Nah.. That was a propaganda line to enforce the idea to open borders and a precursor to there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant. No Hollywood movie is made without propaganda.
What a ridiculous argument. When a consumer goes to a bank and wants a loan that is beyond their means then the bank should turn down their application. The reason the banks did not do that is because they could write these shit loans and then sell them to someone else. This nonsense would stop if the banks had to hold these loans for 5 or 10 years before they unload them on someone else.
Luis Chavez Scientific evidence? Unless a loan applicant is trained in contract law they will not understand the contract they are signing. Some states require the borrower be represented by a lawyer and many states do not. These banks most certainly did not warn these borrowers that when interest rates reset their monthly payments could double.
Kathryn Petralia: These loans were 500 pages and nobody understood them, you can't blame the financial institutions with teams of lawyers buying them. Also Kathryn Petralia: These low-income rubes should've known what they were signing.
It's worse than that: She's basically stating that even IF they knew what they were signing, they would do it anyway out of greed. She's basically stating that everyone is at fault, because it's human nature to be greedy. Everyone was getting something out of it, so nobody wanted the merry go round of crap to stop. She's basically blaming the system, but here's the part she never acknowledges: CONSUMERS DIDN"T COME UP WITH THIS SYSTEM! Wall St, then DC, then the regulators deserve the lion's share of blame with the collapse, with the consumers in a distant 4th.
Surprising to someone who recoils at the idea of personal responsibility and properly evaluating loans and decisions, ideas that aren't foreign to a business owner.
One of the least economically and historically accurate arguments ever. Hard to believe Eisman didn't just want to walk out of the room rather than debate someone so clearly intent on forcing her own belief system into what should be an objective viewpoint. "Do math, consumers!" - A banker could shoot her in the face and I'd bet she'd apologize.
The problem with disclosures is what if you don't agree? What if I say - 'well I disagree with line 24 on page 200 of this contract' - the seller has my deposit and the bank is waiting for their asset. Its a bunch of lies adults tell ourselves in the hopes that nobody will call the BS - most days it could all be a dream!
Quite late response on my part, but her argument boiled down to consumers who were unwilling to take sufficient independent responsibility and think critically. This can be good argument, but without going into the specifics she stretches this argument way beyond its limit.
Hate the game not the players! Fully, unregulated Capitalism (a redundancy) would stop the foolishness in its tracks, but this [regulated] Capitalism delays the realization of the foolishness up until the end of the last regulation.
@@smallpseudonym2844 No human being belongs to another human being. From there, everybody would have to grow in order to become more succesful. Once upon a time, Xerox and IBM were the foxes. No way to outsmart them? Ask Microsoft and Apple. The principle stated promotes moving forward instead of stagnate, which is not a right!
I'm not sure if this person is a true monster that believe in what she stated or if she's just playing the role in a debate club. It's hard to find anything definitive on her work to see if she celebrated or just lamented the loss of people's lives during 2008. I'm going to lean toward monster.
I think my favourite bits are those when she tries to be funny and nobody laughs...
whether or not people laughed is something we wont know because it seems like we are only receiving audio from her mic
She tried to be funny?
No that was so aweful. I literally said after 30 seconds stop beeing "funny".
the movie was so prophetic... "they will blame immigrants and poor people "
Saif Khan movie was made with hindsight
Well it was written after they blamed them
Nah.. That was a propaganda line to enforce the idea to open borders and a precursor to there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant. No Hollywood movie is made without propaganda.
Everyone makes fun of her arguments, but it's a debate, she had to come up with something for a side that clearly was indefensible
What a ridiculous argument. When a consumer goes to a bank and wants a loan that is beyond their means then the bank should turn down their application. The reason the banks did not do that is because they could write these shit loans and then sell them to someone else. This nonsense would stop if the banks had to hold these loans for 5 or 10 years before they unload them on someone else.
You are right to say banks knew what was going on, but there is scientific and anecdotal evidence that consumers knew as well.
Luis Chavez Scientific evidence? Unless a loan applicant is trained in contract law they will not understand the contract they are signing. Some states require the borrower be represented by a lawyer and many states do not. These banks most certainly did not warn these borrowers that when interest rates reset their monthly payments could double.
You are very right, but her point is also the regulations were poor so didn’t achieve their goal at all, hence the reasons the banks did this.
Also it was agaisnt the law to say no to a loan
yeah but all the bonuses need to be accountable for 10 years.
Kathryn Petralia: These loans were 500 pages and nobody understood them, you can't blame the financial institutions with teams of lawyers buying them.
Also Kathryn Petralia: These low-income rubes should've known what they were signing.
It's worse than that: She's basically stating that even IF they knew what they were signing, they would do it anyway out of greed. She's basically stating that everyone is at fault, because it's human nature to be greedy. Everyone was getting something out of it, so nobody wanted the merry go round of crap to stop.
She's basically blaming the system, but here's the part she never acknowledges: CONSUMERS DIDN"T COME UP WITH THIS SYSTEM! Wall St, then DC, then the regulators deserve the lion's share of blame with the collapse, with the consumers in a distant 4th.
It is disclosed lady. It's called an amortization table.
Hmm good point. Guess it's just the education part needed then.
This person runs a business?
Surprising to someone who recoils at the idea of personal responsibility and properly evaluating loans and decisions, ideas that aren't foreign to a business owner.
One of the least economically and historically accurate arguments ever. Hard to believe Eisman didn't just want to walk out of the room rather than debate someone so clearly intent on forcing her own belief system into what should be an objective viewpoint. "Do math, consumers!" - A banker could shoot her in the face and I'd bet she'd apologize.
The problem with disclosures is what if you don't agree? What if I say - 'well I disagree with line 24 on page 200 of this contract' - the seller has my deposit and the bank is waiting for their asset. Its a bunch of lies adults tell ourselves in the hopes that nobody will call the BS - most days it could all be a dream!
Game, Eisman.
This is awful. Absolutely awful.
'I won't spend much time on Wall Street. I'll insult poor people and consumers instead.'
Her comedy career … just a guess, agents are not blowing up her cellphone.
I bailed at 1:22 ... I doubt I missed much.
Quite late response on my part, but her argument boiled down to consumers who were unwilling to take sufficient independent responsibility and think critically. This can be good argument, but without going into the specifics she stretches this argument way beyond its limit.
I listened to Eisman speak first, thoroughly enjoyed that, then played this. I made it to 1:47 and said, "no. I can't finish listening to this".
That's like blaming the poor old grandma because she got ripped off in some scam for not being smarter...
I hope she doesn't really believe all that bs.
That opening joke was an insta-dislike for me.. bye.
Listening to this as I have been in my house for 7 years :). Guess I am past the interest part??? lol
I hope there is a bubble in cars because they are way to expensive these days.
Why she should even think about saying to Steven what to do with his money wtf
@6:50 priceless
Ridiculous speech she's giving.
Karen... Kathryn ... Same thing
Bad speech cause she spoke wayyy too fast.
uhhhh.... zero
Poor speech, unfortunate because of how smart she is
Smart? Or can read a speech with a veneer of smartness?
@@presence5426 exactly
Trying to be balanced by listening....but really, this is absolute drivel.
Omg
Those arms are the living manifestation of opposition to your mouth, ma'am. Please, sit down.
Libs should know better than to try to use humor.
She's a keeper. Oh wait that wasn't politically correct. I don't want to miss gender. There's a keeper.
Hate the game not the players! Fully, unregulated Capitalism (a redundancy) would stop the foolishness in its tracks, but this [regulated] Capitalism delays the realization of the foolishness up until the end of the last regulation.
lmfao. "Foxes ruling the henhouse will totally solve the problem guys!"
@@smallpseudonym2844 No human being belongs to another human being. From there, everybody would have to grow in order to become more succesful. Once upon a time, Xerox and IBM were the foxes. No way to outsmart them? Ask Microsoft and Apple. The principle stated promotes moving forward instead of stagnate, which is not a right!
@@eliascorro4162 -- _None_ of that addresses my obvious point. None of it. Do you just spout useless bullshit all the time?
I'm not sure if this person is a true monster that believe in what she stated or if she's just playing the role in a debate club. It's hard to find anything definitive on her work to see if she celebrated or just lamented the loss of people's lives during 2008. I'm going to lean toward monster.
Woman looks ike a teacup in that dress