In Debt We Trust
Snag Films approached me some time ago about hosting some of their content -- I demurred, only because none of it seemed appropriate for TBP crowd of investors, traders, and economy watchers and what we all might be interested in.
They wrote me this week, suggesting a few fims that they had added to their playlist that might be of interest to an investing/economic/market related crowd. This documentary -- In Debt We Trust -- seemed dead on to our interests. (There is a short pre-roll commericial before the film)
I only saw the first 10 minutes, but it looked interesting (share your thoughts about the film, format, whatecver in comments).
Here's the description:
In America’s earliest days, there were barn-raising parties in which neighbors helped each other build up their farms. Today, in some churches, there are debt liquidation revivals in which parishioners chip in to free each other from growing credit card debts that are driving American families to bankruptcy and desperation. ‘In Debt We Trust’ is the latest film from Danny Schechter, “The News Dissector,” director of the internationally distributed and award-winning WMD (Weapons of Mass Deception), an expose of the media’s role in the Iraq War. The Emmy-winning former ABC News and CNN producer’s new hard-hitting documentary investigates why so many Americans are being strangled by debt. It is a journalistic confrontation with what former Reagan advisor Kevin Phillips calls “Financialization"--the “powerful emergence of a debt-and-credit industrial complex.” While many Americans may be “maxing out” on credit cards, there is a deeper story: power is shifting into fewer hands. And with frightening consequences.
Sunday, October 26, 2008 | 12:00 AM | Permalink
| Comments (36)
| TrackBack (0)
add to de.li.cious | 
digg this! | 
add to technorati | 
email this post
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c52a953ef010535bf2f89970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference In Debt We Trust:
Comments
First it opens a new tab, then it plays some damn advertising - this sucks.
Posted by: Molecool | Oct 26, 2008 12:31:01 AM
At one point, if you need an interest rate of 25% higher than prime to "cover your risk", you shouldn't be allowed to make the loan. That should be a law I think.
Point two is you still have to be a dumb ass to go into debt like that, and I wish dearly I could opt out of helping these people. There should be a slap law for a loan -- you must first read the terms and think about the consequences. Then you get a very hard slap, and read the terms again. I still get credit card garbage in the mail, and it criminal what they are allowed to put into print.
Posted by: debreuil | Oct 26, 2008 1:11:51 AM
Is your bank in trouble?
Screw the stock market?
It is spring on the RIGHT side of Wall Street (Fall and Blood on the other)! Know where you should stand to be a receiver.
More details below.
http://www.marketwarnings.com/2008/10/spring-on-right-side-of-wall-street.html
Posted by: dave | Oct 26, 2008 1:29:42 AM
there is no option to fast forward ..
Posted by: ab | Oct 26, 2008 1:34:43 AM
This was good at first, kept getting better.
Best part of the film is its 2006 vintage. Wow, what a difference 2 yrs. has made!
Apart from a few minor misstatements, this is top-notch, and delves into may aspects of the credit crunch before it was.
Posted by: BeerdedOne | Oct 26, 2008 1:57:57 AM
I suggest a grand debt to equity conversion for America. Since it is unlikely that America will ever pay off it debt, it would make more sense to auction off public infrastructure and major government owned companies.
Posted by: Charles | Oct 26, 2008 2:06:55 AM
Excellent film. While I found myself nodding in agreement with most of the material, I wish Schechter had focused a bit more on the personal responsibility side. Sure, predatory lending is a big problem. But for most folks, the solution is one of regulating their own financial behavior.
Posted by: Mac | Oct 26, 2008 2:47:06 AM
The part that really got to me big time was about the military in active duty having to deal with these scammers.
Let's face it: mili pay ain't the Eldorado, and it can be hard to raise a family on it. These payday fuckers shoulda been kept out of the area.
As for the personal responsibility stuff...well...when costs always go up while incomes refuse to follow, responsibility becomes a tad harder to slap on people willy-nily.
Posted by: Francois | Oct 26, 2008 3:24:29 AM
like BR, I what have watched 10-12 minutes of it..so, with that, and this review:
http://www.cardratings.com/creditcardnews/2006/08/in-debt-we-trust-documentary-exposes.html
I'll say, that while much of the info and tecnicolor is interesting, it seems that the Director is hacking at branches, not digging the root.
towit: does he/why doesn't he cover the actual Mechanics of a 'Loan'/Mortgage?
uncover what, exactly, is being lent? and, better, who funds it-the initial transaction?
I would think that if he did any of those things, it would have been in the lede, not buried..
maybe I'm wrong, though, I doubt it..
Posted by: Mark E Hoffer | Oct 26, 2008 3:59:09 AM
"Availability: US Only"
That sucks!
Posted by: Stefan | Oct 26, 2008 5:13:56 AM
Is that the same?
In.Debt.We.Trust.America.Before.the.Bubble.Bursts.XviD.AC3.www.mvgroup.org.avi
You have a torrent file here for us that are not from the US and for those that want to watch it with forwarding posibilities,.
http://isohunt.com/torrent_details/51739586/In+Debt+We+Trust?tab=summary
Posted by: Tomaz | Oct 26, 2008 5:28:35 AM
Mr. Ritholtz,
You'll have to excuse me I'm new to this. I actually came to your site through Seeking Alpha about a year ago because in the area I live in I could not understand and to some degree was jealous of how people lived in my area. I'm a millwright by trade and do not make a lot of money and also do not believe in the debt system. I was trying to understand where the money was coming from for the new homes, vehicles and toys I had seen people purchase, so I started to dig online and found your site along with other outstanding individuals whom you have posted in your blog roll. Thank you for the information, I've passed your site on too many people and they have come to see the light. Concerning the movie, I watched the whole thing and while we are reeping our rewards for the crap we've allowed these businesses and ourselves to pull off. It will be good movie for the younger generation. I sat down with my teenage daughters and made them watch another movie called " Maxed Out " Very similar to what I just watched. I never payed much attention to the markets because I always thought them to be corrupt. I now watch them daily and read your blog and others daily and have learned a tremendous amount. Eventually I plan on investing beyond the standard 401K which I transferred to bonds for now. I can be patient and thanks again.
Posted by: Daryl | Oct 26, 2008 6:21:54 AM
Yes, and the debt and leverage, I have finally realized are why there is such velocity with the downturn this time.
Our trust in debt made debt seem the normal. Now that deleveraging has occured the speed of the recession is amazing. Much faster than any of the previous I have lived through. News in previous recessions came to you in drips, but this one is giving you news in waves.
....House of cards....
Posted by: Bruce in Tennessee | Oct 26, 2008 8:22:32 AM
It is not difficult to sum up this movie:
It is all the financial industry's fault.
My thoughts/questions: just because the auto industry advertises cars, do I have to buy a new car every other year, preferably more often?
Because fast food industry advertises big macs and pizza, do I have to stop cooking my own food?
Because the fashion industry comes up with a new look every season, do I have to change my wardrobe?
You get the message, I could go on. Every industry will advertise its product. We happen to live in a consumer society. Advertising happens to be part of its hallmark. As individuals, and society as a whole, we are learning our life lessons through that prism, as so many are finding out.
It is up to the individual to think, discern, make choices, to learn to differentiate between wants and needs.
Sure, the credit card industry is an enabler, but there too, a person can make a choice.
Maybe we should ask why it is so hard for so many to simply "think" (scarily enough lots of college students....!)
- Maybe the easy solution for those who cannot think is to TURN OFF television. Or if they have to watch, watch PBS. No commercials except the sponsor names....
Let me add here that I have not had cable for almost 5 years. If I watch TV at all, it is PBS 98% of the time. When I scan the few other channels I can receive, I find the content so surreal, so far removed from my way of thinking and living life, I might as well live on another planet.
Hence, though I believe in personal responsibility in all aspects of life, I know that avoiding indoctrination via commercials and group-think requires effort of will, effort of discrimination, effort to see through the slogans, and ability to simply saying NO.
It really is not that hard, it just requires adjustment of the symbolic antenna and refusal to be a sheep......
My five cents worth and sorry if this sounds harsh. Some tough love is required to get this mess straightened out, and it starts at home, from the bottom up.
Posted by: Annette S. | Oct 26, 2008 9:12:28 AM
Posted by: Annette S. | Oct 26, 2008 9:12:28 AM
Simpler: People would rather be Wrong in Groups, then Right, alone.
Good for you, and, eventually, Us, that you already see that.
That, in itself, is worth way more than five cents. Don't sell yourself short ;)
Posted by: Mark E Hoffer | Oct 26, 2008 9:24:15 AM
Hey Barry:
This is slightly off topic, but just in case you missed it, Bill Moyers conducted an interview with James K. Galbraith Friday night on Bill Moyers' Journal. This is the link, I highly recommend viewing.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10242008/watch2.html
Also, I know that you're a music lover extrordinare' (I hope I spelled this right), This music link came from the same program, I think that you'll like it...
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10242008/watch3.html
Good luck and best regards,
Econolicious
Posted by: ECONOMISTA NON GRATA | Oct 26, 2008 9:26:39 AM
«I'm a millwright by trade and do not make a lot of money and also do not believe in the debt system.» In American, there is a technical term for that: "loser". «while we are reeping our rewards for the crap we've allowed these businesses and ourselves to pull off.» In American there is another technical term for those businesses and people who have been reaping the rewards (extremely large bonuses and capital gains who will allow them and their families to live out the recession in stunning luxury): "winners". Few are the winners, and many are the losers. That's America. If you want to change anything, donate campaign money to progressive politicians.
Posted by: Blissex | Oct 26, 2008 9:30:51 AM
PBS "Frontline" has a documentary on the Credit Card Industry that repeats every so often.
Especially interesting is an article on the web page, by Harvard Economics Professor Elizabeth Warren, on the history of debt and how our attitudes toward indebtedness have changed over the generations. Well worth the read.
--Ken
Posted by: Ken M. | Oct 26, 2008 9:35:09 AM
It is very repetitive. The undercurrent seems to be that all humans are naturally greedy (both borrowers and lenders) so we should have laws to protect people from their natural tendencies. We all know that doesn't work in practice, regardless of the the sentiment.
I must admit that I use to find Dave Ramsey irritating but he holds people responsible for their own shortsightedness and then provides them with a way out.
Posted by: Michael Lomker | Oct 26, 2008 9:59:44 AM
Availability US Only. That is really stupid. Not like it costs them anything to make it available worldwide, and not as if I couldn't use a proxy. But I can't be bothered now.
Posted by: boo | Oct 26, 2008 10:18:12 AM
This is not so far off the subject that we can't discuss it here.
RE: The confusion regarding the QFI public term sheet for participants remarked about in a recent TBP topic and discussion:
I've read it again for the third time and I think I've found the logical hinge-point that's caused the confusion.
First, it's my opinion now that there is no prohibition of participants for paying common dividends, but rather simple rules are imposed on them by the term sheet's restrictions for when they do.
Here's the term sheet found at the Treasury.gov site:
http://treasury.gov/
...then here:
http://search.treas.gov/search?q=term%20sheet&access=p&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&client=default_frontend&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&site=default_collection
...then finally, here:
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/document5hp1207.pdf
...quoting from the term sheet:
"Restrictions on Dividends:
For as long as any Senior Preferred is outstanding, no dividends may be declared or paid on junior preferred shares, preferred shares ranking pari passu with the Senior Preferred, or common shares (other than in the case of pari passu preferred shares, dividends on a pro rata basis with the Senior Preferred), nor may the QFI repurchase or redeem any junior preferred shares, preferred shares ranking pari passu with the Senior Preferred or common shares, [unless]* (i) in the case of cumulative Senior Preferred all accrued and unpaid dividends for all past dividend periods on the Senior Preferred are fully paid or (ii) in the case of non-cumulative Senior Preferred the full dividend for the latest completed dividend period has been declared and paid in full."--end quote, *brackets added because my focus is on the word 'unless.'
--
Barringo in that earlier post updated the topic with an illustration that we did not observe an item (iii), indicating evidently that the term sheet had not made a provision for the paying of common dividends under an assumed item (iii) qualification, because there wasn't one, and thus the exclusionary power of the initial statement "no dividends may be declared or paid on junior preferred shares, preferred shares ranking pari passu with the Senior Preferred, or common shares" should stand firmly on its own merit.
However, the word 'unless' that is my focus here i-s the provision of that element of exception that the failure to provide an item (iii) exclusion would only seem to deny.
To make all this clear, I'll rewrite the term sheet discussion of "Restrictions on Dividends" in the way I'd have constructed it in order to prevent what I think is simple confusion over language and style. I'll make the corrections *[within brackets] :
--
(begin - purely my speculation that this is more correctly expressed)
--
For as long as any Senior Preferred is outstanding, no dividends may be declared or paid on junior preferred shares, preferred shares ranking pari passu with the Senior Preferred, or common shares (other than in the case of pari passu preferred shares, dividends on a pro rata basis with the Senior Preferred), nor may the QFI repurchase or redeem any junior preferred shares, preferred shares ranking pari passu with the Senior Preferred or common shares, *[except that these restrictions will not apply in any case where (i) the QFI issues cumulative Senior Preferred shares and all accrued and unpaid dividends for all past dividend periods on the Senior Preferred are fully paid or (ii) in any case where the QFI issues non-cumulative Senior Preferred shares and the full dividend for the latest completed dividend period has been declared and paid in full.]
--
With these changes to the term sheet, its subsequent “consent paragraph” addressing any QFI’s requirements for Treasury consent to raise dividends is no longer logically nonsensical.
Bottom line: The restrictions only apply when the QFI has not met its obligations for full payment on any Senior Preferred shares issued to the Treasury.
Posted by: Eclectic | Oct 26, 2008 10:21:16 AM
Posted by: Annette S. | Oct 26, 2008 9:12:28 AM
Simpler: People would rather be Wrong in Groups, then Right, alone.
Good for you, and, eventually, Us, that you already see that.
That, in itself, is worth way more than five cents. Don't sell yourself short ;)
Posted by: Mark E Hoffer | Oct 26, 2008 9:24:15 AM
Agree with this 100%. I actually got myself into stupid debt (via credit cards and student loans and wanting to have a semblance of a social life in my single mid 20's) but dug myself out the old fashioned way by paying it back over the years and haven't gone back since (and plan to never go back again). Perhaps people today can learn the same lessons that I (and many others) did, the HARD WAY. I rarely, if ever, shop these days (other than for food and "essentials") and it's amazing to know what you don't NEED (or really even WANT) in life when you don't think about it. I still have my guilty pleasures (gotta have DirecTV for sports), but keep them limited to things I can afford with cash. I know it's a cliche, but most of life's real pleasures really are free or cost very litte. You just have to look for them a little (and sometimes you don't). Here ends my soap box rant.
Posted by: Jeff M. | Oct 26, 2008 12:52:14 PM
I don't think this documentary went into enough detail to be really worth watching unleass you are truly a novice to the credit card industry. For example, one major point they make in the first half was that credit card companies give away free gifts on college campuses.
The Frontline documentary "secret history of the credit card" was much more informative, because it went into much more detail and got some really great interviews.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/credit/
Posted by: heather | Oct 26, 2008 1:14:53 PM
It is up to the individual to think, discern, make choices, to learn to differentiate between wants and needs.
Sure, the credit card industry is an enabler, but there too, a person can make a choice.
------------------
This credit bubble has been building for a couple of decades but it got really blown up in the last 5 years. Let me tell you that the impact of this consumerism was probably toughest on parents with young kids as there are no bigger nutbars than parents trying to give their kids an edge.
Ironically, these are Gen X who haven't had much opportunity to save up for anything! Yet everyone around us was moving up to the big life of McMansions, Beemers, vacations, private schools, etc.
We denounced the excess at a huge personal cost. I don't care how right I know I've been, being marginalized and ridiculed is probably the toughest thing I have had to go through. I'm still not sure it was worth it because instead of living it up like everyone around me, I was saving and all my discipline could end up in vain as our leaders find ways to redistribute the wealth of those who actually have positive net worth.
Posted by: DANM | Oct 26, 2008 1:18:54 PM
I know it's a cliche, but most of life's real pleasures really are free or cost very litte. You just have to look for them a little (and sometimes you don't). Here ends my soap box rant.
Posted by: Jeff M. | Oct 26, 2008 12:52:14 PM
cli·ché also cliche (kl-sh)
n.
1. A trite or overused expression or idea: "Even while the phrase was degenerating to cliché in ordinary public use . . . scholars were giving it increasing attention" Anthony Brandt.
2. A person or character whose behavior is predictable or superficial: "There is a young explorer . . . who turns out not to be quite the cliche expected" John Crowley.
Jeff,
the difference between 1. and 2., above, is more than one.
and, with that, your observation is a time-tested Truth, axiomatic in our Human existence.
towit, The Greatest Trade: To give what you cannot keep, to gain what you cannot lose.
past that, w/ this: "Here ends my soap box rant."--allow others the folly of trying to impugn what you said, you'll learn more about, both, yourself, and them..
Posted by: Mark E Hoffer | Oct 26, 2008 1:27:41 PM
