Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The Big Short movie review
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The Big Short movie review
After watching the movie The Big Short, I have a much better understanding of the financial crisis that took place in 2008. One topic from the movie that really stood out to me was the idea of synthetic CDO’s, which I thought explained the crisis perfectly. For example, Selena Gomez is pictured playing a game of black jack in which she is winning. However, a large audience is in attendance making side bets on Selena’s hand. In addition, more audience members are making bets on the side bets. The big picture is that when Selena wins everything goes great. The audience is making money and so are the people placing bets on other bets. However, if Selena were to lose, there would be chaos and everybody would panic. This compares to the housing …show more content…
For example, two investors, Charlie Geller and Jamie Shipley are pictured at the end of the movie celebrating because they had just predicted the downfall of the US economy, and they won big. However, Ben Rickert, played by Brad Pitt, quickly silences the two by making them realize they just profited off the financial doom of thousands of Americans. Although this is quite true and may seem morally wrong, what the two investors did was extremely risky. Had they been incorrect, they would have lost all of the money they bet on. If they would have placed these bets substantially earlier on, they would have lost as well. These two defied what other investors told them about how a market crisis was highly unlikely. Instead, they went with their research and decided to go against the odds. I believe that even though most people might think betting against the welfare of others is immoral, the reverse could have been much worse for the two. Because of that, I believe the two investors should not be ridiculed to the point they were. Instead, they should be viewed as two investors who took a different path from everyone else and won
“Bernie Madoff began investing in penny stocks in 1960, and due to his impressive work ethic, received several big breaks. The first of which was his father in-law loaning him $50,000 to invest, and soon after, Carl Shapiro, a man who made his fortune in women’s clothing gave Madoff $100,000 to invest on his behalf” (Collins 2011). With this kick-start, Bernie quickly began making a name for him, especially as he promised clients a guaranteed 20% annual return on investment. This, coupled with his firm’s adoption of the latest technology made them a tour-de-force in the investment world. But what makes his eventual downfall more interesting is that he was not just a crook, Madoff did manage a successful, and legitimate brokerage firm. To some extent, the credibility he earned from these legitimate busines...
Dennis Kozlowski was living his dream as a multimillionaire and if anyone got in the way of his dream to create his empire then they would be stepped on like a bug. This is what happened to Jeanne Terrile at Merrill Lynch. Terrile smelled something funny coming from Tyco and when she acknowledged that something was wrong, she was shut down quickly. Nobody knows for sure if Kozlowski paid off the CEO of Merrill Lynch, David Komansky, or not and nobody knows what they talked about. The fact is that Jeanne Terrile was replaced and the stock recommendation for Tyco soon changed after their talk. Terrile decided to do what she thought was right and make sure to notify people of what she thought of the company. Because of Terrile’s ethical decision
Jake Clawson Ethical Communication Assignment 2/13/2014. JPMorgan Chase, Bailouts, and Ethics “Too big to fail” is a theory that suggests some financial institutions are so large and so powerful that their failure would be disastrous to the local and global economy, and therefore must be assisted by the government when struggles arise. Supporters of this idea argue that there are some institutions that are so important that they should be the recipients of beneficial financial and economic policies from government. On the other hand, opponents express that one of the main problems that may arise is moral hazard, where a firm that receives gains from these advantageous policies will seek to profit by it, purposely taking positions that are high-risk, high-return, because they are able to leverage these risks based on their given policy. Critics see the theory as counter-productive, and that banks and financial institutions should be left to fail if their risk management is not effective.
Though Larry Tye casts Edward Bernays in a positively biased light, I still agree with his argument more than I disagree with it. I only disagree to the extent to which he was praised because from what I have read Bernays is motivated only by money and rarely morality and discretion in the sense of people’s health and safety.
The stock market is an enigma to the average individual, as they cannot fathom or predict what the stock market will do. Due to this lack of knowledge, investors typically rely on a knowledgeable individual who inspires the confidence that they can turn their investments into a profit. This trust allowed Jordan Belfort to convince individuals to buy inferior stocks with the belief that they were going to make a fortune, all while he became wealthy instead. Jordan Belfort, the self-titled “Wolf of Wall Street”, at the helm of Stratton Oakmont was investigated and subsequently indicted with twenty-two counts of securities fraud, stock manipulation, money laundering and obstruction of justice. He went to prison at the age of 36 for defrauding an estimated 100 million dollars from investors through his company (Belfort, 2009). Analyzing his history of offences, how individual and environmental factors influenced his decision-making, and why he desisted from crime following his prison sentence can be explained through rational choice theory.
Frank Darabont (writer-director-producer) in 1999, returned to the director’s chair for the first time in five years. Darabont, who not only directed Shawshank Redemption, but adapted it from a Stephen King story, followed the exact same path with The Green Mile. The film was released by Warner Bros. Pictures, and Produced by Castle Rock Entertainment, Darkwoods Productions, and Warner Bros. David Valdes is the producer, David Tattersall, B.S.C. is the director of photography, Terence Marsh is the production designer, and Richard Francis-Bruce is the film editor.
Rothman, Lily.”So, Does The Wolf Of Wall Street Glorify Greed Or Not?.” Time.Com (2014):1.Web. 18 Mar. 2014.
In the film, Wolf of Wall Street directed by Martin Scorsese, the root conflict that moves the action is a person vs. self conflict. The main character, Jordan Belfort, has only one goal, not to make the investors money, but to make himself money, and he will do anything to achieve that. He even goes as far as to sell investors stocks that he knows for sure that are garbage. While him doing this is completely legal, it is very unethical and causes Jordan to battle heavily with drugs and alcohol, only deepening his personal battle with himself. No amount of money is enough for Jordan, which causes him to start committing federal crimes, such as insider trading and money laundering, further increasing his problems with himself.
...company workers being affected by the financial crisis. We don’t want to point fingers here only assess the ethical dilemmas that these companies face. Subjective human judgment opens up for the possibility of undesirable human biases and manipulation. However, with or without human judgment, financial models of credit risk are subject to manipulation, both legally and fraudulently.
I spent a lot of time considering what movie I would watch to write this essay. I listed off the movies that I would like to watch again, and then I decided on The Notebook. I didn’t really think I could write about adolescence or children, so I thought that, maybe, I could write about the elderly. The love story that The Notebook tells is truly amazing. I love watching this movie, although I cry every time I watch it. The Notebook is about an elderly man that tells the story of his life with the one he loves the most, his wife. He is telling the story to his wife, who has Alzheimer’s Disease, which is a degenerative disease that affects a person’s memory. She has no recollection of him or their life together, or even her own children. She wrote the story of their love herself, so that when he read the story to her, she would come back to him. There are three things that I would like to discuss about this movie. First, I would like to discuss their stage of life and the theory that I believe describes their stage of life the best. Second, I would like to discuss Alzheimer’s DIsease and its affect on the main character who has it and her family. Third, I would like to discuss how at the end of the movie, they died together. I know it is a movie, but I do know that it is known that elderly people who have been together for a long time, usually die not to far apart from one another.
Jordan Belfort is the notorious 1990’s stockbroker who saw himself earning fifty million dollars a year operating a penny stock boiler room from his Stratton Oakmont, Inc. brokerage firm. Corrupted by drugs, money, and sex, he went from being an innocent twenty – two year old on the fringe of a new life to manipulating the system in his infamous “pump and dump” scheme. As a stock swindler, he would motivate his young brokers through insane presentations to rile them up as they defrauded investors with duplicitous stock sales. Toward the end of this debauchery tale he was convicted for securities fraud and money laundering for which he was sentenced to twenty – two months in prison as well as recompensing two – hundred million in restitution to any swindled stock buyers of his brokerage firm. Though his lavish spending and berserk party lifestyle was consumed by excessive greed, he displayed both positive and negative aspects of business communications.
The characters of the book reside in present day Indiana. The main characters Hazel and Augustus are two teenagers who both live in Indianapolis in average homes with their families. Hazel spends a lot of time in the hospital and her house due to her cancer. She meets Augustus at a support group in her church and they start spending a lot of time together. Hazel shared her favorite book with Augustus and this book stops mid-sentence with no ending. They both love the book and contacted the author who lives in Amsterdam for answers about how the story ends. The author of this book, Peter Van Houten denies giving them any information because he does not trust that Hazel and Augustus wouldn’t just share it on the internet or record the telephone call. Peter Van Houten says he would only tell them in person. It becomes Hazel’s dream to go Amsterdam which is where Van Houten lives. Augustus uses his one “wish”, from the Genie foundation (which grants wishes to kids with cancer) for him and Hazel to go to Amsterdam. On the plane to Amsterdam, Augustus tells Hazel that he is in love with her. Amsterdam is described as being picture perfect and the opposite of their hometown. I think that the characters felt confined and limited in Indiana but were set free in Amsterdam. In Amsterdam they finally speak to Van Houten, who was an extreme disappointment to them, visit tourist sites and have dinner by the canal. The major climax occurs in Amsterdam when Augustus reveals to Hazel that his cancer has returned and is going to kill him.
Margin Call depicts a realistic take on what happens inside a Wall Street firm. It is about a company that is downsizing their workers because of a firm’s crisis. One of the victims, Eric Dale, was working on a major analysis when he was laid off. He hands his coworker Peter Sullivan his USB, which contains the major analysis. Peter stays late and cracks the issues and calls his coworkers and bosses in about the financial disaster he had discovered. He had discovered that the company is about the crash. He tries to get ahold of Eric, no luck. He then calls his coworkers Seth Bregman and Will Emerson, who are at a bar and tells them that they need to come back to the office for an emergency situation. After showing the situation to Will, John Tuld, the Chief Executive Officer, quickly hears about it. They all have a conference meeting and decide that the company will sell all of the mortgages, which have little to no value. Once the sale is completed, the company tries to save their reputation by saying that this issue was nonpreventable.
The movie “In Time” takes place in a world where time has become the currency. People use time ultimately to stay alive, to pay for rent, and pay for foods and goods. Once you hit the age of 25, you stop aging but you’re genetically engineered to live only one more year unless you can buy your way out of it. The people who live the longest are the wealthiest people, they can live forever and are essentially immortal. The rest of the people who live in the ghettos live day by day by working very low paying jobs, stealing or begging for time. When the clock on the persons arm hits zero they die. Time on these clocks has become the universal currency; by touching arms, one person can transfer it to another, or to or from a separate clock that can be shipped or safely stored in a "time bank". The country is divided into "time zones" based on the wealth of its population. We have a saying that many people use today “Time is money” but in this movie Time is literally money. “In time” relates to the topic of macroeconomics greatly. This movie brings up many topics in economics such as distribution of wealth, labor force, scarcity and inflation. It shows us how differently people look at the economy when the currency is no longer physical money and how there is a separation in the rich and poor.