The paper "Inside Job by Charles Ferguson" is a perfect example of a movie review on macro and microeconomics. After the 2008 financial crisis, there are a number of filmmakers who have tried to make films, in form of documentaries or movies, and even TV miniseries that tackle the matter and show how the American economy came to this bitter part. These include Algore’s, Inconvenient Truth, Michael Moore’s Capitalism and Bjorn Lomborg's Documentary, Cool It. Of all these, the documentary by Charles H. Ferguson titled Inside Job did it best. Ferguson’s approach in developing this informative documentary is strikingly scientific, and this has made it a major success as well as being given very good ratings by film critics in the film industry. In the film, there are a number of factors that are strikingly made so clear that the film is irresistibly informative.
Setting the background
Unlike most the films that address the issue of an economic crisis in America and around the world, Inside Job was purposely built around a solid historical and environmental ground. Ferguson does not dash into explaining the facts and putting the blame on people based on superficial information and facts. In fact, the film starts by going outside of the United States and explains how deregulation made Iceland enter into a problematic economic situation. Ferguson lays the facts about how the economics have changed in the whole of the previous century and indicates how the 2008 crisis was as a culmination of many decades of regulation decay. By doing this, it shows that Ferguson is addressing issues rather than attacking people. This gives much credit even when he finally pins the blame on individual people and groups.
The deep research that the documentary depends on is also another fact that makes the documentary so successful both in terms of the audience liking it and the way the critics rated the documentary. Inside Job comprises of two hours of comprehensive research to unearth the truth as well as the truth about the truth. Instead of jumping into fast conclusions and pinning blame on big or small names in the financial services sector, Inside Job gives the viewer an opportunity to see the truth by themselves and make their own conclusions. The research done is painstaking and the way the documentary is presented, both in terms of visual aspects and issues, creates an atmosphere where the viewer is left feeling that he or she identifies with the issues being presented in the film.
Inside Job is able to closely and carefully address some of the issues that have for a long time been addressed in a way that is less competent. The issue addressed is on how deregulation of the finical sector in the American economy and other economies around the world has an impact on how the economy grows. Many authors and filmmakers have tried to address this issue but the complexity of the issues surrounding economics and how macroeconomics works, hinder these people from being able to address the issue. Inside Job is able to overcome this shortcoming, through thorough research into these issues of macroeconomics. Inside Job is able to address such issues as the significance of the establishment of free market versus Keynesian concepts in markets. Without having to say it explicitly, the documentary is able to show a number of things that are eminent in the modern macroeconomics and in the real estate subsector in particular. One of the things is that the big industries are not able to regulate themselves if freed from government regulation and two, that altruism is not an inherent human trait and thus the company cannot be left to manage the economy (Epstein).
The documentary clearly shows how the banks used the liberties offered to them by the deregulated market to gamble with people’s money. This example is given by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, on how these two firms bought mortgages in the secondary market rather than originating the mortgages. The buying of mortgages from the secondary market was a gambling act and not only was it an act of gambling, but such firms as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac knew exactly the risk involved in it. These firms and many others were playing with money and using the mortgage market to speculate on the mortgage market, even after it was apparent that the mortgage industry was on its way down. The film highlights that what is evil or wrong about this kind of gambling and speculation was that the officials of these firms were not gambling with their own money but were using the investors’ money to play the game. Worse still, the film indicates that even if the gambles were pay off, the actual small stockholders would not have been the ones to benefit the most, but the big CEOs and other big names would be the ones pocketing the payouts of the gamble. This kind of corruption and selfishness are clearly highlighted throughout the film, backed up with strong and convincing evidence that the mortgage industry was being gnawed from inside by big names, who knew exactly what was going on and what would be the end and inevitable result. In other words, the collapsing of the mortgage industry was an inside job.