The financial crisis in 2008, a series of chain reactions made everyone pay a heavy price. As a result, news, newspaper documentaries, and various media swarmed, turned into financial experts, and began to attack the greed of Wall Street and the evil of financial derivatives. But in the end, it's more like murder. Think carefully about the logic in the movie, for example, bankers on Wall Street go to prostitutes and gamble, which is harmful to society, so financial derivatives are evil, and the greed of Wall Street led to the financial crisis. Does this hold? The director does not seem to need rigorous arguments and logic, as long as there is enough information to incite the audience to crusade the evils of Wall Street. What's more interesting is that at the hearing, those people righteously asked the bankers why they didn't reveal adverse interest to their customers and why they bet against your product, which sounded very righteous. But there are several problems here. If it weren't for the financial crisis that caused public discontent, would these regulators question Wall Street like this? The director's editing, aggressive questions, and correct expressions seemed to convey to the audience that the Wall Street gang knew that they were wrong and still cheated us. But what about the facts? Hedge risk is very important in finance, and it is also the most important part of risk management. To a large extent, the process of hedge is also the process of betting against. Of course, neither the director nor the audience really need to verify what the product is at this time. The important thing is to kill Wall Street first and say that these people are wrong.
Wall Street is certainly to blame for the financial crisis. So, can we convict him without any rigorous logic and thinking? Is it as long as he is at fault, all the shit pots will be buckled on his head? I don't like this kind of work that is irrational and thoughtless and only wants to incite hatred and suspicion. Doubt and accusation are reasonable, but logic and evidence are also required.
By the way, who the hell is interviewing those professors? Is it okay to be so rude to stand on the moral high ground, and so is editing. shocked
View more about Inside Job reviews
