Monday, October 1, 2012

Greed at its Worst


When I began viewing this documentary, which takes a look at the build up to and causes of the current economic recession, I was afraid it would be a boring, complex, and confusing take on an issue which I already found difficult to fully comprehend. However, the film successfully gave me a basis for understanding the crisis. Director Charles Ferguson combined many varying interviews with easy-to-understand visuals – for those of us that aren’t economic wizzes. I felt as though I was being taken on a journey from the years prior to the crash up to the present (or nearly so, as the film was made in 2010). What I witnessed was shocking.

Economic Liberals are in favor of more regulation on the free market, and there is evident economically liberal bias in this film. The director focuses on the negative consequences of such little regulation of the banking industry’s behavior. However, I still thought the argument was very thoroughly expressed. Ferguson not only criticized both the Bush and Obama administrations instead of favoring one over the other, but he also left out the political affiliations of all subjects of the film. Ferguson made sure to note that when he was speaking about a specific individual’s less than moral behavior, the individual would not agree to be interviewed for the film. He did not simply show one side and condemn the other. Ferguson did interview a few people who were directly involved, and was insistent about receiving answers. Some may argue that he was too combative with his interviewees and that a line needed to be drawn, but in a situation where the events are laid out in black and white, I appreciated his determination to wheedle out some truth.




It is clear to me that the sole force driving the investment banking industry is GREED. To quote the Grinch, “the avarice! The avarice never ends!” But really, in all seriousness it is disgusting how the powerful, influential, big shots of the economic and banking worlds manipulate the goings on for their own benefit. They knowingly make bad loan investments with people who they are aware will likely never be able to pay them back, and then bet against them. They rate bad loans with high grades so as to convince their borrower. Then when the borrowers cannot pay back the money, the bankers still make money off of them. It’s sick. These men and women reap enormous benefits from their jobs. I was absolutely flabbergasted to discover that when the economic bubble popped, CEOs, CFOs, etc. simply resigned and were PAID OFF. Their punishments for fraud were their multi-million dollar severance checks. The vast majority of these conniving “businessmen” never went on trial for their corruption, and even some – as seen in appointments by both Bush and Obama – were rewarded for their cunning thievery.


I don’t want greedy, self-interested, dishonest, slime-balls controlling the Federal Reserve. I don’t want to pay taxes to bail out banks that were the causes of their own destruction. Why should we have to clean up their mess? Honestly I am so angry; I’m finding it difficult to articulately continue. I was perhaps most appalled to discover that for the right price, prestigious economics professors from ivy-league universities who must have known the dangers of the inflating bubble, have been recruited to write papers to support the banks and deny any issues with the lack of regulation! To hear some of these figures attempting to defend themselves was pathetic. There is no excuse. Why did they do it? Simple. They wanted another condo in Hawaii, a private jet, a yacht, or hell, a "high class" prostitute. There is no legitimate defense. Similarly, watching the few court appearances of some of the employees of Goldman Sachs and other banks was laughable. These men and women who have spend their careers on a power trip, are reduced to the despicable, thieving, scum they are, practically whimpering their feeble responses. The inherent manipulation, gluttony, self-indulgence, and blatant disregard for anyone but themselves, is abhorrent and unconscionable. 

1 comment:

  1. Extremely powerful conclusion, Sarala! I have to say that I really agree with you. I think the film depicts the economy and the people involved in an easy to understand fashion and I like that he left out the political parties. This issue is important, and it's nice to see the economy put into terms I can actually understand.

    ReplyDelete