -- to form Citigroup -company in the world.The merger violated the Glass-Steagall Act -after the Great Depression -with consumer deposits -risky investment-banking activities.It was illegal to acquire Travelers.Greenspan said nothing.The Federal Reserve gave them an exemption for a year -ln 1 999, at the urging of Summers and Rubin -the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act -as the Citigroup Relief Act.It overturned Glass-Steagall -for future mergers.Why do you have big banks?Because banks like monopoly power, lobbying power.Because banks know that when they're too big -Markets are inherently unstable.Or at least potentially unstable.An appropriate metaphor is the oil tankers.They are very big -- and therefore, you have to put in compartments -the sloshing around of oil -The design of the boat has to take that into account.And after the Depression -these very watertight compartments.And deregulation has led to the end of compartmentalization.The next crisis came at the end of the '90s.The investment banks fueled a massive bubble in lnternet stocks -in 2001 - - that caused $5 trillion in investment losses.The Securities and Exchange Commission, the federal agency - to regulate investment banking -In the absence of meaningful federal action -of self-regulation -- it's become necessary for others to step in -Eliot Spitzer's investigation revealed the investment banks -they knew would fail.Analysts were being paid based on h ow much business they brought in. What they said publicly was quite different from what they said privately. Infospace, given the highest possible rating -as a "piece of junk."Excite, also highly rated, c alled "such a piece of crap."The defense that was proffered by many of the investment banks -- was not "you're wrong" -- it was, "Everybody's doing it, everybody knows it's going on.Nobody should rely o n these analysts anyway."ln December, 2002 -- 1 0 investment banks settled t he case for a total of $1 .4 billion - to change their ways.Scott Talbott is the chief lobbyist for the Financial Services Roundtable - - one of Washington's most powerful groups -world's largest financial companies.Are you comfortable with the fact that several of your member companies - in large-scale criminal activity?-l-- You'll have to be specific.And first of all, criminal activity shouldn't be accepted, period.Since deregulation began, the world's biggest financial firms - money, defrauding customers -again and again and again.Credit Suisse helped funnel moneyfor Iran's nuclear program -- and for lran's Aerospace Industries Organization -Any information that would identify it as lranian would be removed.The bank was fined $536 million.Citibank helped funnel $1 00 million of drug money out of Mexico.Did you comment that she should, quote:Lose any documents connected>with the account?I said that in a kidding manner.I did not mean it seriously.Between 1 998 and 2003 -by more than $1 0 billion.These accounting standards are complex -over which experts often disagree.CEO Franklin Raines, who used to be President Clinton's budget director - - received over $52 million in bonuses.When UBS was caught helping wealthy Americans evade taxes -with the government.Would you be willing to supply the names?-lf there's a treaty framework.You've agreed you participated in a fraud.But while the companies face unprecedented fines -have to admit any wrongdoing.When dealing with this many products, this many customers, mistakes happen. The financial services industry seems to have a level of criminality -You know, when was the last time that Cisco -- or lntel or Google or Apple or IBM, you know--?I agree about high-tech versus financial services---High-tech is a creative business -- where the value generation -actually creating something new.Beginning in the 1 990s -and advances in technology -financial products called derivatives.Economists and bankers claimed they made markets safer.But instead, they made them unstable.Since the end of the Cold War -- a lot of former physicists, mathematicians -- decided to apply their skills -- not on, you know, Cold War technology -And together with investment bankers--You know, as Warren Buffett said, weapons of mass destruction. Regulators, politicians, business people -the threat of innovation -of the financial system.Using derivatives -on virtually anything.They could bet on the rise or fall of oil prices -- the bankruptcy of a company, even the weather.By the late 1 990s -- derivatives were a 50-trillion-dollar unregulated market.ln 1 998, someone tried to regulate them.Brooksley Born graduated first in her class at Stanford Law School - to edit a major law review.After running the derivatives practice at Arnold & Porter -- Born was appointed by Clinton -Trading Commission -the derivatives market.Brooksley Born asked me if l would come work with her.We decided that this was a serious, p otentially destabilizing market.In May of 1 998, the CFTC issued a proposal to regulate derivatives. Clinton's Treasury Department had an immediate response.I happened to go into Brooksley's office -the receiver on her telephone -from her face.And she looked at me and said, That was Larry Summers.He had 1 3 bankers in his office.He conveyed it in a very bullying fashion -Banks were now reliant for earnings on these activities.And that led to a titanic battle to prevent this from being regulated. Shortly after the phone call from Summers -- Greenspan, Rubin, and SEC chairman Arthur Levitt - condemning Born -to keep derivatives unregulated.Regulation of derivatives transactions -by professionals is unnecessary.She was overruled, unfortunately. First by the Clinton administration - In 2000, Senator Phil Gramm took a major role in getting a bill passed - derivatives from regulation.They are unifying markets, reducing regulatory burden.I believe we need to do it.It is our very great hope -to move this year -- on legislation that,in a suitable way -for OTC derivatives.I wish to associate myself -of Secretary Summers.ln December of 2000, Congress passed -Modernization Act.Written with the help of financial-industry lobbyists -of derivatives.After that, it was off to the races.Use of derivatives and financial innovation -- exploded dramatically after 2000.By the time George W. Bush took office in 2001 -was vastly more profitable -than ever before.Dominating this industry were five investment banks -- two financial conglomerates - companies -And linking them all together was the securitization food chain.A new system which connected trillions of dollars -with investors all over the world.Thirty years ago, if you went to get a loan for a home -expected you to pay him or her back.You got a loan from a lender who wanted to be paid back.We've since developed securitization, whereby people who make the loan - if they fail to repay.In the old system, when a homeowner paid their mortgage every month -to their local lender.And since mortgages took decades to repay, lenders were careful.In the new system, lenders sold mortgages to investment banks.The banks combined thousands of mortgages and loans -- including car loans, student loans, and credit card debt -collateralized debt obligations -The investment banks then sold the CDOs to investors.Now when homeowners paid their mortgages -all over the world.The investment banks paid rating agencies -- to evaluate the CDOs -were given a triple-A rating -investment grade.This made CDOs popular with retirement funds -highly rated securities.This system was a ticking time bomb.Lenders didn't care anymore about whether a borrower could repay -riskier loans.The investment banks didn't care either.The more CDOs they sold, the higher their profits.And the rating agencies, which were paid by the investment banks -of CDOs proved wrong.You weren't gonna be on the hook, there weren't regulatory constraints.So it was a green light to just pump out more and more loans.Between 2000 and 2003 -made each year nearly quadrupled.Everybody in this securitization food chain -until the end -- didn't care about the quality of the mortgage.They were caring about maximizing their volume -In the early 2000s -in the riskiest loans, called subprime.When thousands of subprime loans were combined to create CDOs -triple-A ratings. Now, it would have been possible to create derivative products -- that don't have these risks - of deductibles -that can be taken on, and so forth.-They didn't do that, did they? -They didn't.In retrospect, they should've done.So did these guys know they were doing something dangerous?I think they did.All the incentives financial institutions offered to their mortgage brokers –the most profitable products -If they make more money, that's where they'll put you.Suddenly, hundreds of billions of dollars a year - the securitization chain.Since anyone could get a mortgage -and housing prices skyrocketed.The result was the biggest financial bubble in history.Real estate is real. They can see their asset.They can live in their asset. They can rent out their asset.You had a huge boom in housing that made no sense at all.The financing appetites of the financial sector -Last time we had a housing bubble w as in the late '80s.In that case, the increase in home price had been relatively minor.That housing bubble led to a relatively severe recession.From 1 996 until 2006 - effectively doubled.At $500 a ticket, they've come to hear how to buy their very own piece -Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers -The subprime lending alone increased from 30 billion a year in funding -- to over 600 billion a year in 1 0 years.They knew what was happening.Countrywide Financial, the largest subprime lender -- issued $97 billion worth of loans.lt made over $1 1 billion in profits as a result.On Wall Street, annual cash bonuses spiked.Traders and CEOs - d uring the bubble.Lehman Brothers was a top underwriter of subprime lending -- and their CEO, Richard Fuld -- took home $485 million.On Wall Street, this housing and credit bubble -of dollars of profits.You know, by 2006 about 40 percent of all profits -- of S&P 500 firms was coming from financial institutions.It wasn't real profits or income.It was money created by the system and booked as income.Two, three years down the road there's a default, it's all wiped out.I think it was, in fact, in retrospect,a great big national--And not just national, global Ponzi scheme.Through the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act - had broad authority -But Fed chairman Alan Greenspan refused to use it.Alan Greenspan said, No, that's regulation.I don't believe in it."For 20 years, Robert Gnaizda was the head of Greenlining - advocacy group.He met with Greenspan on a regular basis.We gave him an example of Countrywide -- and 1 50 different complex adjustable-rate mortgages.He said, If you had a doctorate in math -- you wouldn't be able to understand them enough - and which wasn't."So we thought he was gonna take action.But as the conversation continued - with his ideology.We met again with Greenspan in '05.Often we met with him twice a year, and never less than once a year.And he wouldn't change his mind.In this world of global communications -of capital - prosperity in human history.A hundred and forty-six people were cut from the SEC Enforcement Division?Is that what you also testified to?Yes.Yeah, l think there has been a systematic gutting -- or whatever you wanna call it, of the agency - t hrough cutting back of staff.The SEC Office of Risk Management -- was reduced to a staff, did you say, of one?Yeah. When that gentleman would go home, he could turn the lights out.During the bubble, investment banks were borrowing heavily - and create more CDOs. The ratio between borrowed money and the banks' own money -The more the banks borrowed, the higher their leverage.In 2004, Henry Paulson, the CEO of Goldman Sachs - to relax limits on leverage -to sharply increase their borrowing.The SEC somehow decided - gamble a lot more.That was nuts. l don't know why they did that, but they did.We've said these are the big guys, and clearly that's true.But that means if anything goes wrong, it's going to be an awfully big mess.You are dealing with the most highly sophisticated financial institutions.These are the firms that do most of the derivative activity.We talked to some as to what their comfort level was.The firms actually thought that the number was appropriate.The commissioners vote to adopt the new rules as recommended.Yes.We do indeed. It's unanimous. And we are adjourned.The degree of leverage in the financial system -Investment banks leveraging up to the level of 33-to-1 .Which means that a tiny 3-percent decrease -would leave them insolvent.There was another ticking time bomb in the financial system.AlG, the world's largest insurance company - of derivatives -For investors who owned CDOs - like an insurance policy.An investor who purchased a credit default swap -lf the CDO went bad - for their losses.But unlike regular insurance - credit default swaps from AIG - they didn't own.In insurance, you can only insure something you own.Let's say you and l own property. I own a house.I can only insure that house once.The derivatives universe essentially enables anybody -You could insure that, somebody else could.So 50 people might insure my house.So what happens is, i f my house burns down - becomes proportionately larger.Since credit default swaps were unregulated -- AIG didn't have to put aside any money to cover potential losses.Instead, AIG paid its employees huge cash bonuses -were signed.But if the CDOs later went bad -People were essentially being rewarded for taking massive risks.In good times, they generate short-term revenues and profits -But that's gonna lead to the firm to be bankrupt over time.That's a distorted system of compensation.AlG's Financial Products division in London -- issued $500 billion worth of credit default swaps during the bubblebacked by subprime mortgages.The 400 employees at AlGFP -- made $3.5 billion between 2000 and 2007.Joseph Cassano, the head of AlGFP -- personally made $31 5 million.lt's hard for us -- and without being flippant, to even see a scenario -realm of reason -in any of those transactions.ln 2007, AlG's auditors raised warnings.One of them, Joseph St. Denis - Cassano repeatedly blocked him - AlGFP's accounting. One person didn't get a bonus.That was St. Denis. Mr. St. Denis tried to alert the two of you -into big problems.He quit in frustration, and he didn't get a bonus.In 2005, Raghuram Rajan - of the International Monetary Fund - at the Jackson Hole symposium in the world.Who was in the audience?It was the central bankers of the world - Mr. Greenspan himself -- Ben Bernanke -Tim Geithner was there.The title of the paper was essentially:Is Financial Development>Making the World Riskier?And the conclusion was, it is.Rajan's paper focused on incentive structures -based on short-term profits -for later losses.Rajan argued that these incentives encouraged bankers -destroy their own firms - financial system. It's very easy to generate performance by taking on more risk.So what you need to do is compensate for risk-adjusted performance.And that's where all the bodies are buried.Rajan, you know, hit the nail on the head.What he particularly said was:You guys have claimed>you've found a way - with less risk.I say you've found a way t o make more profits with more risk.There's a big difference."Summers was vocal.He basically thought - in the financial world -- and was worried about, y ou know, regulation -Essentially he accused me of being a Luddite.He wanted to make sure that we didn't bring in -- a whole new set of regulations -You're gonna make an extra $2 million a year, or $1 0 million a year -at risk.Someone else pays the bill, you don't.Would you make that bet?Most people on Wall Street said, Sure, I'd make that bet.It never was enough.They don't wanna own one home, they wanna own five homes.And they wanna have an expensive penthouse -And they wanna have their own private jet.You think this is an industry where high--?Very high compensation levels are justified?I think I would take caution, or take heed - very high. lt's relative.You have a 14-million-dollar home in Florida.You have a summer home in Sun Valley, ldaho.An art collection filled with million-dollar paintings.Richard Fuld never appeared on the trading floor.There were art advisors there all the time.He had a private elevator.He wanted to be disconnected.His elevator, they hired technicians to program it -in the morning -would hold it.There's only a three-second window where he actually has to see people.And he hops into this elevator and it goes straight to 31 .Lehman owned corporate jets.How many were there?Well, there were six, including the 767s.They also had a helicopter.Isn't that kind of a lot of planes to have?We're dealing with type-A personalities.Banking became a pissing contest.Mine's bigger than yours. That kind of stuff.It was all men that ran it, i ncidentally.Fifty-billion-dollar deals weren't big enough, so we'd do 1 00-billion deals.These people are risk-takers. They're impulsive.It's part of their behavior. It's part of their personality.。
电影监守自盗(Inside Job) 剧本85
电影监守自盗（Inside Job) 剧本片名：监守自盗/Inside Job (本片获第83届奥斯卡2011最佳纪录片奖）出品：索尼经典映画/SONY PICTURES CLASSICS导演：CHARLES FERGUSON旁白：MATT DAMON******************************************************************************* ******************字幕: 2008年的全球经济危机让几千万人丢了工作, 丢了住房, 一生积蓄血本无归。
本片讲述这次危机的前因后果，来龙去脉。
字幕：冰岛人口：32万国内生产总值：130亿美元银行亏损：1000亿美元旁白：冰岛，一个政治稳定生活富裕的民主国家；一直到不久之前，还是一个失业率和政府负债率非常之低的国家。
Andri Magnason：我们拥有现代社会最完善的基础设施；政府用配额制度管理着清洁能源、绿色食品和海洋捕捞业的产量及产出。
Gylfi Zoega：完善的医疗，优质的教育；还有，清新的空气，较低的犯罪率。
这是一个非常宜居的国度。
Andri Magnason：我们当时处在有史以来最好的时期。
旁白：但是，到了2000年，冰岛政府开始执行广泛的放松监管政策。
这一政策带来了一系列灾难性的后果；先是环境，然后是经济，都遭到了破坏。
政府开始允许像Alcoa一样的跨国公司在冰岛到处建立大型的炼铝厂，开采地热和开发水电。
Andri Magnason：地热资源大多位于我国风景最美丽色彩最绚烂的丘陵地区。
所以任何东西的获得都有代价。
[砰！开山炸石的画面与声音。
]旁白：同时，政府将冰岛三家最大的银行进行了私有化改造。
结果变成了一次对金融业放松监管的试验，一场前所未有的最纯粹的试验。
字幕：2008年9月一位示威者：我们受够了。
为什么会变成这样？Gylfi Zoega：金融控制了政府。
结果，这个国家被搞得千疮百孔。
【InsideJob】【监守自盗】英文字幕
Insid e JobIceland is a stable democracy with a high standard of living -- and, until recently -and government debt.We had the complete infrastructure of a modern society.Clean energy, food production.Fisheries with a quota system to manage them.Good healthcare, education, clean air.Not much crime.It's a good place for families to live.We had almost e nd-of-history status.But in 2000, Iceland's government began a broad policy of deregulation -disastrous consequences - and then for the economy.They started by allowing multinational corporations like Alcoa -aluminum-smelting plants -- and exploit lceland's geothermal and hydroelectric energy sources. Many of the most beautiful areas in the highlands -are geothermal.So nothing comes without consequence.At the same time - Iceland's three largest banks.The result was one of the purest experiments -ever conducted.We have had enough. How could all of this happen?Finance took over and more or less wrecked the place.In a five-year period, these three tiny banks -outside of lceland -- borrowed 1 20 billion dollars - - 1 0 times the size of Iceland's economy.The bankers showered money o n themselves -There was a massive bubble.Stock prices went up by a factor of nine.House prices more than doubled.Iceland's bubble gave rise to people like Jon Asgeir Johannesson.He borrowed billions to buy up high-end retail businesses in London.He also bought a pinstriped private jet -- a 40-million-dollar yacht -Newspapers always had the headline:This millionaire bought this company -or in France or wherever -- instead of saying:This millionaire took>a billion-dollar loan -- to buy this company, and he took it from your local bank."The banks set up money market funds -deposit-holders to withdraw money -in the money market funds.The Ponzi scheme needed everything it could.American accounting firms like KPMG -and investment firms -And American credit-rating agencies said lceland was wonderful.In February 2007 -to the highest possible rate, triple-A.It went so far as the government here traveling with the bankers -When Iceland's banks collapsed at the end of 2008 -in six months.There is nobody unaffected in Iceland.A lot of people lost their savings.Yes, that's the case.Government regulators who should've been protecting the citizens -You have two lawyers from the regulator going down to a bank -When they approach the bank -- they would see 1 9 SUVs outside the bank.You enter the bank -- and you have the 1 9 lawyers sitting in front of you, right -- very well prepared, ready to kill any argument you make.And then, if you do really well, they'll offer you a job.One-third of Iceland's financial regulators -But this is a universal problem, huh?In New York, you have the same problem, right?What do you think of Wall Street incomes these days?Excessive.I've been told it's extremely difficult for the lMF -I wouldn't say that.We deeply regret our breaches of U.S. law.They're amazed at how much cocaine these Wall Streeters can use -and go to work the next day.I didn't know what credit default swaps are.I'm a little bit old-fashioned.Has Larry Summers ever expressed remorse?I don't hear confessions.The government's just writing checks.That's plan A, that's plan B and that's plan C.Would you support legal controls on executive pay?I would not.Are you comfortable with the level of compensation in financial services? If they've earned it, yes, I am.-Do you think they've earned it?And so you've helped these people blow the world up?You could say that.They were having massive private gains at public loss.When you think you can create something out of nothing -- it's difficult to resist.I'm concerned people want to go back to the old way -prior to the crisis.I was getting a lot of anonymous e-mails from bankers saying:You can't quote me,>but I'm really concerned.Why do you think there isn't -being undertaken?Because then you'll find the culprits.You think Columbia Business School has any conflict-of-interest problem?I don't see that we do.The regulators didn't do their job.They had the power to do every case that I made. They just didn't want to. Lehman Brothers, one of the most venerable -- and biggest investment banks, was forced to declare itself bankrupt. Another, Merrill Lynch, was forced to sell itself today.World financial markets are way down, following dramatic developments - . In September 2008 -investment bank Lehman Brothers -- and the collapse of the world's largest insurance company, AIG - Fears gripped markets overnight - .Stocks fell off a cliff.The largest single point drop in history.Share prices continued to tumble -of the Lehman collapse.The result was a global recession -tens of trillions of dollars -- rendered 30 million people unemployed -of the United States.With the destruction of equity and housing wealth -- the destruction of income, of jobs -- 50 million people globally could end up below the poverty line again. This is just a hugely, hugely expensive crisis.This crisis was not an accident.It was caused by an out-of-control industry.Since the 1 980s -has led to a series -financial crises.Each crisis has caused more damage -more and more money.After the Great Depression -- the United States had 40 years of economic growth -The financial industry was tightly regulated.Most regular banks were local businesses -- prohibited from speculating -- with depositors' savings.lnvestment banks, which handled stock and bond trading -In the traditional investment banking model -- the partners put the money up -very carefully.They wanted to live well -- but they didn't want to bet the ranch on anything.Paul V olcker served i n the Treasury Department -Federal Reserve from 1 979 to 1 987.Before going into government -at Chase Manhattan Bank.When I left Chase to go in the Treasury in 1 969 -of $45,000 a year.Forty-five thousand dollars a year.Morgan Stanley, in 1 972 -1 1 0 total personnel -- one office, and capital of 1 2 million dollars.Now Morgan Stanley has 50,000 workers -- and has capital of several billion -in the 1 980s, the financial industry exploded.The investment banks went public -of stockholder money.People on Wall Street started getting rich.I had a friend who was a bond trader -- at Merrill Lynch in the 1 970s.He had a job as a train conductor at night -and couldn't support them -By 1 986, h e was making millions of dollars -it was because he was smart.The highest order of business before the nation -our economic prosperity.In 1 981 , President Ronald Reagan chose as Treasury secretary - Merrill Lynch, Donald Regan.Wall Street and the president see eye to eye.I've talked to leaders of Wall Street.They say, "We're behind the president 1 00 percent."The Reagan administration -and financial lobbyists -- started a 30-year period of financial deregulation.in 1 982, the Reagan administration -savings-and-loan companies -investments with depositors' money.By the end of the decade -companies had failed.This crisis cost taxpayers $1 24 billion -their life savings.It may be the biggest bank heist in our history.Thousands of executives went to jail for looting their companies. One of the most extreme cases was Charles Keating.Mr. Keating, got a word?In 1 985, when federal regulators began investigating him - named Alan Greenspan.In this letter to regulators -- Greenspan praised Keating's s ound business plans and expertise - Keating to invest customers' money.Keating reportedly paid Greenspan $40,000.Keating went to prison shortly afterwards.As for Alan Greenspan -chairman of America's central bank -Greenspan was reappointed -and George W. Bush.During the Clinton administration -under Greenspan -Robert Rubin -investment bank Goldman Sachs -- and Larry Summers, a Harvard economics professor.The financial sector, Wall Street being powerful -- having lobbies, lots of money -- step by step, captured the political system.Both on the Democratic and the Republican side.By the late 1 990s, the financial sector had consolidated -- into a few gigantic firms, each of them so large -the whole system.And the Clinton administration helped them grow even larger.ln 1 998, Citicorp and Travelers merged -- to form Citigroup -company in the world.The merger violated the Glass-Steagall Act -after the Great Depression -with consumer deposits -risky investment-banking activities.It was illegal to acquire Travelers.Greenspan said nothing.The Federal Reserve gave them an exemption for a year -ln 1 999, at the urging of Summers and Rubin -the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act -as the Citigroup Relief Act.It overturned Glass-Steagall -for future mergers.Why do you have big banks?Because banks like monopoly power, lobbying power.Because banks know that when they're too big -Markets are inherently unstable.Or at least potentially unstable.An appropriate metaphor is the oil tankers.They are very big -- and therefore, you have to put in compartments -the sloshing around of oil -The design of the boat has to take that into account.And after the Depression -these very watertight compartments.And deregulation has led to the end of compartmentalization.The next crisis came at the end of the '90s.The investment banks fueled a massive bubble in lnternet stocks -in 2001 - - that caused $5 trillion in investment losses.The Securities and Exchange Commission, the federal agency - to regulate investment banking -In the absence of meaningful federal action -of self-regulation -- it's become necessary for others to step in -Eliot Spitzer's investigation revealed the investment banks -they knew would fail.Analysts were being paid based on h ow much business they brought in. What they said publicly was quite different from what they said privately. Infospace, given the highest possible rating -as a "piece of junk."Excite, also highly rated, c alled "such a piece of crap."The defense that was proffered by many of the investment banks -- was not "you're wrong" -- it was, "Everybody's doing it, everybody knows it's going on.Nobody should rely o n these analysts anyway."ln December, 2002 -- 1 0 investment banks settled t he case for a total of $1 .4 billion - to change their ways.Scott Talbott is the chief lobbyist for the Financial Services Roundtable - - one of Washington's most powerful groups -world's largest financial companies.Are you comfortable with the fact that several of your member companies - in large-scale criminal activity?-l-- You'll have to be specific.And first of all, criminal activity shouldn't be accepted, period.Since deregulation began, the world's biggest financial firms - money, defrauding customers -again and again and again.Credit Suisse helped funnel moneyfor Iran's nuclear program -- and for lran's Aerospace Industries Organization -Any information that would identify it as lranian would be removed.The bank was fined $536 million.Citibank helped funnel $1 00 million of drug money out of Mexico.Did you comment that she should, quote:Lose any documents connected>with the account?I said that in a kidding manner.I did not mean it seriously.Between 1 998 and 2003 -by more than $1 0 billion.These accounting standards are complex -over which experts often disagree.CEO Franklin Raines, who used to be President Clinton's budget director - - received over $52 million in bonuses.When UBS was caught helping wealthy Americans evade taxes -with the government.Would you be willing to supply the names?-lf there's a treaty framework.You've agreed you participated in a fraud.But while the companies face unprecedented fines -have to admit any wrongdoing.When dealing with this many products, this many customers, mistakes happen. The financial services industry seems to have a level of criminality -You know, when was the last time that Cisco -- or lntel or Google or Apple or IBM, you know--?I agree about high-tech versus financial services---High-tech is a creative business -- where the value generation -actually creating something new.Beginning in the 1 990s -and advances in technology -financial products called derivatives.Economists and bankers claimed they made markets safer.But instead, they made them unstable.Since the end of the Cold War -- a lot of former physicists, mathematicians -- decided to apply their skills -- not on, you know, Cold War technology -And together with investment bankers--You know, as Warren Buffett said, weapons of mass destruction. Regulators, politicians, business people -the threat of innovation -of the financial system.Using derivatives -on virtually anything.They could bet on the rise or fall of oil prices -- the bankruptcy of a company, even the weather.By the late 1 990s -- derivatives were a 50-trillion-dollar unregulated market.ln 1 998, someone tried to regulate them.Brooksley Born graduated first in her class at Stanford Law School -to edit a major law review.After running the derivatives practice at Arnold & Porter -- Born was appointed by Clinton -Trading Commission -the derivatives market.Brooksley Born asked me if l would come work with her.We decided that this was a serious, p otentially destabilizing market.In May of 1 998, the CFTC issued a proposal to regulate derivatives. Clinton's Treasury Department had an immediate response.I happened to go into Brooksley's office -the receiver on her telephone -from her face.And she looked at me and said, That was Larry Summers.He had 1 3 bankers in his office.He conveyed it in a very bullying fashion -Banks were now reliant for earnings on these activities.And that led to a titanic battle to prevent this from being regulated.Shortly after the phone call from Summers -- Greenspan, Rubin, and SEC chairman Arthur Levitt -condemning Born -to keep derivatives unregulated.Regulation of derivatives transactions -by professionals is unnecessary.She was overruled, unfortunately. First by the Clinton administration -In 2000, Senator Phil Gramm took a major role in getting a bill passed - derivatives from regulation.They are unifying markets, reducing regulatory burden.I believe we need to do it.It is our very great hope -to move this year -- on legislation that,in a suitable way -for OTC derivatives.I wish to associate myself -of Secretary Summers.ln December of 2000, Congress passed -Modernization Act.Written with the help of financial-industry lobbyists -of derivatives.After that, it was off to the races.Use of derivatives and financial innovation -- exploded dramatically after 2000.By the time George W. Bush took office in 2001 -was vastly more profitable -than ever before.Dominating this industry were five investment banks -- two financial conglomerates - companies -And linking them all together was the securitization food chain.A new system which connected trillions of dollars -with investors all over the world.Thirty years ago, if you went to get a loan for a home -expected you to pay him or her back.You got a loan from a lender who wanted to be paid back.We've since developed securitization, whereby people who make the loan -if they fail to repay.In the old system, when a homeowner paid their mortgage every month -to their local lender.And since mortgages took decades to repay, lenders were careful.In the new system, lenders sold mortgages to investment banks.The banks combined thousands of mortgages and loans -- including car loans, student loans, and credit card debt -collateralized debt obligations -The investment banks then sold the CDOs to investors.Now when homeowners paid their mortgages -all over the world.The investment banks paid rating agencies -- to evaluate the CDOs -were given a triple-A rating -investment grade.This made CDOs popular with retirement funds -highly rated securities.This system was a ticking time bomb.Lenders didn't care anymore about whether a borrower could repay -riskier loans.The investment banks didn't care either.The more CDOs they sold, the higher their profits.And the rating agencies, which were paid by the investment banks -of CDOs proved wrong.You weren't gonna be on the hook, there weren't regulatory constraints.So it was a green light to just pump out more and more loans.Between 2000 and 2003 -made each year nearly quadrupled.Everybody in this securitization food chain -until the end -- didn't care about the quality of the mortgage.They were caring about maximizing their volume -In the early 2000s -in the riskiest loans, called subprime.When thousands of subprime loans were combined to create CDOs -triple-A ratings. Now, it would have been possible to create derivative products -- that don't have these risks - of deductibles -that can be taken on, and so forth.-They didn't do that, did they? -They didn't.In retrospect, they should've done.So did these guys know they were doing something dangerous?I think they did.All the incentives financial institutions offered to their mortgage brokers –the most profitable products -If they make more money, that's where they'll put you.Suddenly, hundreds of billions of dollars a year - the securitization chain.Since anyone could get a mortgage -and housing prices skyrocketed.The result was the biggest financial bubble in history.Real estate is real. They can see their asset.They can live in their asset. They can rent out their asset.You had a huge boom in housing that made no sense at all.The financing appetites of the financial sector -Last time we had a housing bubble w as in the late '80s.In that case, the increase in home price had been relatively minor.That housing bubble led to a relatively severe recession.From 1 996 until 2006 - effectively doubled.At $500 a ticket, they've come to hear how to buy their very own piece -Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers -The subprime lending alone increased from 30 billion a year in funding -- to over 600 billion a year in 1 0 years.They knew what was happening.Countrywide Financial, the largest subprime lender -- issued $97 billion worth of loans.lt made over $1 1 billion in profits as a result.On Wall Street, annual cash bonuses spiked.Traders and CEOs - d uring the bubble.Lehman Brothers was a top underwriter of subprime lending -- and their CEO, Richard Fuld -- took home $485 million.On Wall Street, this housing and credit bubble -of dollars of profits.You know, by 2006 about 40 percent of all profits -- of S&P 500 firms was coming from financial institutions.It wasn't real profits or income.It was money created by the system and booked as income.Two, three years down the road there's a default, it's all wiped out.I think it was, in fact, in retrospect,a great big national--And not just national, global Ponzi scheme.Through the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act - had broad authority -But Fed chairman Alan Greenspan refused to use it.Alan Greenspan said, No, that's regulation.I don't believe in it."For 20 years, Robert Gnaizda was the head of Greenlining - advocacy group.He met with Greenspan on a regular basis.We gave him an example of Countrywide -- and 1 50 different complex adjustable-rate mortgages.He said, If you had a doctorate in math -- you wouldn't be able to understand them enough - and which wasn't."So we thought he was gonna take action.But as the conversation continued - with his ideology.We met again with Greenspan in '05.Often we met with him twice a year, and never less than once a year.And he wouldn't change his mind.In this world of global communications -of capital - prosperity in human history.A hundred and forty-six people were cut from the SEC Enforcement Division?Is that what you also testified to?Yes.Yeah, l think there has been a systematic gutting -- or whatever you wanna call it, of the agency - t hrough cutting back of staff.The SEC Office of Risk Management -- was reduced to a staff, did you say, of one?Yeah. When that gentleman would go home, he could turn the lights out.During the bubble, investment banks were borrowing heavily - and create more CDOs. The ratio between borrowed money and the banks' own money -The more the banks borrowed, the higher their leverage.In 2004, Henry Paulson, the CEO of Goldman Sachs - to relax limits on leverage -to sharply increase their borrowing.The SEC somehow decided - gamble a lot more.That was nuts. l don't know why they did that, but they did.We've said these are the big guys, and clearly that's true.But that means if anything goes wrong, it's going to be an awfully big mess.You are dealing with the most highly sophisticated financial institutions.These are the firms that do most of the derivative activity.We talked to some as to what their comfort level was.The firms actually thought that the number was appropriate.The commissioners vote to adopt the new rules as .We do indeed. It's unanimous. And we are adjourned.The degree of leverage in the financial system -Investment banks leveraging up to the level of 33-to-1 .Which means that a tiny 3-percent decrease -would leave them insolvent.There was another ticking time bomb in the financial system.AlG, the world's largest insurance company - of derivatives -For investors who owned CDOs - like an insurance policy.An investor who purchased a credit default swap -lf the CDO went bad - for their losses.But unlike regular insurance - credit default swaps from AIG - they didn't own.In insurance, you can only insure something you own.Let's say you and l own property. I own a house.I can only insure that house once.The derivatives universe essentially enables anybody -You could insure that, somebody else could.So 50 people might insure my house.So what happens is, i f my house burns down - becomes proportionately larger.Since credit default swaps were unregulated -- AIG didn't have to put aside any money to cover potential losses.Instead, AIG paid its employees huge cash bonuses -were signed.But if the CDOs later went bad -People were essentially being rewarded for taking massive risks.In good times, they generate short-term revenues and profits -But that's gonna lead to the firm to be bankrupt over time.That's a distorted system of compensation.AlG's Financial Products division in London -- issued $500 billion worth of credit default swaps during the bubblebacked by subprime mortgages.The 400 employees at AlGFP -- made $ billion between 2000 and 2007.Joseph Cassano, the head of AlGFP -- personally made $31 5 million.lt's hard for us -- and without being flippant, to even see a scenario -realm of reason -in any of those transactions.ln 2007, AlG's auditors raised warnings.One of them, Joseph St. Denis - Cassano repeatedly blocked him - AlGFP's accounting. One person didn't get a bonus.That was St. Denis. Mr. St. Denis tried to alert the two of you -into big problems.He quit in frustration, and he didn't get a bonus.In 2005, Raghuram Rajan - of the International Monetary Fund - at the Jackson Hole symposium in the world.Who was in the audience?It was the central bankers of the world - Mr. Greenspan himself -- Ben Bernanke -Tim Geithner was there.The title of the paper was essentially:Is Financial Development>Making the World Riskier?And the conclusion was, it is.Rajan's paper focused on incentive structures -based on short-term profits -for later losses.Rajan argued that these incentives encouraged bankers -destroy their own firms - financial system. It's very easy to generate performance by taking on more risk.So what you need to do is compensate for risk-adjusted performance.And that's where all the bodies are buried.Rajan, you know, hit the nail on the head.What he particularly said was:You guys have claimed>you've found a way - with less risk.I say you've found a way t o make more profits with more risk.There's a big difference."Summers was vocal.He basically thought - in the financial world -- and was worried about, y ou know, regulation -Essentially he accused me of being a Luddite.He wanted to make sure that we didn't bring in -- a whole new set of regulations -You're gonna make an extra $2 million a year, or $1 0 million a year -at risk.Someone else pays the bill, you don't.Would you make that bet?Most people on Wall Street said, Sure, I'd make that bet.It never was enough.They don't wanna own one home, they wanna own five homes.And they wanna have an expensive penthouse -And they wanna have their own private jet.You think this is an industry where high--?Very high compensation levels are justified?I think I would take caution, or take heed - very high. lt's relative.You have a 14-million-dollar home in Florida.You have a summer home in Sun Valley, ldaho.An art collection filled with million-dollar paintings.Richard Fuld never appeared on the trading floor.There were art advisors there all the time.He had a private elevator.He wanted to be disconnected.His elevator, they hired technicians to program it -in the morning -would hold it.There's only a three-second window where he actually has to see people.And he hops into this elevator and it goes straight to 31 .Lehman owned corporate jets.How many were there?Well, there were six, including the 767s.They also had a helicopter.Isn't that kind of a lot of planes to have?We're dealing with type-A personalities.Banking became a pissing contest.Mine's bigger than yours. That kind of stuff.It was all men that ran it, i ncidentally.Fifty-billion-dollar deals weren't big enough, so we'd do 1 00-billion deals.These people are risk-takers. They're impulsive.It's part of their behavior. It's part of their personality.And that manifests outside of work as well.It was quite typical for the guys to go out -I see a lot of cocaine use, use of prostitution.。
监守自盗观后感
评述inside job的影响《监守自盗》以“末日审判”的审讯视角、“刨根问底”的探索态度和“路在何方”的反思精神，对08年次贷危机引发的全球性金融危机的根本原因进行追根溯源，揭开了这个社会热点问题隐藏的事实和真相，具有经济、政治、法律、社会、道德和学术等多方面的影响。
1.经济方面：金融监管缺位，隐患终究酿成危机→加强金融监管电影以冰岛美丽的风景和国家的破产引入主题，银行的私有化和不断放宽的信贷政策使金融行业迅速发展，一批金融新秀一夜暴富，但这种缺乏监管的泡沫繁荣重而无基，终究令整个国家承担了变革的恶果。
同样的情形在美国有过之而无不及，只是因为美国自身有着强大的经济实力，才能免于国家破产，但其经济也在这场危机中遭受了重创。
影片第一部分“何以至此”梳理了自1981年里根政府以来，金融行业越做越大的过程。
随着衍生金融工具的不断创新和投入市场，巨大的风险使得大规模的经济危机一触即发，然而美联储、财政部等政府职能机构却不断放松金融监管，扮演了视而不见、推波助澜的角色。
一部分学者和政府官员，曾竭力呼吁要加强监管，但当局对此表示反对。
在金融巨鳄的游说下，国会甚至还通过了一项法案，明令禁止对衍生金融工具进行管制。
众所周知，结果一发不可收拾……因此，加强金融业的监管势在必行。
具体可以：（1）对衍生金融工具的设计加以审批，维护投资者的利益。
例如，片中次级贷款的信用违约掉期，投资银行将购房贷款、汽车贷款等通过投资组合的方式发行证券（次级贷款），并请信用评级机构对投资组合评级（通常信用等级较高，理由为非系统风险得到分散），同时向保险机构购买其贷款的保险。
这样，投资银行只需缴纳保金，就可用投资者的前进行风险投资，贷款无法收回，投行有权没收贷款的抵押物，投资失败后，保险公司也将赔付投资银行的损失；而证券投资者将血本无回。
因而，投资者在这项交易中属于弱势群体，应当受到必要的保护。
（2）加强补偿落实的监管。
金融危机后，政府用大笔纳税人的钱来弥补金融行业的损失，而这些钱却立即变成了金融企业的红利，这样非职工持股的投资者仍未得到任何补偿。
(完整word)Inside job 观后感
《Inside job 》观后感农水四班 1102040405 廖洁在本学期第一节毛概实践课上面，老师给我们播放了纪录片《inside job》.《Inside job》，中文直译并不是监守自盗，但在意义上却和本片的内容无限契合。
本片一开始从冰岛的美丽风景和国家破产说起，到纽约华尔街的金融巨头——众金融学家、政治家、经济学家粉墨登场，并以各种细致的数据与不同的条理逻辑分析，深入探讨那场席卷全球的经济危机发生的背后原因。
本片把华尔街的金融团体作为研究对象，深度挖掘了以华尔街为中心,涉及政治、学术界等各领域的一条贪婪的食物链。
并揭露了这条食物链是如何将世界带入金融危机的黑洞。
在2小时的影片中，汇集了前美联储主席Paul Vocker，国际货币基金组织执行主席Dominique Straus—Kahn，量子基金创始人George Soros，众议院金融委员会主席Barney Frank,布什政府财政部副部长David McCormick,中国银监会首席顾问沈联涛，新加坡总理李显龙，国际货币基金组织总裁Christine Lagarde等不同的政治人物、金融专家、大学老师，虽然在2小时的时间内不能将金融危机的前因后果全部讲清楚，只要认真看完本片稍有理解能力的人也能够大致了解2008年经济危机原因了。
因此，本片也获得了2011年奥斯卡最佳纪录片大奖，导演也捧得小金人归。
本片分为五部分,第一部分how we got here,第二部分the bubble，第三部分 the crisis，第四部分accountability，第五部分 where we are now。
我印象最深的有其中的几个细节。
在第一部分“何以至此”中《两亿万的消融》作者查尔斯·莫里斯的一个朋友，七十年代在美林银行做债券交易此外晚上他还要兼职做列车调度员才能养活一家五口，但仅仅十多年后他就能达到年收入几百万.这是由于20世纪80年代里根政府在经济学家以及金融说客支持下,开始了长达三十年的金融放松政策,对储贷公司放松管制,允许他们运用储户资金进行风险投资.债券交易行业到了八十年代，开始爆炸性的增长，投资银行纷纷上市,聚拢和掌控了股民资金，华尔街的人开始变得富有起来。
Inside Job 观后感
Inside Job 观后感2008年金融危机到来的时候，每天从新闻上得知新的消息，我以为离我们最近的就是沿海地区那些倒闭的工厂、破产的企业。
但是今天，曾经1.5到2.0元的热干面涨到3.0元以上时，我终于明白在经济全球化的时代，没有谁能独善其身。
监守自盗是部很好的纪录片。
叙事手法好；旁白配得好；镜头切的好，当然内容更好。
不管怎样，这部电影做到了普通电影及法律做不到的事。
以下是我看电影五部分的感受随笔：1、HOW WE GOT HERE? 雷曼倒闭时，各国媒体争相报道，无数人心中的美国梦又碎了一次。
美国不再是理想中的天堂，而是资本主义的地狱。
2、THE BUBBLE(2001—2007) 这场波及范围广、危害程度深的海啸究竟是怎么来的呢？肯定不是危机前一天刚刚埋下的祸根。
金融泡沫吹破时，幻灭的不仅仅是梦想。
深究美国次贷危机的原因时，不知寒了多少美国人的心。
3、THE CRISIS 没有人能确切地统计这场海啸究竟使全球多少企业破产。
但最倒霉的肯定不是那些资本家，而是本就收入微薄的普通工人。
影片中关于中国工厂的那部分应该是最能唤起中国人回应的部分。
但我回忆起4年前的国内报导时，印象最深的一个是4万亿的中央拨款；另一个是沿海数家玩具厂商身陷绝境。
可能在当下，不论是董事长还是清洁工，我们只能默默垒砌高高的垫脚石直到山顶，无声地为上位者的歌颂功德演一出戏，并祈求自己不要落到绝境。
4、ACCOUNTABILITY 帐一算就完蛋，我觉得深受金融危机影响的人们大概很想撕碎了那帮道貌岸然的虚伪嘴脸。
每一个事件的背后都有赢家，只要赢家的心态好投个原子弹给别人都不介意。
但霸权当前，你帮它买单就乖乖买单吧，谁又能或敢说什么？5、WHERE WE ARE NOW 可能美国政体与制度的弊端已经显现，但奥巴马政府已泥足深陷，不复最初的热血。
那些承诺有的已烟消云散，美国人也乐观地觉得疼痛轻多了。
由此我也得到一些启示：一、道德在对决金钱上一般是完败。
《监守自盗观后感》
《监守自盗观后感》在老师的推荐下，我利用课余时间观看了由尼莫洛德·安塔尔导演拍摄的《监守自盗》影片，看完了电影，感觉还是蛮有意思的。
大概剧情就是讲了一个走投无路的老兵加入了同事的盗窃计划。
片中各位演员的表演精湛将各位人物的心理活动描绘的栩栩如生。
感觉这些人都是有一定智商的，例如会先懂得“彩排”来确保万无一失，可能也是彩排的比较成功把，才会让男主角之后有萌生加入的意愿，相对于抢银行，抢劫，打劫自己的运钞车算是最安全，万无一失的了，但是计划赶不上变化，突然插入的警察还是让计划乱了套。
影片想要反映的出题就是“钱”，当你每天运着几千万美元来来去去，但是每月只有几百几千美元的时候，心理就会出现犯罪的趋势，影片往往采用夸张的手法，很多人都会有这种想法，影片将之付诸现实，让人“爽”一把，满足自己脑袋里时有的幻想，谁不想一夜暴富，谁不想家缠万贯。
提到钱，就想起来华尔街，一个金融天才与骗子的集合地，前几年的庞贝骗局，反复的融资允诺高报酬弥补之前的投资回报，雪球越滚越大，最后终于滚破了天。
欲望，是人的本能，社会道德与法律压制、制约着人类的欲望，类似于运钞员就在欲望的边缘，试想要是突然没有了法律，没有了制约，第一个要去抢车里面的钱就是运钞员，讽刺的是，前一秒还在保护的也是他们，所谓的犯罪，就是打破规定的行为，当打破规定带来的惩罚让人觉得不必上打破规定的成果的时候，就会有严重的危机，高薪养廉，也是怕类似监守自盗的行为发生。
总的来说，片子还是很好看的，作为犯罪类电影，也不是一味的讲究如何犯罪，而是将犯罪背后的一面展现出来。
第二篇：《监守自盗》观后感《监守自盗》观后感重庆大学会计学tyh丘吉尔在二战结束后的“铁幕演说”里曾经说过，没有永远的朋友，只有永远的利益。
或许这句话用在金融界，用在这部美国金融风暴纪录片《监守自盗》里面再贴切不过。
一切的一切，都是为了追求个人利益最大化。
金融高层明知此举犯法，仍阔步向前；经济学家明知这是泡沫经济，仍高唱赞歌；政府人员明知这应刑事起诉，仍迟迟未果。
监守自盗(inside job )
8
People should go to jail for what happened. Some of the Wall Street executives caused the financial crimes, however, the all American people to beard the consequences. Have too much money, executive living in luxury. They paid for drugs and sex. Anything that is illegal should be punished. If they used drugs and paid for women, we appeal jail they.
Inside Job
'Inside Job' is the first film to provide a comprehensive analysis of the global financial crisis of 2008, which at a cost over $20 trillion, caused millions of people to lose their jobs and homes in the worst recession since the Great Depression, and nearly resulted in a global financial collapse. Through exhaustive research and extensive interviews with key financial insiders, politicians, journalists, and academics, the film traces the rise of a rogue industry which has corrupted politics, regulation, and academia. It was made on location in the United States, Iceland, England, France, Singapore, and China.
慎用金融杠杆,有效管理风险 inside job 观后感
慎用金融杠杆，有效管理风险——《Inside Job》观后感影片搜集了相当丰富的素材，从冰岛经济危机说起，到纽约华尔街的金融巨头，众金融学家政治家经济学家粉墨登场，辅以细致的数据与条理逻辑分析，深入探讨那场席卷全球的次贷危机发生的背后原因，试图揭露金融危机的本质。
影片汇集了来自亚洲、欧洲和美洲的专家的调查和见证，从金融界内部寻找原因，展示华尔街真实的面貌。
在片中，我们看到了所谓的金融工程师们是如何利用大众的短视、贪婪、脆弱等心理来进行大规模的投机活动，最后给社会带来深重的灾难，我们看到了去监管化的自由经济、金融衍生品的泛滥、依赖于金融政治的政客们等等都使得这场次贷金融泡沫越吹越大，直至破灭，而具有讽刺意义的是，那些拿着高薪搞乱全球经济的金融工程师，最后却都赚得盆满钵溢全身而退。
影片中金融家、经济学家的手段基本上是围绕着杜邦公式所揭示的提高销售利润率、增加资产周转率和控制利用财务杠杆的主轴展开的。
美国低首付的次贷是一种杠杆比率很高的金融杠杆。
投资银行里“聪明的”谋士们把聚合一处的次级贷款结构化，做成打包债券，分成高、中、初不同层级卖给投资人，初级债券先“兜着”，初级赔光了，中级债券再顶上去，初、中级都赔完了，高级债券才开始承受损失。
看上去高级债券的风险很小，完全有资格获得评级机构的AAA 评级，可以把它们卖给保守的退休基金和保险公司等投资者，只要利息比同类评级的普通债券高些就行了。
风险大，但可能有超高回报的初级债券可以卖给对冲基金、投行自营交易部门等“专业赌徒”，反正他们有的是办法，完全可能利用各种衍生产品对冲风险套利。
至于不上不下的中级债券倒是有点难办，但也不必太担心，华尔街有的是关系，投行有的是会忽悠的销售，市场上有的是懒得多想的投资管理人，尤其是那些管的不是自己的钱又不拿提成的。
实在有一小部分初、中级债券卖不掉，发行打包债券的投行自己留着就是了。
投资者们终于可以摆脱买卖各种具体证券的蒙昧时代，进入交易的崭新世纪了。
insidejob观后感
insidejob观后感电影《Inside Job》是一部高度引人深思的纪录片，该片由奥斯卡得奖导演Charles Ferguson执导，于2010年上映。
影片通过对金融危机的全面回顾和深入调查，揭示了金融界内部的黑暗面和贪婪行为，引发了观众对金融体系的反思。
在这部电影中，导演Charles Ferguson用镜头直击金融危机的内幕，以及金融业内部的腐败和不道德行为。
他通过与学者、经济学家、政府官员和华尔街从业者的访谈，再结合大量的历史档案、新闻报道和图表，生动地勾勒出金融危机的起因和影响。
电影首先从对金融业的概述开始，回顾了自20世纪70年代以来的金融演变过程，以及导致危机的一系列错误决策和监管失职。
随着金融界的全球化和金融创新的迅猛发展，各国金融机构越来越相互依赖，而监管部门却没有跟上步伐。
资本市场自由化的思潮使得监管的难度加大，许多机构开始进行高风险的投机活动。
影片的重点之一是对华尔街的调查，揭示了那些追求利润的机构以及他们所进行的不道德和欺诈行为。
导演采访了一些金融精英和从业人员，他们揭示了华尔街的内幕交易、操纵市场和虚假会计等现象。
这些行为不仅导致了危机的爆发，也使得普通投资者损失惨重。
电影还批判了政府的监管失职。
导演通过揭示华尔街和政府之间的利益交换关系，展示了监管机构对金融机构的纵容和默许。
政府官员曾与金融精英有着亲密的联系，并且曾经在政府和金融行业之间反复换岗。
这些行为削弱了对金融机构的监督，从而加剧了金融危机的蔓延。
影片还涉及到危机对全球经济的影响。
金融危机不仅引发了全球范围内的金融危机，也导致了全球范围内的经济衰退。
导演用大量数据和案例展示了危机对普通人的生活和就业造成的严重后果。
许多人失去了工作、住房和财产，而那些负责危机的金融家却能够逍遥法外，甚至获得了巨额的奖金。
通过这部电影，导演想要向观众传递一个明确的信息：金融危机不是天灾，而是人祸。
虽然影片没有提供明确的解决方案，但它激起了观众的思考。
insidejob监守自盗英文版观后感
Name: 두탁한Du, Zhuohan ID:2010140537Content1. The brief view of Inside Job2. Speculations and CDS inside of Financial sector3. Rent Seeking inside of Government SectorInside Job was a documentary film opened on 2008, a critical period of global crisis exploded from the dilemma of bubble credit in several sectors like real state, stock. The documentary conducted face to face interviews with well known Economist, Politicians, and people evolved in main parts of financial business. It also disclosed a sequence of objective data to illustrate the essential root of the cause of crises. As the main topic of movie, five parts have been indicated to narrate the truth happening during this economic catastrophe logically. There were. How to got here, The Bubble, The crises, Accountability and Where We are now. The starting points was detected from 1970, the first oil shock and earlier financial disaster up to 2008. The entire picture gives us a clear skeleton of complicated financial structure especially US. Virtually, it implies the domino effect generated by political system, bachelors, and all society in the whole financial system. Therefore, the documentary is called Inside Job which exposures all inside works in this deep and intricate economic circle.Churchill said that there is no eternal friendship but permanent common interests. a story in movie shows a originally poor officer who works in securities exchange agency in 1970 incredible became a millionaire just in 10 years. This is a reflection of credit crises in US. After 2000, the profit and size of mortgage, loan plan was the main concern. No one cares about the quality of it. In order to loan as many as possible, the majority of financial agencies lease the investigation of borrower`s affordability due to the serious competition. Typically, in real estate sector, 0 first payment on mortgage was possible. Hence, almost everyone, they loan and invest in land. Indeed, the price of land and house were abruptly skyrocketed. Eventually, this consequence became the most serious bubble economy in the history!Another example was that while a selling group in Goldman Sachs was selling a speculated bond, Timberwolves whose actual grade was down to C level with pleased attitude to costumer, the conversation among group members underground was "Hi! Dude, the Timberwolves is awful" They advertise some junk bond as the "most premium investment" by purchasing large amount of CDS (Credit Default Swap). They bet the loss of investment of those customers who bought thesehigh risk bonds. It was just like a gambling combined with cheating. In other words, the more their customers lose, the more they can earn from this dirty game. This is the moral default in financial crises among normal selling group and people. They clear notice that it is illegal to sell the high risk speculated bond to people, whereas they do it only for satisfying individual own greedy desire. Actually, at the point, all people in Wall Street was addicted on the similar gambling. One neuroscientist did a interest experiment on the brain reaction d those who evolved in the CDS gambling when they successfully cheat on investors. The result surprisingly pointed that the part of brain stimulated is as same as people taking cocaine. In front of profit, most people have already fallen in the abyss of moral hazard. One counterpart is Lehman brothers, they against the Goldman Sachs` behaviors and refuse cheating on investors and buying CDS. Consequently, they bankrupted. Even though the above stories are truth, the head of Goldman Sachs denied what they have done on their customers during the crises. The purchasing of CDS is the necessary of company`s business, he said to the public. It follows that the cause financial crises dose not only happen in the economic system self, but also our own moral level.According the data mentioned in the film, most credit crises was caused by the "premium bond" marked with AAA. Who did give this nice A grade to those actual speculated bond? Of course, that is the bond evaluating agency! Higher rank of the bond means more investor can be attracted to the program. As more company evaluated as A level, the investigation fee will be more to the agency. This demonstrate that those evaluating agencies have tremendously important rule in the entire bond trading system. In congress, "Big Three" agencies such as Moody, they defended for their behavior during the financial crises as a ridiculous reason----AAA grade is subjective to our own evaluations. Investor should not rely on our subjective judgment.Besides those inside jobs in the economic system, government sectors also have trouble in moral problem. Rent Seeking is a main collusion between government servant and companies. From 1998 to 2008, Financial sector devoted more than 5 billion dollars to rent seeking. Therefore, under the protection of government servant, those companies were able to play unfair gambling game with investors. Citibank, Chuck Prince said: until music stops (Until financial crises stop ), we will not stop dancing (we will not stop cheating on investors). The sentence in bracket implies the real meaning of his statement. Hence enhancing the management on both financial and government sectors is critically significant to prevent the economic crises in the future. Otherwise, crises will possibly happen in every moment despite of inside system of financial itself.下面是赠送的合同范本，不需要的可以编辑删除教育机构劳动合同范本为大家整理提供，希望对大家有一定帮助。
监守自盗
《监守自盗》观后感《监守自盗》作为一部以新闻采访形式而进行的纪录片，看完后深深地震撼到了我。
影片以陷入金融危机的欧洲国家冰岛为线索，探寻了2008年金融危机的始作俑者。
通过对金融界名人们的采访，让我们了解到2008年金融危机下潜藏的更为肮脏不堪的利益交易。
金融危机的起源——华尔街是一个让人欲罢不能的地方。
一方面它可以带你进入天堂，一方面它可以使你陷入无尽的深渊。
在利益的驱动下，银行家们失去了作为一个银行从业者应该遵循的基本的职业操守和道德修养，通过政治勾结，扫除前方道路行进的障碍。
并且，银行家们对那些所谓的“trash”进行打包，并运用自己的人脉施加影响，使这些垃圾债券拥有较高甚至是”3A”级别的信用评级——这种等级相当于美国发行的国债的信用等级。
银行家们以及那些金融大鳄通过这种手段将次贷危机转移到普通大众的身上。
假如我们从马克思主义政治经济学怎么看待这样的行为呢？毫无疑问，得到的最掷地有声的两个字就是剥削。
马克思在《资本论》的第一卷曾说过这样的话：“资本逃避动乱和纷争，它的本性是胆怯的。
这是真的，但还不是全部的真理。
一旦有适当的利润，资本就胆大起来。
如果有10%的利润，它就被保证到处被使用;有20%的利润，它就活跃起来；有50%的利润，它就铤而走险；有了100%的利润，它就敢践踏一切人间的法律；如果有300%的利润，它就敢犯着任何罪行，甚至冒绞首的危险。
如果动乱和纷争能带来利润，它就会鼓励动乱和纷争。
走私和贩卖奴隶就是最好的证明。
”毫无疑问，这样造成金融危机的行为不亚于发动一场战争给平民所带来的苦难。
影片中就有许多人因为还不起房贷而被没收了住房。
有一个不懂英语的家庭主妇就说到，因为自己的一时冲动，给丈夫以及三个孩子带来沉重的家庭负担，她没有脸面面对自己的孩子和丈夫。
诚然，物质资料的生产是人类社会存在的基础和前提，是其他一切社会活动的基础，也是推动人类社会由低级向高级发展的最终决定力量。
但是，对于由次级贷款催生的物质资料的生产真的能带给我这么多实用性的有好处吗？答案肯定是否定的。
Inside Job 监守自盗的观后感
Inside Job---Big CrisisInside Job, a documentary, was filmed to explore the cause of the outbreak of the financial crisis in 2008. Starting with the situations of Iceland, interviewing the Wall Street financial elite, economists, government officials, financial consumers and showing the real objective data materials, the documentary, including four parts, shows us the reasons of the crisis and some of its influences subtly and logically. From the documentary, we can find out the reasons of the crisis as follows:Firstly, it is the broad policy of deregulation with easing credit conditions. Besides, greedy Wall Street financial elites and some greedy government officials accounts for it. What’s more, misguidance of the credit rating agencies also makes “a contribution” to the crisis. Finally, it could be the dereliction of duty of the U.S. financial regulatory bodies.Among the reasons stated above, the broad policy of deregulation with easing credit conditions and dereliction of duty of the financial regulatory bodies seem to count much. The word, “regulation” appears fluently, and it seems that every time when it mentioned, lack of regulation and dereliction of duty of the financial regulatory bodies are obvious to us.Now, let’s learn about how these c auses account for the big crisis in detail.As we know, nothing could happen without reasons, and of course, together with its consequences. The crisis appeared when an industry was out of control. That’s the collapse of the financial markets. And the most important reason of the collapse is, obviously, the dereliction of duty of the regulation. But, why the regulation could not take its responsibility well? How could that happened?Well, thanks to the fact that the financial industry was tightly regulated with most regular banks were local businesses, and prohibited from speculating with depositors' savings, the United States had 40 years of economic growth without a single financial crisis after the Great Depression. This great achievement, unfortunately, just could not last forever. When it came to the 1980s, with the thought that he highest order of business before the nation is to restore American economic prosperity, President Ronald Reagan together with his administration deregulated savings and loan companies, allowing them to make risky investments with their depositors' money. The deregulation continued or even worse situation it is when presidents Clinton and George W. Bush were in power. For example, by the late 1990s, the financial sector had consolidated into a few gigantic firms. Each of them was so large that their failure could threaten the whole system; the Clinton administration, however, helped them grow even larger. What’s worse, in 1999, at the urging of Summers and Rubin, Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which overturned Glass-Steagall, alaw which prevented banks with consumer deposits from engaging in risky investment banking activities. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act played an important part in clearing the way for future mergers. Thus, the broad policy of deregulation continued, and the crisis was in the corner.In fact, when the deregulation continued, there came the chance for the financial industry and those greedy guys.Beginning in the 1990s, deregulation and advances in technology led to an explosion of complex financial products, called derivatives. In order to maximize the profit, financial enterprises focused on derivatives trading. What is worse, In December of 2000, Congress passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. It banned the regulation of derivatives. Financial derivatives were flourishing from that moment. Regulators, politicians, and businesspeople did not take seriously the threat of financial innovation on the stability of the financial system. Using derivatives such as CDO, CDS and subprime loan as well as credit default swaps, financial firms and bankers could gamble on virtually anything to earn a large fortune. The world's biggest financial firms started laundering money, defrauding customers, and cooking their books. The market became more unstable gradually. In other word, the wind was blowing, and it would rain at any time.Now, it comes to the misguidance of the credit rating agencies.As for investors, Rating is the scale and orientation or direction. But major rating agencies, such as Moody's, Standard & Poor's and Fitch, did not fulfill their own responsibility. The investment banks paid rating agencies to evaluate the CDOs, and many of them were given a AAA rating. Those agencies just wanted to earn as much money as they can.AAA means nothing to them. They gave out 2A even when some financial firms, such as Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, were becoming impoverished. These people did a lot to blow the world up.Finally, when we say that the dereliction of duty of financial regulatory bodies was also an important cause, that means sometimes financial regulatory bodies did nothing when they did can do something with their rights in hand. They were just unwilling to do their jobs. Take the Securities and Exchange Commission; it conducted no major investigations of the investment banks during the bubble. It is their dereliction of duty made the situation even worse---to big crisis.When we finished learning the reasons of the crisis, we now turn to the influences. The global economic crisis of 2008 cost tens of millions of people their savings, their jobs, and their homes. This is the very fact without any overstatement. The consequences, actually, was disastrous. Here are the evidences we could find from the documentary.When it refers to Iceland, we must be impressed by her suffer. When the finance took over, a massive bubble was there with stock prices went up by a factor of nine and house prices more than doubled. Thus, When Iceland's banks collapsed, losing $100 billion, at the end of 2008, unemployment tripled in six months. There is nobody unaffected in Iceland .So a lot of people lost their savings. Isn’t it terrible?In the American case, don’t expect it to be any better. When it dated back to 1980s, in America, hundreds of savings and loan companies had failed. That crisis cost tax payers 124 billion dollars, and cost many people their life savings. The next crisis came at the end of the '90s. The investment banks fueled a massive bubble in Internet stocks, which was followed by a crash in 2001 that caused 5 trillion dollars in investment losses. This time, unfortunately, the result was the biggest financial bubble in history.In September 2008, the bankruptcy of the U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers, and the collapse of the world's largest insurance company, AIG, triggered a global financial crisis. Stocks fell off a cliff – the largest single point drop in history. Share prices continued to tumble in the aftermath of the Lehman collapse. The financial industry turned its back on society, corrupted America’s political system. For the first time in history, average Americans have less education and are less prosperous than their parents. They face a financial crisis as serious as any that we have faced since the Great Depression. On October 4th, 2008, President Bush signs a 700-billion-dollar bailout bill. But world stock markets continue to fall. Unemployment in the United States and Europe quickly rises to 10 percent. The national debt of the United States doubled.The result, in fact, was a global recession, which cost the world tens of trillions of dollars; rendered 30 million people unemployed. And as U.S. consumers cut back on spending, Chinese manufacturers see sales plummet. Over 10 million migrant workers in China lose their jobs. Life gets harder for those who lost their jobs. And when looked at the cost of the crisis — destruction of equity wealth, of housing wealth; the destruction of income, of jobs, about 9 million homeowners lost their homes and 50 million people globally could end up below the poverty line again…Isn’t it a hugely, hugely expensive crisis? When those greedy traders and CEOs became enormously wealthy during the bubble, ironically, the poor have to pay for the crisis. Isn’t the culprits punished? When the reasons of the big crisis are obvious, that’s, when the root of the problem gets clear, i sn’t it the very right time to take real action? Anyway, wisdom comes from experience. Governments, financial elite, and economists have to think twice before they make a decision. I hope that we are not going to experience such a hugely expensive crisis any more.。
insidejob英文观后感
insidejob英文观后感Inside Job is a thought-provoking documentary that delves into the intricate web of events that led to the global financial crisis of 2008. Directed by Charles Ferguson, the film takes a comprehensive look at the causes and consequences of the crisis, providing a detailed account of the various elements involved in the downfall of the world economy. Through its meticulous research and compelling storytelling, Inside Job presents a scathing critique of the financial industry and exposes the inherent flaws in the system.The film begins by setting the stage for the crisis, examining the deregulation policies that were implemented in the United States during the 1980s and 1990s. These policies, spearheaded by key figures in the government and the financial industry, created an environment conducive to risky financial practices. The film argues that these practices, such as the proliferation of complex financial products and the lack of oversight, ultimately led to the collapse of major financial institutions and the subsequent worldwide economic recession.One of the strengths of Inside Job is its ability to dissect complex financial concepts and explain them in a way that is accessible to a broad audience. The film utilizes interviews with prominent economists, academics, and industry insiders to provide insightful analysis and explain the intricacies of the crisis. By doing so, it ensures that viewers, regardless of their background or understanding of the financial sector, can grasp the underlying issues at hand.Moreover, the film does not shy away from naming and shaming those responsible for the crisis. It exposes the greed and corruption that permeated Wall Street and highlights the role of major financial institutions in perpetuating the unsustainable practices that eventually led to the collapse. The interviews with insiders such as former CEOs and regulators reveal the extent to which individuals were motivated by personal gain rather than the well-being of the economy.Inside Job also scrutinizes the complicity of academic institutions in the crisis. It questions the integrity of economists who were funded by financial institutions, arguing that this led to biased research and a lack of critical analysis. The film suggests that these conflicts of interest compromised the objectivity of economic theories and contributed to the flawed policies that ultimately caused the crisis.Furthermore, the documentary exposes the revolving door between government and the financial industry, highlighting the extent to which regulators and government officials were intertwined with Wall Street. This close relationship, the film argues, created a regulatory environment that favored the interests of the financial industry over the protection of consumers and the overall stability of the economy.By uncovering these systemic issues, Inside Job raises important questions about the role of government in managing and regulating the financial industry. It challenges the notion that self-regulation is sufficient and calls for more robust oversight and accountability. The film argues that without significant structural changes, the financial industry will continue to prioritize short-term gain over long-term stability.While Inside Job presents a compelling case against the financial industry, some critics argue that it lacks nuance and fails to acknowledge the complexity of the crisis. They claim that the film oversimplifies the causes, focusing primarily on the misconduct of individuals and institutions rather than the broader economic and geopolitical factors at play. However, it can be argued that the film's purpose is not to provide a comprehensive analysis of the crisis but rather to shed light on the systemic issues that allowed it to occur.In conclusion, Inside Job is a hard-hitting documentary that exposes the underbelly of the global financial system. Through its meticulous research and compelling storytelling, it reveals the greed, corruption, and flawed policies that culminated in the economic crisis of 2008. By naming and shaming those responsible and calling for structural reforms, the film serves as a wake-up call to reevaluate the current state of the financial industry and the role of government in preventing future crises.。
【推荐下载】inside,job观后感-实用word文档 (5页)
本文部分内容来自网络整理，本司不为其真实性负责，如有异议或侵权请及时联系，本司将立即删除！== 本文为word格式，下载后可方便编辑和修改！ ==inside,job观后感篇一：Inside Job观后感Inside Job观后感201X011282 计53 王鹏宇影片《Inside Job》讲述了美国次贷危机始末以及其全球性影响，严格来讲，《Inside Job》作为一部纪录片，并没有维持绝对的中立，而是旗帜鲜明地展示了次贷危机过程中华尔街所谓“金融工程师”集体贪婪与荒谬的群像。
然而，在我们观看这部纪录片时，应该意识到，这场闹剧仅仅是一个表象，主导次贷危机的，并不是资本浪潮中的人性之恶，亦不是政府的无力与后知后觉。
事实上，次贷危机的发生，有其一定的必然性。
首先，次贷危机的萌芽，在于政府对于金融市场的监管产生了松动。
从一系列金融监管法案如葛拉斯史迪格法案的废除开始，投资银行开始了其难以控制的扩张过程。
投资银行的成长直接导致了90年代网络股的泡沫经济，事实上，这也是08年经济危机的某种前兆。
在这样一个大环境下，以华尔街为中心和代表的经济泡沫几乎是一种必然。
在其发展过程中，金融市场的疯狂逐步扩大，导致了房地产业的泡沫，投资银行可以开下诸多不负责任的贷款项目，并借助操纵评级体系，将这些房贷作为绝对稳定的筹码进行对赌。
由于巨大的信息差和相互勾结的资本操纵，资本家形成了绝对的优势，也由此积累了巨大的财富，而当泡沫破裂，他们则通过及时地转嫁亏损，获取了最大的利益，反而全身而退。
而相应的，沉重的负担不得不压在广大纳税人的头上。
1%的人掌握了绝大多数财富。
纵观整个过程，在一系列荒谬的表象下，隐藏着的是经济制度的深刻危机。
在影片中，多次提出了“监管不力”。
事实上，在这样的一个制度之下，监管的“不力”是必然的。
因为银行的规模扩大，会导致其被托管，而在这样的一个金融自由膨胀的体制下，则必然会导致金融领域挟持政治领域，以求能够进行相对“灰色”的交易。
监守自盗观后感范文
监守自盗观后感范文__的思考--《监守自盗》观后感班级：姓名：学号：日期：前言：《监守自盗》是一篇讲述xx年 __爆发的原因的纪录片，这篇纪录片思路清晰，影片并不直接向我们灌输观点，而是通过采访美国高级行政人员，顶级银行家，金融分析师，大学教授，甚至新加坡，中国，法国的政府官员等等，给观众呈现出了 __爆发的诸多原因。
看过影片之后，我们可以了解到 __爆发的原因如下：低利率和宽松的信贷条件；贪婪的华尔街金融精英对金钱的无止尽的追求；信用评价机构的错误引导；美国金融监管机构的失职等等。
我将对此片对我触动最大的几个方面，来阐述我对此片的理解和感悟。
（1）金融市场道德风险房贷机构。
美国的次级贷款人由于信用风险高，其利率往往要高于其他贷款人。
面对持续高涨的房价和利润的诱惑，银行往往将满足优质抵押贷款条件的借款人评定为次级贷款人来获得更高的利息收入，次级贷款的比例甚至达到99.3%。
在宽松、乐观的金融市场形势下，房地产贷款机构将抵押贷款出售给投资银行。
转移风险，这种证券化引起银行中介职能分解，风险与收益相分离。
抵押贷款公司既可以赚取贷款手续费．又能把违约风险转嫁到债券最终的买家身上．因此，房贷机构在利益的驱使下．不负责任地放松了信贷审查，次级贷款大量增加。
投资银行。
投资银行等债券发行人购买了次级抵押贷款后，以其为基础资产发行次级债券，销售给投资者。
投资银行在明知道债券风险很大的情况下，依然大量向顾客推荐购买。
而他们却另一方面大量购买信用违约互换产品，因为他们知道泡沫会破灭。
不得不说，这是一种高技术含量，高隐蔽性的诈骗活动。
评级机构。
雷曼兄弟在破产前是AA，AIG 破产前是AA，房利美和房地美在被援助前都是AAA，花旗、美林、都有很高的投资评价，很多垃圾股被他们大力推荐。
当人们在 __之后，对这些评级机构进行质问的时候，他们异口同声的说这样的评级只是他们的看法，他们的建议。
为了增加债券的发行量，债券发行人需要得到评级机构更高的信用评级。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
《Inside job 》观后感
农水四班1102040405 廖洁
在本学期第一节毛概实践课上面，老师给我们播放了纪录片《inside job》。
《Inside job》，中文直译并不是监守自盗，但在意义上却和本片的内容无限契合。
本片一开始从冰岛的美丽风景和国家破产说起，到纽约华尔街的金融巨头——众金融学家、政治家、经济学家粉墨登场，并以各种细致的数据与不同的条理逻辑分析，深入探讨那场席卷全球的经济危机发生的背后原因。
本片把华尔街的金融团体作为研究对象，深度挖掘了以华尔街为中心，涉及政治、学术界等各领域的一条贪婪的食物链。
并揭露了这条食物链是如何将世界带入金融危机的黑洞。
在2小时的影片中，汇集了前美联储主席Paul V ocker，国际货币基金组织执行主席Dominique Straus-Kahn，量子基金创始人George Soros，众议院金融委员会主席Barney Frank，布什政府财政部副部长David McCormick，中国银监会首席顾问沈联涛，新加坡总理李显龙，国际货币基金组织总裁Christine Lagarde 等不同的政治人物、金融专家、大学老师，虽然在2小时的时间内不能将金融危机的前因后果全部讲清楚，只要认真看完本片稍有理解能力的人也能够大致了解2008年经济危机原因了。
因此，本片也获得了2011年奥斯卡最佳纪录片大奖，导演也捧得小金人归。
本片分为五部分，第一部分how we got here，第二部分the bubble，第三部分the crisis，第四部分accountability，第五部分where we are now。
我印象最深的有其中的几个细节。
在第一部分“何以至此”中《两亿万的消融》作者查尔斯·莫里斯的一个朋友，七十年代在美林银行做债券交易此外晚上他还要兼职做列车调度员才能养活一家五口，但仅仅十多年后他就能达到年收入几百万。
这是由于20世纪80年代里根政府在经济学家以及金融说客支持下，开始了长达三十年的金融放松政策，对储贷公司放松管制，允许他们运用储户资金进行风险投资。
债券交易行业到了八十年代，开始爆炸性的增长，投资银行纷纷上市，聚拢和掌控了股民资金，华尔街的人开始变得富有起来。
进入二十一世纪之后，人们对于金钱的渴望越来越严重，人们开始把余钱用于投资，用于保险，想要使钱生钱利滚利。
这样就给金融行业工作的人提供了新的金融想法，他们为了利益丧失了自己的良心，只关心怎样把贷款的规模做到最大，使自己从中获利，金融创新开始爆炸性增长。
可以说金融家无止尽的贪婪，无法填满的私欲是导致这场金融危机的重要原因。
在本片第三部分“危”机中，我们看到了无数专家学者向世人预言了这次金融危机。
它的出现也是必然的。
在2008年房屋抵押收回量激增，证券化食物链断裂，贷方无法再向投资银行出售贷款而贷款无法收回，大量放贷人就会被迫破产。
CDO市场崩盘，让投资银行数千亿美元被套牢，包括卖不出去的贷款，CDO 还有不动产。
这些标志着危机彻底爆发且无法缓解。
当金融危机终于爆发，美国AIG由政府接管，最终国会为救助AIG共耗费纳税人超过1500亿美金。
2008年10月4日，美国总统布什签署了七千亿的救助法案，但是这并不能阻挡全球性的经济危机的来袭，世界股市仍在大幅度下跌。
并且，救助法案对大幅度裁员
和抵押回收并没有作用，导致金融危机中，美国和欧洲的失业率飞速增长到百分之十。
经济危机蔓延到全球，数以百万计的人丢掉工作，而在美国，那些向银行贷款买房的民众也因为丢掉工作无法支付每月还款而在丢掉工作的同时，连房子也丢失了。
在影片中我们可以看到佛州皮尼拉斯县的帐篷城。
伐木工人斯提芬说到很快这个帐篷城的人就会越来越多，因为周围已经没有工作可以做了，这些都足以证明危机带来的巨大衰落。
从古至今，从我们所了解到的所有事件当中，当任何大的危机出现的时候，损失最为惨重的永远只能是底层人民。
也可以说这是一场由虚高的房价，贷款消费所引起的经济危机。
在如今的中国，房价也比本世纪初翻了几番，比如说我的家乡泸州一样，十年以前你可以花十万块在市区买一套很好的房子，而现在，十万块你可能只能买到一个厕所而已。
虽然如此，但民众总会害怕房价继续上涨，抱着早晚都要买房，晚买不如早买的心态疯狂的参与贷款买房一族，不少丈母娘也要求女婿要有房子才能赢取自己的女儿，这也使得房地产商变得更加肆无忌惮，而各级政府为了自己的GDP评比不会那么难看也和房地产商狼狈为奸，赚取人民大众的血汗钱。
在这个时候，国家的宏观调控就会变得特别重要，要是没有国家的宏观调控，各个城市的房价肯定远不止这些，虽然现在很多一线城市的房价已经让我们望而却步。
大多数中国人现在的状态都是辛勤工作一辈子却买不起一套属于自己的房子，所以很多年轻人转变了观点，宁愿一辈子租房住也不愿意沦为房奴。
我认为，中国政府应该加强对房价的调控，就算不能使之降低，但是至少要让其维持在稳定状态，不要总是让民众听到房价又要上涨的声音。
这应该是所有中国人的新生吧。
在第四部分“问责”中我们可以发现，那些一手毁了自己的公司并且让世界陷入经济危机的金融者，却得以在全球性的经济危机中全身而退，财富毫发无损。
比如雷曼公司的五大高管就在2000到2007年间赚了十多亿美金，当公司破产后，他们还可以全部保存这些财产。
我们是否可以怀疑，是这些人在操纵着金融界，在不能赚钱之后他们就可以拿着民众的钱功成身退逍遥自在去了。
据资料显示，2008年5月AIG金融产业部损失110亿美金，当时的金融产业部主管约瑟夫·卡萨诺并未被解雇而是作为顾问拿着几百万月薪留了下来。
影片还介绍说，金融业还以一种更加精巧的途径扩大影响范围，它已经浸染进了金融学本身。
这对于我们来说应该是极大的灾难，在我认为，任何有关贪欲的东西进入教育届，那么它能够影响的就不只一个人而是一群人了，应该说，这种浸染是对金融学的侮辱吧。
我在一篇文章中读到“道德的评判对于经济行为来讲根本没有意义。
”也许这就是那些在金融危机中赚得满足而归的金融家经济学家的思想吧，他们已经失去了道义和良心，眼中只有金钱和利益。
资本主义没有限制人性的贪念，只是一味的提倡市场经济和自由竞争，无形中放大了人性的贪念，使其演变成为罪恶的资本主义。
而罪恶的资本主义在全球范围内肆虐再加上政府管理的疏忽最终结果就是带来了金融危机。
并且最后为这些金融家的贪婪买单的确实普通民众，这是我们所不能容忍的。
在社会发展的进程中，我们只能时刻谨记着这次金融危机，才能使我们尽量避免，不再重蹈覆辙。