Michael Mitchell: Archive

I don't find the financial crisis of 2008 as fascinating as most people do because economic disasters both small and large will obviously continue to happen as long as the government interferes in the economy, so the details -- the causes and effects, the games and lies, the frauds and fools -- are meaningless to me. The way I see it: everyone was cheating and got what they deserved. That's what I think about the whole issue.

With that said, however, I recently read two articles covering the new movie "The Big Short" where both writers also used it as an opportunity to promote their side's views on the financial crisis, and that I found very fascinating. It was interesting to see both writer's views juxtaposed so close together, giving a close-up look at how they think the saga concluded several years after all the evidence and rhetoric has grown stale. Predictably, the political battle rages on...

"The Big Short" is based on the popular book by Michael Lewis, a bestseller about the financial crisis. The authors of the articles I read are Paul Krugman from The New York Times and Kyle Smith from the New York Post.

The battle starts before the articles even do, with the titles. Krugman titled his piece: "'The Big Short,' Housing Bubbles And Retold Lies." And Smith titled his: "'The Big Short' Is A Lot Of Hollywood Bull About The 2008 Financial Crisis." It may sound like both writers think the movie is bullshit, but the "retold lies" Krugman is referring to are ones told by critics of the movie, like Smith.

What did they think of the movie? That depends, not on the movie, but on their view of whose responsible for the crisis. Krugman thinks the movie "got the underlying economic, financial and political story right... in all the ways that matter" and Smith thinks "to say the least, it's an imprecise view" and proceeds to ridicule the director for his "inept and frequently idiotic take on Michael Lewis' deeply engaging book."

Who do they think is responsible for the crisis? That's easy enough to infer from their characterization of the opposition's viewpoint. Krugman thinks "some very rich and powerful people" and their "intellectual hired guns" place "all the blame for the financial crisis on -- you guessed it -- too much government, especially government-sponsored agencies supposedly pushing too many loans on the poor." Smith, contrarily, thinks most people believe "evil bankers in an unregulated Wild West of capitalist depravity crippled the economy, cost us taxpayers billions of dollars in bailouts and carried on in a lawless spree that should have resulted in jail time for everybody."

And from this we can tell the movie comes down on the side of poor people over rich people and blames the crisis on big business more than big government. This is why Krugman supports the movie and Smith does not.

In Krugman's article, like Smith said in his characterization of Krugman's side's views, Krugman says it is an "outrage that basically nobody ended up being punished" for "opaque financial schemes that in many cases amounted to outright fraud" that led to millions of "innocent bystanders" losing their jobs and homes.

In Smith's article, like Krugman said in his characterization of Smith's side's views, Smith defends the banks, saying "no one blamed poor people" and that the federal government played a "major role" in causing the crisis by "nudging poor people to buy houses they couldn't afford."

It's amazing to me that both writers oppose each other so fundamentally that each manages to oppose the other point-for-point in separate articles about the same subject. I mean, this is an issue that is very broad in scope, what are the chances two writers disagree on every point involved? This must be a very provocative and accurately targeted movie.

It even leads Krugman and Smith to take on one of the same allegedly fraudulent methods bankers used to pull off the "scams." Krugman says we learn from the movie "how dubious loans were repackaged into supposedly safe 'collateralized debt obligations' via a segment in which the chef Anthony Bourdain explains how last week's fish can be disguised as seafood stew." And Smith says about the same scene that it is "not particularly entertaining, but it's also just wrong. CDOs -- packages of loans -- aren't necessarily rotten any more than a mortgage necessarily is."

Smith goes on, in his article, to deal with developments since the bubble burst and the banks were bailed out, such as how the government, far from losing money, actually profited $25 billion. Though it's relevant to the financial crisis issue, it's not really relevant to this article, so I'll leave it out. He's just fighting harder than Krugman because his side is on the wrong side of public opinion, for now at least. It is interesting, though, that Krugman didn't feel the need to go deeper at all, but I'm more on Smith's side in this and I'm trying not to show my bias.

I just thought it would be informative and even revealing to juxtapose both side's views and to try to focus on their tactics more than their expressed beliefs. People don't always say what they believe. Sometimes they'll say whatever it takes to win the argument in order to win the battle for their side. In politics, it's standard practice. It's also shameful and blatant and I don't think the public is fully aware of it. Just look at how well Krugman and Smith prove they know their enemies in the quotes above and it's obvious. They're not reviewing a movie and expressing their own beliefs in these articles; their countering their opponent's anticipated punches. Who knows what they really believe? Who knows what they really thought of the movie?

Usually, my personal views lessen my enjoyment of art and entertainment because I disagree with most of the themes, but this is one movie I may enjoy watching, not in spite of, but because of my non-partisanship. Sure, I'm used to it, otherwise I wouldn't watch movies at all. But when I'm watching "The Big Short," even if I hate it, I'll know it's because it's bad and deserves it, not because I agree or disagree with it's general theme and feel it's my duty to tow some party line.