After watching a CNBC documentary, reading over my previous blog, and doing some additional research, I felt I had a tight grip of the topic at hand and was well prepared for writing this paper. The video I watched was very resourceful and provided me with a ton of rich, insightful information. Other then the facts of what started the crisis, when the crisis started, the ethical perspectives I used, everything else was basically my argument on whose fault I thought it was and why I thought that way. Just from doing my own research for my personal investment account and writing my previous blog, I had some intuition on what the underlying assets were and how they worked.
What really inspired me to write this paper was seeing the protestors on Wall Street and basically witnessing Wall Street’s investment banks take the heat for everything that has happened. I am not defending the investment banks’ actions in the paper. I just wanted to express my arguments to why I do not think Wall Street is the only culprit in this current situation. There are at least 2 sides to every transaction and I felt that big bad Wall Street was over shadowing all the other players in the house of cards; hence, the reasons why Wall Street is taking all the heat for this financial mess.
Although Kantian’s ethics was not directly tied to finance, I chose to use it because I felt two of his three formulations were perfect to support the arguments that I presented in the. I knew I could articulate his ideas to be useful in the context that I was arguing. I also felt the concepts of time and justice would be perfect because those where two big controversial topics that played a role in the crisis (plus your advice helps as well). I knew the U.S. had a long-term focus or strategy on business operations and the players themselves and homeowners were not adhering to this strategy. So what better topic to touch on? I also liked the concept of justice because the way these brokers and bankers were deceiving and manipulating these financial instruments and selling them to investors and homeowners with no disclosure of the risk involved was outright wrong. I thought it was very unfair to the lender for an applicant to take on the burden of a loan with no intentions of paying it back. I also thought it was unjust for the broker to let incentives be the motivating factor, ultimately putting the burden on the lender in which he/she represents. On the contrary, I also thought it was completely unethical and unjust to sell products and services to people who would not be able to repay the loans. It was not fair to these applicants because in my opinion they expect the broker to be the “gatekeeper” and tell them they will not be accepted for the loan because it is physically impossible to pay for it. It’s a trust thing and people were deceived, lied to, all while they players involved are racking up fees and commission checks.