Inside Job Documentary Review
Introduction: Charles Ferguson’s Inside Job (2010) is a detailed documentary that traces the causes and
consequences of the 2008 global financial crisis through interviews with economists, policymakers, and
industry insiders. Narrated by Matt Damon, the film unfolds in five parts – How We Got Here, The Bubble, The
Crisis, Accountability, and Where We Are Now – each explaining a stage of the story. Ferguson’s analysis is
emphatically economic: he examines how decades of deregulation, risky financial products, and conflicts of
interest allowed an unsustainable housing and credit bubble to grow, and how its inevitable collapse
devastated the economy. Throughout the film, voices like economists Paul Volcker, Nouriel Roubini, and
Christine Lagarde deliver pointed commentary and memorable quotes. The following sections review the
documentary’s structure and key insights in chronological order, highlighting how deregulation and
misconduct led to the crisis.
How We Got Here
In “How We Got Here,” Inside Job begins by recalling the post–Great Depression era in the United States.
From the late 1930s until the 1970s, the financial sector was tightly regulated and there were no major bank
collapses. Narration notes that for forty years “the United States had 40 years of economic growth, without
a single financial crisis.” The film contrasts that stability with the deregulation surge that began in the
1980s. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker is interviewed about his early career, noting that
“when I left Chase to go in the Treasury, in 1969, I think my income was in the neighborhood of 45,000 dollars a
year.” This detail underscores how modest banking operations and salaries once were. Likewise, Samuel
Hayes (emeritus professor of investment banking) describes how, in the 1970s, Morgan Stanley had only
110 employees and $12 million in capital, compared to 50,000 workers and multibillion-dollar capital today.
The film then shows how political alignment with Wall Street enabled deregulation. Former Treasury
Secretary (and ex–Merrill Lynch CEO) Donald Regan proudly declares “Wall Street and the president do see eye
to eye,” implying presidential support for financial industry interests. Economist Nouriel Roubini observes
that over time “the financial sector, Wall Street being powerful, having lobbies… step by step… captured the
political system.” In other words, banks became extremely influential on both parties. A key turning point
was the repeal of Depression-era rules: the Glass–Steagall Act (which separated commercial and investment
banking) was effectively overturned by Congress in 1999, allowing the creation of super-banks like
Citigroup. As Willem Buiter, a Citigroup economist, dryly notes, banks liked being “too big to fail” because it
gave them monopoly and lobbying power, plus the implicit promise of bailouts. All these changes meant
that by the late 1990s a few gigantic firms could threaten the whole system – yet major policymakers
embraced growth. The film lays the blame for the next crisis squarely on this deregulatory era and on a
political culture of finance-friendly ideology.
The Bubble
In “The Bubble” segment (covering 2001–2007), Inside Job documents how credit and housing markets ran
amok. The narrator explains that in the 2000s, hundreds of billions of dollars began flowing through a chain
of securitized mortgages. Any borrower, even with poor credit, could get a mortgage, so home-buying
1
surged and prices “skyrocketed.” Economist Charles Morris comments, “You had a huge boom in housing that
made no sense at all. The financing appetites of the financial sector drove what everybody else did.” Nouriel
Roubini adds perspective on the scale: from 1996 to 2006, real home prices in the U.S. essentially doubled,
far exceeding any sustainable rate.
Meanwhile, big financial firms eagerly fueled the frenzy by originating or buying subprime mortgages.
Former Greenlining Institute director Robert Gnaizda lists the banks involved – “Goldman Sachs; Bear
Stearns; Lehman Brothers; Merrill Lynch” – and points out that subprime lending rocketed from $30 billion per
year to over $600 billion per year in a decade. “They knew what was happening,” he adds, suggesting that
executives understood the risks but ignored them to reap fees and bonuses. The largest mortgage
originator, Countrywide Financial, issued $97 billion in loans and made $11 billion profit during the bubble.
The film highlights how Wall Street bankers and traders got extremely rich from packaging and selling
these risky loans.
However, many experts in the film note that much of the profit was illusory. Martin Wolf of the Financial
Times bluntly calls it a “great big national – and not just national, global – Ponzi scheme.” He explains that the
profits were not based on real economic growth or productivity, but on rising asset prices; they would
vanish once defaults began. Meanwhile, regulators largely stood by. Former Congressman Barney Frank
recalls demanding oversight of mortgage lenders. He quotes Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan’s response:
“No, that’s regulation; ideologically, I don’t believe in it.” In effect, Greenspan refused to use the Fed’s authority
to curb predatory lending. An on-screen note later points out that the SEC “conducted no major investigations
of the investment banks during the bubble.” In short, the housing bubble swelled unrestrained by regulation.
By the end of this segment, the film has laid out how financial innovation and greed — in the absence of
oversight — created the conditions for a catastrophic crash.
The Crisis
“The Crisis” segment describes how and when the bubble burst. The film notes that as early as 2004–2007
many economists and commentators warned of danger. Raghuram Rajan (then IMF Chief Economist)
foresaw that misaligned incentives could lead to a crash. A 2005 TV interview catches Fed chairman Ben
Bernanke dismissing concerns: “We’ve never had a decline in house prices on a nationwide basis,” he insisted,
refusing to call the housing boom a bubble. After Bernanke took office in 2006, the Fed nevertheless did
little. One of Fed Governor Frederic Mishkin’s own colleagues concedes that warnings about predatory loans
were “listened to politely, and nothing was done.”
The film then dramatizes the unfolding collapse. By 2007–2008, mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures
were surging, choking the securitization market. George Soros is interviewed recalling Citigroup CEO Chuck
Prince’s infamous boast “we have to dance until the music stops,” to which Soros adds wryly: “Actually, the
music had stopped already when he said that.” The narrator explains that once houses stopped appreciating,
financial firms were left holding hundreds of billions of bad mortgage loans and CDOs they could not sell.
Nouriel Roubini observes that both the Bush administration and the Fed “were totally behind the curve” and
failed to grasp the crisis’s magnitude until it was too late.
By early 2008, high-level policymakers were starting to panic. In a filmed G7 meeting in February 2008,
French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde tells U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson: “We are watching this
tsunami coming.” She recalls asking him “which swimming costume we are going to put on,” implying a need
for preparation. Paulson, however, told her “Things are pretty much under control.” (Three months later, Bear
2
Stearns collapsed and banks began falling like dominos.) In September 2008, Paulson announced the
takeover of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Two days after that, Lehman Brothers reported
massive losses and its stock collapsed, triggering global panic. The film cuts to news footage of markets
plunging, and Simon Johnson (former IMF chief economist) reflects that summer 2008 was “the time when
the administration could have come in and put in place… measures to reduce systemic risk.”
Ferguson’s team also highlights regulatory failure during the crisis. When asked why the government did
not demand that banks report their losses, a Treasury official (David McCormick) replies that regulators
already understood the risks. “Forgive me,” asks Ferguson, “but that’s clearly not true.” Eventually Fed
Governor Mishkin resigned in August 2008, and commentators suggest his departure reflected bureaucratic
denial or inability. By the end of this segment, the global financial system is in freefall – but the film has
already noted that most leading bankers, CFOs, and rating agencies refused to be interviewed about their
roles. The “Crisis” chapter makes clear that despite warning signals and poor risk management, the worst
effects of the meltdown still “came as a surprise” to many decision makers, even as the economy melted
down.
Accountability
In “Accountability,” Inside Job turns to the aftermath: who paid the price, and who was held responsible?
The answer, the film argues, is virtually no one from the financial industry. The narrator bluntly states that
“the men who destroyed their own companies… walked away from the wreckage with their fortunes intact.”
Richard Fuld, former CEO of Lehman Brothers, appears casually dismissive: “When the company did well, we
did well; when the company did not do well, sir, we did not do well.” In other words, he claims his compensation
only reflected firm performance. Later Fuld says simply “The system worked,” meaning that executives
suffered no personal losses for causing a near-collapse. Similarly, Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo defends
himself: “It doesn’t make any sense for us to make a loan that’s gonna fail, ’cause we lose. They lose; the borrower
loses; the community loses; and we lose.” (In context, Mozilo says this to argue he wouldn’t knowingly make
bad loans, despite evidence to the contrary.) The film then notes that Mozilo made $470 million between
2003 and 2008, including dumping $140 million in stock before Countrywide’s collapse.
Inside Job also points out that companies’ boards of directors largely failed in oversight. Hedge fund
manager Bill Ackman asserts: “I hold the board accountable when a business fails,” but he adds that boards
are often chosen by the CEO, blunting accountability. Compensation consultant Scott Talbott discusses this
in abstract, but when Ferguson quizzes him on actual cases, Talbott concedes the board decisions were
lackluster (even giving a “B” grade instead of “F” for permitting huge payouts). The film highlights the story
of Merrill Lynch. CEO Stan O’Neal received $90 million in 2006–2007 and then oversaw the firm’s demise.
Instead of being fired, he was allowed to resign with a $161 million payout. Talbott grimaces at this
outcome. O’Neal’s successor, John Thain, was paid $87 million in 2007, and even after Merrill’s 2008 bailout
Thain and the board distributed billions in bonuses to executives. The head of AIG’s Financial Products
division (Joseph Cassano) lost $11 billion in one quarter but was kept on as a consultant at $1 million per
month. When a former AIG official, Martin Sullivan, is asked why Cassano wasn’t fired, Sullivan answers that
they wanted to “retain that intellectual knowledge.” The implication is that no one was truly punished for
mismanagement.
Finally, Dominique Strauss-Kahn (then IMF director) recounts a dinner of U.S. bank CEOs convened by
Treasury Secretary Paulson. In the film, Strauss-Kahn says that the CEOs admitted “we were too greedy; so we
have part responsibility” for the crisis. Interestingly, he reports that these same CEOs then urged the
3
Treasury Secretary to impose more regulation “because we are too greedy, we can’t avoid it.” This anecdote
underscores the film’s theme: the industry acknowledges its role but also shifts blame. Throughout
“Accountability,” the tone is accusatory: the documentary emphasizes that despite the enormous public cost
of the crisis, major figures in finance suffered no arrests or serious penalties, and their huge bonuses and
reputations went largely unscathed.
Where We Are Now
The final part, “Where We Are Now,” examines the longer-term economic consequences and policy
aftermath. It begins by situating the finance sector’s rise within broader trends since the 1980s. The U.S.
became a more unequal society and ceded its manufacturing dominance. Daniel Alpert explains that
globalization suddenly brought 2.5 billion additional workers into the global market, leading to massive
layoffs of U.S. factory workers. The film notes that high-technology industries grew, but those high-paying
jobs required advanced education – a problem as college became unaffordable. Meanwhile, public
universities saw funding cuts and tuition jumps (for example, California public college tuition rising from
$650 in the 1970s to over $10,000 by 2010). These shifts left many middle-class Americans struggling.
Former economist Charles Morris sums it up: “People in the bottom 90 percent lost ground between 1980 and
2007. It all went to the top 1 percent.”
Fiscal policy also changed dramatically. The Bush administration enacted massive tax cuts on capital gains,
dividends, and estates, plans which claimed to leave “nearly 1.1 trillion dollars in the hands of American
workers… and small business owners,” according to President Bush. The film counters that in reality “most of
the benefits of these tax cuts went to the wealthiest 1 percent.” The narrator connects this to consumer
behavior: as middle-class wages stagnated, families worked longer hours and took on more debt to
maintain living standards. Monetary and credit policy also responded: economist Raghuram Rajan observes
that as the middle class fell behind, policymakers responded by making credit easier to obtain (for example,
encouraging homeownership). In short, Americans piled up mortgage, auto, health, and student debt,
which helped fuel the housing bubble and masked economic inequality until the crash.
At the political level, Inside Job shows that the crisis became a major issue in the 2008 U.S. election. Candidly,
candidate Barack Obama declared the “era of greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street and in Washington” had
brought the country to a crisis comparable to the Great Depression. He pledged reform: as President, he
called for a systemic-risk regulator, higher capital requirements, and a consumer protection agency,
declaring that “we need to change Wall Street’s culture.” However, the film is skeptical of how much actually
changed. Financial reform bills passed in 2010 (like the Dodd-Frank Act) are depicted as watered down.
Robert Gnaizda quips that a review of the reforms would be “ha!” – implying it’s comically inadequate. He
bluntly concludes, “It’s a Wall Street government,” suggesting that the people making policy (Treasury
Secretary, Fed officials, advisors) are largely from the same background as those who built the crisis.
Indeed, Eliot Spitzer, former New York governor, points out that Obama’s Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner
was a New York Fed president who said “I have never been a regulator,” indicating a lack of oversight
experience. The film catalogs how many key administration economic figures had ties to Wall Street or its
trading culture, from Goldman Sachs alumni to ex-industry lobbyists.
On the international stage, the film notes that foreign leaders pushed harder on reform. For instance,
French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde says “the financial industry… should serve others before it serves
itself.” She and other G20 finance ministers called for strict limits on banker bonuses. Europe enacted
legislation in 2010 to curb excessive compensation, but Inside Job notes that the Obama administration had
4
“no response.” The documentary closes on a rather pessimistic note. Derivatives expert Satyajit Das says
many officials view the crisis as “a temporary blip” and expect things to revert to normal. The final scenes
suggest that without major cultural or regulatory change, the underlying issues – predatory lending,
oversized banks, and conflicts of interest in academia and government – remain.
Conclusion: Inside Job offers a methodical, economics-focused account of the 2008 financial crisis. Its
formal, investigative tone – guided by expert testimony and narrated analysis – reveals how deregulation
and reckless financial behavior systematically built up a housing and credit bubble. The documentary
attributes causality largely to policy failures and self-serving executives: deregulation (exemplified by the
repeal of Glass–Steagall), novel and opaque financial instruments (CDOs, derivatives), and pervasive
conflicts of interest (ratings agencies, revolving doors between Wall Street and government) set the stage
for collapse. The five-part structure leads viewers step by step from stable times to boom to bust and
beyond. Throughout the film, interviews with figures like Paul Volcker, Nouriel Roubini, Christine Lagarde,
and others provide credible commentary. For example, Volcker’s remark about a $45,000 salary in the 1960s
conveys how radically the industry’s scale has changed, and Lagarde’s “tsunami” metaphor vividly conveys
the crisis looming that policymakers underestimated. Ultimately, Inside Job concludes that in the wake of
the crash, little real accountability or reform occurred. It underlines that average citizens bore the crisis’s
costs (job losses, foreclosures, lost wealth) while top financiers kept their wealth intact. As a documentary
suitable for an economics audience, it succeeds in connecting each step – deregulation, the housing bubble,
the crisis, and the limited aftermath – to fundamental economic concepts and policies. The film warns that
without addressing these root problems, history could repeat itself.
