Picking Nits
Moral debate; bridge arithmetic; dog symbolism; Jared Cohen; hidden overleverage; late-day buyers
In the discussion (7)
Approx. transcript time · 00:16:49Read transcript
- The amount of internal moral debate at a bank is questioned; the reply reframes Sam’s objection as a career dilemma because selling destroys his floor’s products and jobs.
- Sam’s objection can be read as fear of losing customers after betraying them, while John expects greed to restore business within months; the apparent moral debate is therefore also self-interest.
- Dale’s bridge time-savings arithmetic is said to be wrong by a factor of ten; the transcript’s exact spoken totals are garbled, so no reconstructed number is supplied.
- The cancer-stricken dog and final shovel symbolism feel overemphasized despite admiration for the beauty of the grave-digging shot.
- Baker does not seem like a Jared Cohen; the mismatch inspires a possible Simon Baker as Jared Cohen award for actors who do not resemble their character names.
- It seems implausible that a huge firm would discover its overleverage so late; the defense emphasizes confusing mortgage tranches, misleading ratings and senior people who did not understand their own success.
- Selling at sixty-five cents just before the close is questioned after calling the market all day; perhaps buyers would have stopped answering by late morning, but the real-world answer is left uncertain.