Four years of economics courses at Yale has not prepared me for in-depth analysis of the global economic, not to mention financial, system. While Yale can be partially blamed the lack of technical knowledge she infused into her curriculum, it could be fairly said that no amount of so-called "economic expertise" can prepare one for the realization that the "expertise" is worth little in the constantly changing conditions of global economy. Especially with a global financial industry at its helm, the global economy becomes so volatile that no theory can last without constant revisions and updates.
Despite sounding condescending, I must say that the controlling factors governing the future directions of economic health are just too complicated to understand for the average layperson. And after watching a documentary on the supposed causes of the 2008 financial crisis, such realization becomes more established and deeply rooted. "The Inside Job," as the admirable film is caused, suing various interviews with those with personal interest in the industry, attempted to explain in the simplest terms how and why the crisis came about.
And the explanations were certainly laudable. By using easy-to-comprehend graphics and detailing the roles of each involved party, the documentary drew a straightforward yet very complete picture of how the financial system in place is structurally destined to cause the crisis. The narration foregoes complicated mathematical calculations that no doubt went into various investments, instead focusing the personal relationships among the "big bosses" of different financial corporations and government agencies which were said to collaborated on causing the crisis.
By watching the documentary, the overall mechanics of the financial industry are no longer complicated. In fact, the back-and-forth among the investment banks, the private rating agencies, the government "financial regulators," and insurance companies are proven to be nothing more than a combination of brilliant marketing and bribe-induced deliberate ignorance of underlying dangers. Those who control the financial industry, knowing the enormous risks and potential hazards of the structure, nonetheless continued their beautiful rhetoric toward individual investors.
Yet, what remains difficult to understand for the viewer is that, how, in the aftermath of the catastrophe that led to loss of jobs and life savings for millions of people across the world, that those responsible for creating and running to the ground the financial arrangements be acquitted of any sort of criminal charges. The more the film and the general public point fingers, the more one would feel the utter complexity of the human relationships that shields the now-wealthy victimizers.
Indeed, the part about human relationships in the financial industry is simply too complicated for the layperson to understand. The higher-ups of the industry agilely moves from government to academia to the corporate world without public scrutiny (or knowledge, until public investigations such as "the Inside Job" surfaced). Their "career moves" not only allowed them to retain the pre-crisis wealth they collected from now worthless investors, but also gave them the opportunity to successfully ask the government (indirectly the taxpayers) for more money to keep the financial system in place even after the system's credibility has been massively damaged.
As people come to realize that these financial criminals, accused with fraud, bribery, and endless cycles of deception, are doing more than fine today, the only thing they can do is snare cynically. Because they acquired untold wealth, they have close audience of the government officials. And because they have political connections, they are destined to not fall even under the weight of increased public criticism. Their continued control of a vital industry that influences the very life of economies and nations means that they are somehow hold hostage of the governments around the world, forcing the people to entirely pay for their wrongdoings.
Even now, there are people who always ask Ivy League graduates (like myself) why they do not join the ranks of the financial sector, hauling in hundreds of thousands a year and living a fashionable life of a banker in a big city? After learning a bit more about the undertakings of the bankers and their accomplices, we all have to come to the conclusion that their fashionable lifestyles are, in essence, based on the untold pains of the common people. It is no longer about whether I am happy being such a person, its about being an ethical person and NOT an outright shameless criminal feeling happy with dirty cash in his pocket.
Despite sounding condescending, I must say that the controlling factors governing the future directions of economic health are just too complicated to understand for the average layperson. And after watching a documentary on the supposed causes of the 2008 financial crisis, such realization becomes more established and deeply rooted. "The Inside Job," as the admirable film is caused, suing various interviews with those with personal interest in the industry, attempted to explain in the simplest terms how and why the crisis came about.
And the explanations were certainly laudable. By using easy-to-comprehend graphics and detailing the roles of each involved party, the documentary drew a straightforward yet very complete picture of how the financial system in place is structurally destined to cause the crisis. The narration foregoes complicated mathematical calculations that no doubt went into various investments, instead focusing the personal relationships among the "big bosses" of different financial corporations and government agencies which were said to collaborated on causing the crisis.
By watching the documentary, the overall mechanics of the financial industry are no longer complicated. In fact, the back-and-forth among the investment banks, the private rating agencies, the government "financial regulators," and insurance companies are proven to be nothing more than a combination of brilliant marketing and bribe-induced deliberate ignorance of underlying dangers. Those who control the financial industry, knowing the enormous risks and potential hazards of the structure, nonetheless continued their beautiful rhetoric toward individual investors.
Yet, what remains difficult to understand for the viewer is that, how, in the aftermath of the catastrophe that led to loss of jobs and life savings for millions of people across the world, that those responsible for creating and running to the ground the financial arrangements be acquitted of any sort of criminal charges. The more the film and the general public point fingers, the more one would feel the utter complexity of the human relationships that shields the now-wealthy victimizers.
Indeed, the part about human relationships in the financial industry is simply too complicated for the layperson to understand. The higher-ups of the industry agilely moves from government to academia to the corporate world without public scrutiny (or knowledge, until public investigations such as "the Inside Job" surfaced). Their "career moves" not only allowed them to retain the pre-crisis wealth they collected from now worthless investors, but also gave them the opportunity to successfully ask the government (indirectly the taxpayers) for more money to keep the financial system in place even after the system's credibility has been massively damaged.
As people come to realize that these financial criminals, accused with fraud, bribery, and endless cycles of deception, are doing more than fine today, the only thing they can do is snare cynically. Because they acquired untold wealth, they have close audience of the government officials. And because they have political connections, they are destined to not fall even under the weight of increased public criticism. Their continued control of a vital industry that influences the very life of economies and nations means that they are somehow hold hostage of the governments around the world, forcing the people to entirely pay for their wrongdoings.
Even now, there are people who always ask Ivy League graduates (like myself) why they do not join the ranks of the financial sector, hauling in hundreds of thousands a year and living a fashionable life of a banker in a big city? After learning a bit more about the undertakings of the bankers and their accomplices, we all have to come to the conclusion that their fashionable lifestyles are, in essence, based on the untold pains of the common people. It is no longer about whether I am happy being such a person, its about being an ethical person and NOT an outright shameless criminal feeling happy with dirty cash in his pocket.
Comments
Post a Comment