Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Access Journalism: The Movie
It is not true, as a Wall Street Journal reviewer claimed, that the HBO movie version of Andrew Sorkin’s book “Too Big to Fail” was “Too Boring to Watch.” On the contrary, the problem with the film, featuring excellent acting and taut direction, as with the richly anecdotal book, is that it is all too effectively misleading.
William Hurt plays Hank Paulson in the HBO original film from Curtis Hanson, "Too Big to Fail." (HBO / MCT)
Fortunately, if viewers have already watched “Inside Job,” the spot-on Academy Award winner, they will not be led too far astray by this film’s adulation of the likes of Henry Paulson and Timothy Geithner. Paulson is portrayed as an eminently decent man, troubled by the imperfections of the TARP bailout, and when he throws up off camera in one scene it is not at all suggested that perhaps he could be disgusted that the misery he brought to the world had left him a billionaire.
When he resigned his position as head of Goldman Sachs to become treasury secretary, he cashed in $485 million in Goldman stock and was saved from a $100 million tax liability because he was entering government “service.” The film barely mentioned that Paulson was the head of Goldman Sachs when his company deceptively packaged and sold the collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) based on the subprime and Alt A mortgages that proved so toxic.
As Paulson concedes in his memoir, after George W. Bush appointed him treasury secretary, the president asked plaintively as the economy was crumbling: “How did this happen?” In Sorkin’s book, it is stated that the treasurer “disregarded the question, knowing that the answer would be way too long.” But in his memoir, Paulson provides a clearer insight: “It was a humbling question for someone from the financial sector to be asked—after all, we were the ones responsible.”
No such honesty has yet emerged from Geithner, who was an undersecretary of the treasury during the Clinton years, when he worked closely with his bosses, first Robert Rubin and then Lawrence Summers, to pass the radical deregulation hinted at but never fully explained in either the Sorkin book or the film. There is scant reference to the obliteration of the Glass-Steagall Act, a repeal that permitted the too-big-to-fail merger of companies such as Travelers and Citicorp, which became Citigroup—a company that had to be bailed out with $50 billion in taxpayer money.
Nor is there any reference in the film to the fact that Rubin, mentor to both Summers and Geithner, went on to help run that new megabank at a salary of $15 million a year. Geithner, who later became head of the New York Fed, a job obtained with the effusive recommendations of both Rubin and Summers, worked to salvage Citigroup from the mess its packaging of toxic mortgages had created.
Geithner is lionized in both Sorkin’s book and the film version. As Nancy deWolf Smith put it in The Wall Street Journal: “Some viewers who remember the book may be galled again by the portrayal of certain characters. For instance, Timothy Geithner (Billy Crudup), then president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, still comes across as a blameless saint and Wunderkind with a compassionate finger on the pulse of the victimized ordinary man.” The fawning in the book is embarrassing, as in the description of Summers and his treasury assistant in the Clinton years going off to tennis camp, with Sorkin noting, “Geithner, with his six-pack abs, had a game that matched his policy-making prowess.” Not to be overlooked is “his usual firm, athletic handshake.”
That policy prowess must extend to the destructive CDO deregulation that Geithner and Summers pushed through Congress and that, in an image in the movie, we see Bill Clinton signing into law. That legislation, not specifically referenced in Sorkin’s book, was called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA). It banned the application of any existing regulation or regulatory agency authority to the emerging market in CDOs that turned out to be disastrous.
These were the same CDOs that AIG backed with phony insurance “swaps,” resulting in the Geithner-led $170 billion bailout of the company with the money passed through to Goldman and the other banks covered by AIG. Neither the CFMA nor the heroic and incredibly prescient Brooksley Born, then chief of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, whose dire warnings about the new financial gimmicks were effectively silenced by the CFMA, are mentioned in the index of Sorkin’s book.
At the end of HBO’s film about how skillfully Henry Paulson, Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner managed to force the top banks to accept $700 billion in bailout money, the question is posed as to whether the banks so saved would turn around and lend money to save the homes of ordinary folks. The outcome was quite the opposite.
The economy remains in deep trouble thanks in considerable measure to the “bankers-first” priorities that Geithner and Summers brought with them to the Barack Obama presidency. The housing industry is deeply depressed, new home construction starts this year are expected to match the lowest point since records first were kept in 1963, housing values are predicted to decline at least 5 percent more this year, and without an improvement in housing there will be no significant increase in consumption or jobs.
Further, on the day HBO premiered the film, The New York Times reported that the top banks now have an inventory of foreclosed homes that is twice as high as when the crisis began four years ago, and, “In addition, they are in the process of foreclosing on an additional one million homes and are poised to take possession of several million more in the years ahead.”
The film and the book, by centering on TARP, make that bailout the big deal, and when the bailout money was paid back to free the bankers’ bonuses from regulation, it was celebrated by Geithner as “the most effective government program in recent memory.” Rubbish! As Paul Atkins and two other members of the Congressional Oversight Panel on TARP wrote in a blistering WSJ column exposing the TARP settlement: “It hides the full story of the government’s financial crisis effort, of which TARP is but a minor part”; the major part being the $1.1 trillion in toxic mortgages that the Fed purchased from the banks, the $380 billion bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, and the loan guarantees of “other Fed and FDIC programs [that] added another $2 trillion of taxpayer money at risk to the 19 stress tested banks alone.” And then there is the 50 percent run-up in the national debt, thanks to the banks’ savaging of the economy that will haunt us for decades to come.
Perhaps the main value of the book and film is the instruction they provide on the limits of mainstream journalism in the decade that led up to the meltdown. Sorkin, who rose to be a business editor at the Times, covered Wall Street deal-making in exquisite detail, relying on an access journalism that has often proved deeply flawed in traditional business news coverage. What was largely ignored as it was unfolding was the story of the unbridled power of Wall Street financiers over the political process that caused this tragedy for so many tens of millions who have lost jobs and homes.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


11 Comments so far
Show AllThank you Robert Scheer for telling this story again and again. Sometimes I pick up a small detail I didn't know before.
Revisionist counter-stories like the HBO movie version of Andrew Sorkin’s book “Too Big to Fail” and the book itself are part of the propaganda that flows "naturally" out of the access driven, corporate owned mainstream media, and the mouths of the interchangeable "greed is good" government and corporate suits, who while spinning through the revolving door between government and business were directly involved or complicit in the massive fraud and theft committed against the great masses of people living both in the United States and everywhere else around the globe.
Masters of the Universe?
Corporate Crooks is a more accurate description!
Democracia Real Ya!
Real Democracy Now!
There will be no movie in our immediate future that will portray these leeches for what they are: saboteurs of the world economy. A few generations from now, after some of the radioactive dust has settled perhaps, there will be many questions arising about who these monstrous beings were and how they got away with so much.
Paulson is really the terrorist we should be looking for. Him and Geithner, etc. are the very ones responsible for the current turmoil we're seeing. To say they're being disingenuous is like saying 'forever is a long time'. This isn't even a plot... you can watch it clearly taking place in front of you if you are simply paying attention. They are counting on you to be distracted and whipped into submission by the information whirlpool so that their asset-stripping can continue unbridled.
The only movie I'd like to see Paulson in is Blade Runner: particularly the scene in which Rutger Hauer's thumbs might poke his eyes out.
The involvment of the so many higher ups in the Clinton and now the Obama administrations in these crimes makes it foolish to expect any serious criticism from liberal democrats who wish to perpetuate the myth that corruption is the exclusive property of the republicans.
One thing that I have found hysterically ironic is that in the 80's and 90's we conferred millions of MBA's on wanna-be millionaires and when the crash came all of these educated gamers cried in their cognac that "who knew?" and "we didn't see this coming!"
I have never taken an economics course in my life and I KNEW and I SAW IT COMING. All you had to do was look at the calamitous speculation of commodities to absurd, impossible, irrational heights to know that the denoument was just around the corner.
I am NOT extremely well read, but the only economist that ever made real rational sense to me was John Kenneth Galbraith.
Fuck Reagan and Stockman, fuck Clinton and Summers, and fuck Obama and Ryan. As many here are aware the current system is not able to be repaired or rescued and the real global nosedive is just around the corner. Hope I'm wrong but that is my eneducated, unsophisticated, and very frightened opinion.
Justaman --
Unfortunately, most people are remarkably adept at wearing blinders when it suits them. Or as Upton Sinclair put it:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
You might want to check out JKG's son -- James -- who is also an economist.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10242008/profile.html
Three of my favorite JKG quotes:
“Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists.”
“The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.”
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
If you decide you want to read a couple other economists who are not paid lackeys of global corporatism:
http://michael-hudson.com/
http://www.rdwolff.com/
To paraphrase a long ago title of a book from a different Robert, Robert Sherrill: Financial honesty is to honesty as a Mars bar is to Mars.
Since it costs a good deal to make a film, it's likely that some of these same banker interests lent money to the cause by demanding in exchange that a true exposure of what actually took place be kept hidden behind a Hollywood-style, engaging (pro-hero on a quest) story line.
Since the government used taxpayer money to bail out the banks, the government should have negotiated to gain possession of all those homes! Then, tied to a government-run national bank, these homes could have been sold, with mortgages paid to replenish the fund that instead became a grotesque give-away to those that betrayed the economy and all those subject to it in the first place.
Lionizing these criminal misfits reminds me of a similar campaign to lionize Reagan, proving once more the magical power of mass media in manufacturing consent, and shaping opinions that diametrically oppose The Truth.
I'm relieved that Scheer recommended "Inside Job" as a legitimate alternative history of the great 2008 meltdown/corporate bailout scam, rather than the revisionist narrative found in Sorokin's book and the HBO version "Too Big to Fail." It is very difficult to engage in insider access journalism for a book-turned-into-a-movie without airbrushing the sources, particularly when the key player/sources remain in positions of entrenched power, with squads of libel lawyers available to warm up in the bullpen on short notice should the final work product be too unflattering.
Scheer is right that the focus on the dramatic, high level TARP gyrations in late 2008 and early 2009 captured only a minor part of a much bigger story. What continues to amaze me is the utter failure of the federal government at any level to grapple with the significance of the $1.1 trillion in toxic mortgage backed securities that were transferred from the books of the big banks to the ledger of the public treasury. The high rolling makers and marketers of snake oil sold it merrily back-and-forth to one another pretending it was gold, then quietly got the government to take these toxic snake oil certificates off their hands once the whole elaborate con game became publicly exposed as the real world economy crashed.
Such an amazing sleight of hand it was. A few suckers who lacked connections with the casino management or who didn't move fast enough did get burned, but the big boys at the table got the house to cover their losses, reshuffled the deck, dealt another hand, and kept right on playing the game as if the system had self-corrected and everything was perfectly normal again.
Absolutely amazing.
Bill from Saginaw
Bill: An inside job like this that bought out/got past all the would-be regulators makes me glad that I believe in karma, a more efficient universal system of JUSTICE. (Although, arguably, its remedial effects often do take longer!)
Sioux & other friends -
Last evening I re-watched HBO's "Too Big to Fail" with Robert Scheer's post fresh in my mind (the first time around, I missed portions of it). I recommend it for the reasons Scheer mentions - fine casting and directing, excellent acting, certainly nothing boring about the cascading sequence of events depicted in the fall 2008 meltdown crisis - but for some other reasons I would like to share.
First, I was struck by how all these guys in suits, the Masters of the Universe from the banking conglomerates, investment houses, Wall Street, and most of the ostensible federal regulators all looked alike, dressed alike, talked alike, and played smarmy cuthroat capitalism alike. It was occasionally hard to keep track of the players without a running scorecard, which the scriptwriters and director periodically subtly helped the viewer sort out if one paid close attention. Out of this pack of corporate jackals, a handful emerge in HBO's docu-melodrama as multi-dimensional characters.
The central figure protagonist, former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson as portrayed by William Hurt, is the angst ridden man caught in the middle who (like the nation) just barely manages to muddle through and survive. He stoically pontificates and pretends in public that the market system is self-correcting and the economy remains fundamentally sound, only to step behind closed doors to huddle with his inner circle - each of whom are frantically freaking out, desperately seeking immediate damage control measures capable of at least temporarily averting the looming Armageddon.
Paulson's repeated public lies are part of the Treasury Department head's job description, of course. Heaven forbid words should be uttered that might upset Wall Street or the international financial markets. All policy options on the table must be weighed as tools to reassure these markets. Throughout the escalating crisis, the tail wags the dog while the dog vehemently denies this reality in public, yelping and praying behind closed doors for that damnable wagging to stop.
Two short Paulson vignettes deserve mention: at a state dinner in Peking, the Treasury Secretary is given a heads up by his Chinese host that there had been a call from Moscow the other day, suggesting Russia and the Peoples' Republic should dump all their US T-bills on a given day, this aside punctuated by a reminder how "your debt does make you vulnerable." Poor Hank is told in telephone calls by the Brits that "we don't want your cancer spreading here", and then by the French Treasury figure speaking for the EEU that if AIG's insurance obligations on those funny money securities were not honored by the American government, there would be absolute hell to pay throughout all of Europe with the yanks entirely to blame. Ah yes, the invisible hand of the marketplace works its wonders. Yet another country heard from......
Paul Giamatti was brilliant as low key Ben Bernanke, who quietly keeps a low profile until all the major bank and investment house players have been assembled at a huge huge table. The Bernanke figure chips in to remind everybody that he'd spent most of his academic career studying what caused the Great Depression, and if these guys, in this enclosed room, couldn't reach an agreement immediately, the next Depression that would hit tomorrow would be much, much worse in Bernanke's opinion. Great scene.
Also excellent is actor James Woods as the beleagured CEO of Lehman Brothers, watching his world go down the tubes and damning government policymakers for playing favorites weeks earlier towards Bear Stearns. According to the plot line, Korean investors were all set to rescue Lehman but last minute negotiating tactic sleaziness by Lehman Brothers itself infuriated and alienated the Asians, killing the deal. James Woods ends up bitterly drinking his cognac all alone in the Lehman executive office suite (perhaps deservedly) while the CNBC focus of attention abruptly shifts from Lehman's bankruptcy to speculation about whether Merrill Lynch or Goldman Sachs would be similarly abandoned to the invisible hand's vengeance in the near future.
As Scheer notes, there are just slight hints of fundamental, towering public policy issues in this movie version of the 2008 meltdown, with much more focus on personalities.
Why should the treasury buy up toxic assets everybody now knows are a toxic "shit sandwich"? Why should billions of public dollars be given to private banks with no strings attached, hoping the bankers might lend the money out to Main Street rather than squirrel it away elsewhere for themselves?
How the hell could AIG collect premiums on insurance policies which gambled that esoteric pieces of financial paperwork would or would not turn out to be worthless, but the insurer not be capitalized sufficiently to pay off the policyholders' claims?
Was it really true that a single telephone call from Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric, announcing GE was having trouble making payroll and current operating overhead because there suddenly was no credit to be had, actually the straw that broke the camel's back? No question, there was a phone call received. True or false do you think, that the largest manufacturing company in the United States (with product lines from nukes to light bulbs) was about to shut the plant gates because abruptly no American bank would lend to them?
These questions were posed in passing, and left unanswered. Maybe that is the point. Once again, art imitated real life. Everybody kicked the can further down the road to be studied later, and heaved a sigh of relief that the immediate crisis had passed.
Bill from Saginaw
Capitalism - all the "truth" that money can buy.