[34f3f3f]

My sentiments exactly …a contraction in the housing market leads to a commensurate contraction in ‘willingness’ to stretch the wallet, the complete opposite of what happens in an over-heated market. Once the feverish “must-own-a-home” passes from patient fence sitting, excitement is replaced by sober reality. This is surely another nail in the coffin for the alleged invulnerable upper tiers.

[34f3f3f]

My sentiments exactly …a contraction in the housing market leads to a commensurate contraction in ‘willingness’ to stretch the wallet, the complete opposite of what happens in an over-heated market. Once the feverish “must-own-a-home” passes from patient fence sitting, excitement is replaced by sober reality. This is surely another nail in the coffin for the alleged invulnerable upper tiers.

[34f3f3f]

My sentiments exactly …a contraction in the housing market leads to a commensurate contraction in ‘willingness’ to stretch the wallet, the complete opposite of what happens in an over-heated market. Once the feverish “must-own-a-home” passes from patient fence sitting, excitement is replaced by sober reality. This is surely another nail in the coffin for the alleged invulnerable upper tiers.

[34f3f3f]

My sentiments exactly …a contraction in the housing market leads to a commensurate contraction in ‘willingness’ to stretch the wallet, the complete opposite of what happens in an over-heated market. Once the feverish “must-own-a-home” passes from patient fence sitting, excitement is replaced by sober reality. This is surely another nail in the coffin for the alleged invulnerable upper tiers.

[34f3f3f]

My sentiments exactly …a contraction in the housing market leads to a commensurate contraction in ‘willingness’ to stretch the wallet, the complete opposite of what happens in an over-heated market. Once the feverish “must-own-a-home” passes from patient fence sitting, excitement is replaced by sober reality. This is surely another nail in the coffin for the alleged invulnerable upper tiers.

[34f3f3f]

The comments above (perhaps somewhat unsurprisingly) largely seem to be saying that the film was one-sided and biased. And it does seem that ‘balance’ is often left out of the equation in these socio-political documentary films made in the US. That is unfortunate, but if one speculates as to why that is, one conclusion may be that parochialism by nature is not susceptible to introspection and self criticism, and therefore one has to fight fire with fire. Now I am not saying that everyone here is simple-minded, or has a provincial, small town mind-set, but for all those advocates of ‘balance’, I don’t see many posts that seem to practice what they preach. Yes, even I am guilty of bias by my favorable endorsement. I was just so enthused to see something vaguely intelligent on TV, that I wanted to tell everyone about it. But this is a digression. The real questions are: What is the point of the film? What are its motives? Who is it speaking to?

I think the film was talking to everyone, and on two levels; firstly, the personal tales of woe, the ‘victims’ of a system that has become overwhelming, and confusing, and secondly, the broader picture where the economy as a whole is affected by this phenomenon ‘debt’. I believe that is why we are all here on this blog, is it not?. Motives may have been political, but we should all be pretty good at filtering all the bias, misinformation, and crap that get’s thrown at us everyday. But for the sake of argument, even it one says the film is fifty percent lop-sided, that leaves a enough to pause for thought, and possibly re-evaluate preconceived notions we all have. And I think that is the point of the film, and everyone would be better for watching it …and preferably with an open mind 🙂

[34f3f3f]

The comments above (perhaps somewhat unsurprisingly) largely seem to be saying that the film was one-sided and biased. And it does seem that ‘balance’ is often left out of the equation in these socio-political documentary films made in the US. That is unfortunate, but if one speculates as to why that is, one conclusion may be that parochialism by nature is not susceptible to introspection and self criticism, and therefore one has to fight fire with fire. Now I am not saying that everyone here is simple-minded, or has a provincial, small town mind-set, but for all those advocates of ‘balance’, I don’t see many posts that seem to practice what they preach. Yes, even I am guilty of bias by my favorable endorsement. I was just so enthused to see something vaguely intelligent on TV, that I wanted to tell everyone about it. But this is a digression. The real questions are: What is the point of the film? What are its motives? Who is it speaking to?

I think the film was talking to everyone, and on two levels; firstly, the personal tales of woe, the ‘victims’ of a system that has become overwhelming, and confusing, and secondly, the broader picture where the economy as a whole is affected by this phenomenon ‘debt’. I believe that is why we are all here on this blog, is it not?. Motives may have been political, but we should all be pretty good at filtering all the bias, misinformation, and crap that get’s thrown at us everyday. But for the sake of argument, even it one says the film is fifty percent lop-sided, that leaves a enough to pause for thought, and possibly re-evaluate preconceived notions we all have. And I think that is the point of the film, and everyone would be better for watching it …and preferably with an open mind 🙂

[34f3f3f]

The comments above (perhaps somewhat unsurprisingly) largely seem to be saying that the film was one-sided and biased. And it does seem that ‘balance’ is often left out of the equation in these socio-political documentary films made in the US. That is unfortunate, but if one speculates as to why that is, one conclusion may be that parochialism by nature is not susceptible to introspection and self criticism, and therefore one has to fight fire with fire. Now I am not saying that everyone here is simple-minded, or has a provincial, small town mind-set, but for all those advocates of ‘balance’, I don’t see many posts that seem to practice what they preach. Yes, even I am guilty of bias by my favorable endorsement. I was just so enthused to see something vaguely intelligent on TV, that I wanted to tell everyone about it. But this is a digression. The real questions are: What is the point of the film? What are its motives? Who is it speaking to?

I think the film was talking to everyone, and on two levels; firstly, the personal tales of woe, the ‘victims’ of a system that has become overwhelming, and confusing, and secondly, the broader picture where the economy as a whole is affected by this phenomenon ‘debt’. I believe that is why we are all here on this blog, is it not?. Motives may have been political, but we should all be pretty good at filtering all the bias, misinformation, and crap that get’s thrown at us everyday. But for the sake of argument, even it one says the film is fifty percent lop-sided, that leaves a enough to pause for thought, and possibly re-evaluate preconceived notions we all have. And I think that is the point of the film, and everyone would be better for watching it …and preferably with an open mind 🙂

[34f3f3f]

The comments above (perhaps somewhat unsurprisingly) largely seem to be saying that the film was one-sided and biased. And it does seem that ‘balance’ is often left out of the equation in these socio-political documentary films made in the US. That is unfortunate, but if one speculates as to why that is, one conclusion may be that parochialism by nature is not susceptible to introspection and self criticism, and therefore one has to fight fire with fire. Now I am not saying that everyone here is simple-minded, or has a provincial, small town mind-set, but for all those advocates of ‘balance’, I don’t see many posts that seem to practice what they preach. Yes, even I am guilty of bias by my favorable endorsement. I was just so enthused to see something vaguely intelligent on TV, that I wanted to tell everyone about it. But this is a digression. The real questions are: What is the point of the film? What are its motives? Who is it speaking to?

I think the film was talking to everyone, and on two levels; firstly, the personal tales of woe, the ‘victims’ of a system that has become overwhelming, and confusing, and secondly, the broader picture where the economy as a whole is affected by this phenomenon ‘debt’. I believe that is why we are all here on this blog, is it not?. Motives may have been political, but we should all be pretty good at filtering all the bias, misinformation, and crap that get’s thrown at us everyday. But for the sake of argument, even it one says the film is fifty percent lop-sided, that leaves a enough to pause for thought, and possibly re-evaluate preconceived notions we all have. And I think that is the point of the film, and everyone would be better for watching it …and preferably with an open mind 🙂

[34f3f3f]

The comments above (perhaps somewhat unsurprisingly) largely seem to be saying that the film was one-sided and biased. And it does seem that ‘balance’ is often left out of the equation in these socio-political documentary films made in the US. That is unfortunate, but if one speculates as to why that is, one conclusion may be that parochialism by nature is not susceptible to introspection and self criticism, and therefore one has to fight fire with fire. Now I am not saying that everyone here is simple-minded, or has a provincial, small town mind-set, but for all those advocates of ‘balance’, I don’t see many posts that seem to practice what they preach. Yes, even I am guilty of bias by my favorable endorsement. I was just so enthused to see something vaguely intelligent on TV, that I wanted to tell everyone about it. But this is a digression. The real questions are: What is the point of the film? What are its motives? Who is it speaking to?

I think the film was talking to everyone, and on two levels; firstly, the personal tales of woe, the ‘victims’ of a system that has become overwhelming, and confusing, and secondly, the broader picture where the economy as a whole is affected by this phenomenon ‘debt’. I believe that is why we are all here on this blog, is it not?. Motives may have been political, but we should all be pretty good at filtering all the bias, misinformation, and crap that get’s thrown at us everyday. But for the sake of argument, even it one says the film is fifty percent lop-sided, that leaves a enough to pause for thought, and possibly re-evaluate preconceived notions we all have. And I think that is the point of the film, and everyone would be better for watching it …and preferably with an open mind 🙂

[34f3f3f]

Ucodegen, have you actually seem the film? If a poor person who has extra money immediately spends it, it’s also because they are poor and are in need.

[34f3f3f]

Ucodegen, have you actually seem the film? If a poor person who has extra money immediately spends it, it’s also because they are poor and are in need.

[34f3f3f]

Ucodegen, have you actually seem the film? If a poor person who has extra money immediately spends it, it’s also because they are poor and are in need.

[34f3f3f]

Ucodegen, have you actually seem the film? If a poor person who has extra money immediately spends it, it’s also because they are poor and are in need.

[34f3f3f]

Ucodegen, have you actually seem the film? If a poor person who has extra money immediately spends it, it’s also because they are poor and are in need.

[Author]

Posts