Just finished watching Inside Job. Highly recommended. We all have been reading about the economic crisis for a while and we fairly well know what it took to get us here and what refuses to take us out of it. Interesting, however, is the manner in which they launch into the complexity of global economic/financial systems so predictably and simplistically, that we won't understand how complicated it really is for we simply do not know. But there are no signs at all that they know. How vital information is not concealed as much as denied in the information age, not for the lack of expertise but through the expertise, is a rather curious event of this century.
And of course, the manner in which the film exposes Harward/Columbia and all these vulgar American institutuons that specialize in building what they call a Wall Street government, is rather astounding. It is important to acknowledge that it is not for the lack of a system but because of the very system with infinite checks and balances, rating systems, and sophisticated models of the market. The beauty of the film for me is in those discomforting moments the camera causes to the hotshot bankers and govt. officials, when they pause to think as they wait for a cut, when they ask for the camera to be shut off for a while, or remind the filmmaker that he has only 3 more minutes so he better gave it his best shot. Little do they know that that moment becomes the best shot!
The film raises vital concerns about the discipline of economics. Is there really a complex set of knowledge that it comprises of or the complexity is simply a way to buzz others off, to cut out simple but relevant questions? What does it mean to be an economist then? Do you have to be a crook to be an economist of high repute? I shall perhaps need to get back to Dr. Prabhat Patnaik's papers.
No comments:
Post a Comment