Inside job movie review

Plot The film revolves around events which begun in 2000 and finally led to the 2008 financial crisis. Within the film, it becomes manifest that the genesis of the problem can be attributed to the deregulation that took place in Iceland in 2002. The country faced a period in which its banks became privatized, an aspect that snowballed into the US, when AIG and the Lehman brothers became bankrupt. According to the film, the whole world started to face a recession. However, other actions made the situation much worse, especially when financial experts rejected an advisory by Raghuram Rajanin 2005 (Ferguson, 2010). Fredrick Mishkin Mishkin is an economist whom the director conceives as one of those who were supporting deregulation. He is also a corrupt official, who benefits from illegal cash so that he can write poorly researched reports.

Although there is sufficient evidence to prove that the world will suffer a financial crisis, economists such as Mishkin are indifferent, and create the impression that they understand what they are doing. Sir Andrew Likierman He is a member of the academia. He is regularly consulted by the US treasury in regard to the financial crisis. Fundamentally, the case of impunity is worth being investigated. Bankers, and members of the academia collude with government officials so as to take advantage of tax payers’ money to safeguard their own interests. The financial crisis leads to the loss of thousands of jobs of taxpayers, yet government officials and those in the academia benefit immensely to become rich. Unfortunately, none of these people have ever been brought before a court of law. Whereas ordinary citizens are forced to become homeless for defaulting on their mortgage, Ferguson acknowledges that when a bank defaults, it is the taxpayers that bail it.

Deontology Is based on duty of ethics, in which an individual is expected to act in accordance to the existing rules, irrespective of the outcomes (Hozic & True, 2016). The theory is more concerned about bringing justice rather that justifying the happiness of people. Based on the behavior of Raghuram Rajanin, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that he was more concerned about observing economic principles which could have avoided the financial crisis. The character effectively abides by the deontology theory, since he issues a warning against the financial policies that were being observed in America. On the contrary, the likes of Lawrence Summers had anticipated the benefits that they could enjoy as a consequence of the crisis. Even when the public is forced to use its money to bail out the banks, the money is used to pay hefty bonuses to the executives (Ferguson, 2010).

Therefore, public and corporate interests become the epitome of the conflicts within the film. Alleviating the conflict of interests The best approach to overcome the corporate and public interests is to hold the decision makers who caused the crisis accountable. All those who benefited from public funds must have their accounts frozen and be jailed. Moreover, they should not be allowed to hold any other public office in the future. Moreover, such assets should not benefit other clients, unless there exists an express permission. In case the advisor acts in contrary, then he/she would be found to have breached section 206 of the Act of advisers (Sec, 2017). Based on the above definition and in relation to the film, a gross misconduct happened, specifically when bankers used depositors’ money to involve in risky financial businesses without permission.

Interestingly, the depositors ended up losing their savings, even when there exist laws that can prosecute the bankers for failing to act in accordance to the best interests of the depositors. Evidently, an assortment of investment banks was involved, and this signifies that they misled their clients by offering them false advice, which led to the financial crisis. Distinction Between Ethics in Financial and Non-Financial Sectors The financial industry is highly delicate, considering that an assortment of interests need to be safeguarded. Whereas in other industries where people can only lose their jobs and still get new ones, the financial industry demands grater obligations from leaders since it touches on the investments of people. When people work in other sectors, they often desire to invest in the financial sector. Without due regard to ethical obligations, people will tend to suffer immensely.

As envisaged in the film, many of those who had taken mortgages were forced to stay in tents since their financial institution had failed them, and property owners sought to reclaim back their houses. However, after watching the film, I can agree that the crisis was created to deliberately enrich some few influential individuals. The behaviors of the characters in the film can only amount to cruelty, where the public is forced to feed a system that does not have returns to them. The film exposes the weaknesses of the capitalistic system, in which banking executives can collude with government officials and those in the academia to prey upon the most hardworking people of the society. On the converse, the film illustrates the need to strengthen regulatory regimes so that greedy investors can be limited in their desire to frustrate laws of mutual trust and loyalty.

Conclusion Charles Ferguson effectively captures the processes that led to the financial crisis. N. The Oxford Handbook of Professional Economic Ethics. Oxford : Oxford University Press. Ferguson, C. Director). March 31). Information for Newly-Registered Investment Advisers. Retrieved from sec: https://www. sec. gov/divisions/investment/advoverview.