Ben is just a novice who is just beginning to be interested in the economy, watching movies in the spirit of popular science.
There is only a sense of desolation now, which is quite simple compared to the field of science and technology engineering. But it also deepened my motivation to understand the principles of the world, and I don't want others to lie. Fortunately, all I care about is mathematical physics and algorithms, and I want to understand the world, but I have no position. I'm more concerned with the knowledge itself than solving the answer. Calm down, the tendency of this film is still quite obvious, after all, it is a movie.
When starting to understand the economy, people say that the trade-offs between free markets and regulation are difficult, more of an academic point of view. In reality, compared to academics, it seems that people still dominate. The key is that when making decisions, people pay more attention to the interests of customers or individuals, whether the weak can survive, or making contributions to society and the economy.
So when I criticize how greedy Wall Street is, my first question is: Why trust them?
In my worldview, there are very few people who can be trusted, which is common sense of human nature. Although I was not in the United States of that era, I also have a hard time believing that Wall Street was a shining figure before the subprime mortgage crisis. Because even in the United States, the bubble is not the first time.
Common sense tells me that the party is the whole of America and not just Wall Street. Those who invest and apply for high mortgages are both victims and participants. Human nature is common, and although it cannot be generalized, the words greed, stupid and blind can be used more or less in investors. While I don't want to use the term IQ tax, like many things, it's a doomed tragedy.
After the anger is over, I have no feelings for politicians and Wall Street. The law of the weak is one of the principles of the world. I should have understood this long ago, and everyone should understand it. So the "problem" is to make enemies, to the greed of the powerful? The upper class will naturally prepare a retreat for themselves. Just sighing how much negative impact a few people can have on the world. My sympathy is only for ordinary workers who have been implicated, lost their jobs and lost their homes.
People who study economics seem to always like to say, you don’t understand when you read less, learn more. Sometimes it's really lack of knowledge, and sometimes it's the same rhetoric as politicians and Wall Street businessmen. It might have been daunting if I hadn't been educated, but knowledge exists that people can understand. But whether it is academic or religious, it seems that there are two factions in the first place.
No matter how complicated the macro economy is, the unreasonable is there, and the wrong is wrong. Because it can be sold to an investment bank, the lender does not need to consider whether it has the ability to repay the issue, and the risk is borne by others. All links in the chain can be aligned with the interests, without covering the risks, and no one cares. Neither the government nor the banks are ready for bankruptcy. The free market is so, so the interests of investors are not guaranteed, I can't think this kind of thing is reasonable. Merchants didn't care is human nature, allowing it to happen is the problem. Or the same sentence, what is the use of rules and laws if human beings can stand the test?
Whether you see a bubble or not, executives can get away with it. Every link in the chain is considered reasonable, and almost no one is held accountable when something goes wrong, and the Obama administration continues to use it. If the epidemic cannot be controlled, there will always be someone to blame, but can "complex economics" be justified? It's hard to agree. And the American public doesn't seem to have seen much growth since then. How many people are struggling to understand finance and make changes themselves, instead of handing all their hopes to a new president, as they did when they handed their money to Wall Street?
Maybe the point of view will change after in-depth study of the system. When we deepen our understanding in the future, we will be more concerned about the historical background of government deregulation. too big to fail, before Wall Street took control of the regime, where the government did wrong, where shortsighted led to this. Where there is a choice, where there is no. Banks can take risks, rely on government bailout, and criticize Wall Street. In the long run, the US economy seems to rely on global bailout, so who should we criticize?
According to the film, the manufacturing industry declined, the problem of rich and poor deepened, and higher education was increasingly restricted by economic problems. It may be a good thing for us that the United States has done. From the perspective of technological progress, we can only say that it is a pity. Maybe in a few decades, if we look at economic history and even human history, the unreasonable will be eliminated sooner or later, we'll see.
Generally speaking, increasing learning knowledge in a field increases enthusiasm for the world, but that is not the case with the economy at the moment.
View more about Inside Job reviews
