Daniel Hannan | Occupy Wall Street Debate | Oxford Union
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- Daniel Hannan MEP gives his opposing opinion to the motion of "The House would Occupy Wall Street".
SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Facebook @ theoxford...
Twitter @ / oxfordunion
Oxford Union Website @ www.oxford-unio...
Daniel Hannan opens by saying that the bailouts were a crime that will one day be seen as a generational offence. He highlights that he, along with 3 other elected politicians, was the only one opposed to the bailouts along with 87% of the British Public. It's wrong to clobber the little guy in order to reward the corporates.
He says that he is opposed because the occupy Wall Street crowd were occupying the wrong place. He says there is a world of difference between being pro business and pro market.
He challenges 3 propositions; The Idea that we are living through a failure of capitalism, the banking collapse was caused by a lack of regulation and the idea that we're in this financial mess because of our greed.
Filmed on Thursday 22nd November 2012
MOTION: THIS HOUSE WOULD OCCUPY WALL STREET
ABOUT DANIEL HANNAN:
MEP
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY:
The Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. It has been established for 189 years, aiming to promote debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
Rights managed by Oxford Media Associates www.oxfordmedia...
Filmed by Oxford Media Solutions www.oxfordmedia...
RUclips clips of Daniel Hannan act as doses of anti-depressant
It is very difficult to poke holes in Daniel Hannan's speech, I would like to see him as Britains Prime Minister one day, but it would be great to hear a debate between him and Marxist economist Richard D. Wolff, would be extremely interesting.
Wolff has never made a cogent point in his life. He puts on a clipping tone and criticizes, he has no suggestions for an alternative because socialist economics is a religious system that relies on faith in the unfolding of the dialectic to reach utopia.
Iceland had the right idea: lock the bankers up! That's a country with a recovering economy now.
UK, you have a fantastic politician there. He should really become the next PM.
johnlew05 exactly, a politician...
He says regulation was already too much. By 2009, a whole host of derivatives such as Credit Default Swaps were totally unregulated and unaccounted for. Preventing traders from trading CDFs and Collateralized Debt Obligations would have stopped a most of the predatory lending. There is no logically connection between financial regulation on complex derivatives and the general bureaucracy/red tape that general businesses face. He's trying to interchange both, but they are both very different. Very misleading about regulation.
It's impossible to regulate our way out of recessions and debt crisis.
The malinvestments of an economic boom aren't caused by greed or profit seeking. The fundamental cause of the business cycle is expansionary credit.
In the past the first fluctuations were caused by the first bankers fraudulently issuing excess receipts for their gold reserves. But in our era of post ww2 Keynesian neo-mercantilism we routinely have horrendous business cycles as a consequence of central banks effectively polluting the entire business of banking.
When banks issue credit that can't be backed up by the real capital and savings that are actually available they distort the capital structure of the economy. Businesses begin projects that can't be completed and are based on demand by fiat. The recession is an inevitable part of the business cycle.
The reason business cycles ARE cycles is because central banks, by expanding money and credit, are attempting to price fix INTEREST rates. And if you look at the Keynesian philosophy behind these mercantilist policies it is nihilistic, and millennialist. Much the same as Marxist eschatology.
+Economics Alex Go further up the food chain, alex. FNMA caused the crisis with their LIBERAL lending guidelines. The CDS and CDO were supplied cash by the unions to finance, yet another, government social experiment gone horribly wrong.
+PrivateAckbar Economics Alex got real quiet, eh?
Well said! Awesome speech!
I mean, I’m sorry but just because he talks passionately does not mean that he is fully correct and ethical.
1. He says this wasn’t a problem with lack of regulation, because there are thousands of regulations. Quality is more important the quantity my friend. The banks have been deregulated (glass steagall for example) Over the last 40 years to a pretty absurd degree.
2. Capitalism is not the same as markets. Capitalism is a system of capital accumulation and private ownership of the means of production. This system makes oligopolys almost inevitable. Hence why the banks are too big to fail
3. They should have protested both on Wall Street and outside of the White House. The banks obviously had a hand to play in their own bail out. Why would we not protest against them?
I’m still kinda confused about his argument though. Like, is he saying that markets should be totally deregulated, and that these market failures will be avoided that way? Ah well
There's only one point he spoke on that was painfully inaccurate. The idea that the market is overregulated or that the business sector is privy to strong regulation. This is a fantastical claim. There are multiple regulation bodies almost all of them are about as toothless as they come. SEC, FTC, etc., all are paper tigers that talk loud and carry a little stick. The idea that CDOs were engineered in an overregulated environment is kooky.
In Daniel Hannan, we have an eloquent speaker, a critical thinker and an orator of such high standard, it's would be a crime that we do not leave the EU and bring him back to domestic politics. He would shred many on both sides of the house.
"Capitalism without regulation is doomed to fail"
No one is recommending that there be no regulation. Listen to the man again.
I totally agree with this man on the bailouts, and on corporatism, and on the dynamism of the market. The problem is that we cannot have a truly free market, a truly democratic government, truly free individuals as long as we have capitalist corporations (top-down, shareholder run enterprises). We need to replace shareholder elected boards of directors with worker councils, in a market economy
I find it wierd that a person can advocate capitalism and not understand the power of capital. If you can buy and sell any commodity, why not buy legislation? "Corporativism" is an natural consequence of capitalism. If you want to compete against others, why not buy legal benifits trou politicians? Or better yet, why not become a politician in order to benefit your corporation? It's not a coincedent that Ben Bernanki, Hank Paulson, Dick Chaney and Alan Greenspan did what they did, because they were paid to. By friends. Not "the people". Capitalism has always needed government and in modern history the two of them has almost always been dependent on one another.
Lossiemouth Beach Yeah you got his point right. Because its a easy talking point to get. If people was free and government didnt get involved we would be better of. But nothing was whooshing over my head.
I was saying that legislation, in a capitalist society, and be bought just like any other commodity. And this favors the rich. The capitalist class. There is a reason the tax system looks as it does, because it was paid to look that way. A free market gives each individual freedom proportional to his or hers bank account, because the ability to do things correlate directly to your purchasing power.
Rolf Fält You'd have a point if there was a system which does not allow corruption. But there is isn't, so you don't. The realities of capitalism are always compared with the theories of marxism/anarchism, never their realities.
Michael McGlade So you agree with the critique but you dont see any other serius political option?
***** Well the class diffrences is abit more then just "do you own your own shop?". A capitalist, in the marxist sence, is someone who lives of the labour of others throu their capital. A fruit shop owner is only a capitalist if he makes enough money from his buissness so that he doesnt have to do any labour himself in order to sustain his needs. Meaning his employies does his work for him. And then there is of course blurred lines. Where does the line go? It is, eventually, abit arbitrary. But the poor guy on the little town square selling tomatoes isnt a "capitalist" for selling some fruits. But alot of Nestle's stock owners are. And the way the laws and taxcodes are set up mirrors the intresst of Nestle. Not my local fruit shop owner.
So the memebers of the "the capitalists class" has a specific relationship to work and capital. That is what makes the class unique.
And where did you get your "truth" from? We've seen the "failure" of relatively unregulated markets: electronics that get cheaper and better every year and companies that offer you all sorts of services online for free.
In contrast the "success" of the centralized systems: healthcare, social security, banks. More costs for less value every year, with the prospect of going bankrupt.
Maybe it's your brain that's spinning out of control rather than the speaker.
Brilliant as usual Mr Hannan. Well done, almost comical that the weasel Cameron is PM.
You misunderstood my question or you deliberately ignored it so i will ask again.
Would you like to see the chemical industry run just like you seem to want for the banks... unregulated...no rules...free to do what they want?
A yes or no is fine
concentration and centralization of capital is inevitable, so the "to rich to fail" phenomenon it's inevitable, with that phenomenon comes the cartels the monopolies and the urge to keep growing monopolizing and not allowing the replacement of the inefficient.
that to me is the biggest flaw of the argument
"It would be bankrupt without it and we would have moved on"
If we could make them go bankrupt and start from scratch then yes MAYBE things would be better. But will this happen in reality NOPE! so we have to deal with the situation as best as we can, 10 thousand pages of financial regulation are not working because the banks have dictated/weakened the regulations. I said MAYBE because unless good regulation is in-place this would only happen again....con
This speech is amazingly well-articulated with meaningful words. Every time I listen to the speeches of Dan Hannan, I get goosebumps, and his speech ruffles up my feathers.
He always chooses the right words, cadence, and bodily gestures to articulate his speech well. Behind his every effortless speech packaged now, I could see a lot of hard work he had undergone years together. Moreover, it requires a lot of discipline to rise to this level.
I follow the speeches of so many English people, but Dan is unique. My best wishes to Dan.
Magnificent orator - and he talks absolute sense!!!!!!!
Brilliant speech. My faith is somewhat restored in british politics
He is so awesome. Good ole Brits! When one of them speaks this well, you damn well better listen!
Those who don't believe in Almighty Allah are not wise because the universe we live in speaks about Almighty Allah.
He( Almighty Allah) is the Originator of the skies ( seven skies) and the earth! When He decreeth a thing , He saith unto it only : Be! and it is.
( Qur'an, 2 : 117 )
At the turn of the last century, J.P.Morgan bought out Carnegie in an effort to establish a monopoly in Steel. He did not succeed, because he could not continue the dynamic that had enabled Carnegie to march from triumph to triumph, which of course, included a high tariff on foreign steel. Without 20 years charles Schwab, Carnegie’s crafty manager had started up Bethlehem Steel, and was able to oppose US Steel, simply because it had some of the agility that enabled Carnegie to succeed.
'pluarlity of small providers' hasn't been the case for a century, even then. Capitalist system has an inherent incentive to consolidate not to mention economies of scale. 'regulation that pushed out small players' was overseen by larger interests - No lobby group seeks to create more competition, they just give themselves a free hand in newly created markets.
Occupy was an example of non centred organisational structures and direct democracy and could be a valuable institution in the future.
Daniel Hannan is also right to state that giving Taxpayers money to the International Banking Cartels is not Capitalist, and indeed it's not particularly 'Leftist' - certainly not a Socialist idea. Iceland's recovery would be seen as more Leftist - but what the U.S. under Bush and Obama, and Britain achieved from 2008-9 was the consolidation of power for the Banks. It never happened, but both Free Marketeers and Socialists should have been shouting from the rooftops in rigid opposition.
"For it is written in the law, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' But, look many of your brother s, sons of Abraham, are clothed in excrement and dying of hunger while your home is filled with many good things, not one of which goes forth to these others." He turned and said to his disciple Simon, sitting beside him, "Simon son of Jonah, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." -(Origen commentary on Matthew 15,14)
Not necessarily true. Monopolies can only exist thru the action of gov't to stop free markets from working. Capitalism depends upon profits AND losses. And the losses are more important. They cause changes in management and changes in policies.
The banking crisis is a prime example. Had the financial institutions been allowed to fail, their assets would not have disappeared. The bad debts would have been liquidated and the good debts bought by others.
But the gov't prevented this.
When I consider the weakness, the folly, the Pride, the Vanity, the Selfishness, the Artifice, the low craft and meaning cunning, the want of Principle, the Avarice the unbounded Ambition, the unfeeling Cruelty of a majority of those (in all Nations) who are allowed an aristocratical influence; and on the other hand, the Stupidity with which the more numerous multitude, not only become their Dupes, but even love to be Taken in by their Tricks:
The sneakers with the flashing lights on them are no more useless than the ones you chose to wear. They happen to be a little more flashing and silly looking but they still cover feet. The productions of those sneakers also employed some people and the support network that runs and maintains the factory employs many more.
I don't think you understand what they mean when they say economy.
"Another reason capitalism won't work is that the only incentive is making money." - wrong again. Money is one incentive in a capitalist society, but so is work-satisfaction, moral purpose etc.
Also, your comprehension of the productive process is basically nil: if you have a patent, then you're just depriving yourself of money by not marketing the patented thing to its fullest profitable extent.
re: refernece to Rube Paul : no doubt Paul's position on this (and many other issues) is dead-on; so long as he is not talking about drugs, foreign policy or 9-11 ... he is usually right, otherwise he sounds like a buffoon.
Have to dispute one tiny little detail of the honorable Mr Hannan's presentation : a significant reason for the risks the banks took was that they were FORCED to by Carter/Clinton's asinine policies forcing them to loan money to ppl that had no business getting loans.
"...replacement of old inefficient producers with new better ones has raised humanity to the highest standard of living we have ever enjoyed...". by efficiency he does not mean a long lasting durable upgrade-able product for example. He means efficiency is getting more work out of employees for less, faster unregulated trading, using semi slave labour in China, more destructive bombs, etc. No, what gave the we better standard of living was the workers struggles in past 150 years until Reagan rev
I want the Government to not bail out the super rich people that made bad decisions and drove their companies into the ground. The regulations didn't stop the meltdown from happening, and some regulations (like the ones that stipulated you had to loan to people with terrible credit) actually helped make the meltdown. But the Government bailed them out and removed any accountability from the people that caused this. That's what I have a problem with.
You expect to foster an honest and straightforward discussion when you demand answers to rhetorical questions?
Examine your conclusions again. If you had watched the video or knew anything, you'd know that the banking industy is more over-regulated than almost any other industry, even more than the chemical industry, and that didn't stop the meltdown. Why? Because they wrote their own regulations. If you think that they need more regulations to fix this, then you need help.
Corporations are as moral as the people within them, and they are far more moral than Government.
And no, they would NOT do the same "bad trading" as before if they knew that they would go bankrupt and lose their jobs. The problem here is that they are not forced to suffer the reprecussions of their actions, and more industries will be doing this if they are not held accountable. Would you like to see the Chemical industry do something horrendous only to see it swept under the rug?
It is quite a new documentary so it maybe a few weeks of so before it hits YT. I am from the UK as well so i used a proxy but It is also available to download as a torrent. If you read between the lines the banks are as the title says untouchable, i think there is far more that we do not know ie that they are holding a far larger amount of bad debt, enough to crash the whole system.
Yes i have watched it three times now and i repeat that this guy is wrong on a few counts. Causation, how it should have been dealt with and the cure. Maybe you should all watch one of the documentary's about the whole crash, check out The Untouchables FRONTLINE PBS this gives a compressed version of events.
Oh and thanks to those that thumbed my honest reply down maybe next time you should ask yourself why. Confirmation bias is a bitch and kills a conversation dead.
Honestly not getting the like count, he is indeed a very good speaker, yet and for no apparent reason he seems perfectly unable to see the real issue. Trying to help all of you (likers and if possible the speaker) it is not about the regulation in the books, it is not about the theoretical workings of market capitalism, IS ABOUT POWER INEQUALITY in all societies, the scale is not tipped, the scale has been eliminated from discussion.
when people talk about glass-steagall they mean certain provisions of the banking act of 1933, the FDIC was in the banking act but its certain parts that were repealed and are called glass-steagall nowadays, at least from what i just read on wikipedia
the part people are worried about right now is the provision that make commercial and investment banks separate
this did not cause the problem of people borrowing money they could not pay back though, it proliferated the damage of the bubble
Haha ok, take his first point on the "crisis of capitalism". He says this is a falacy as bailouts are not a tool of true capitalism and have worsened the crisis. Its a good point.
However, this merely deepened the crisis - bailouts didnt create it. Stagnant wages leading to the swelling of the credit economy, to bolster consumption, created the debt crisis. The bubble burst in 08. Its part of the contradiction of capital accumulation.
So i like his analysis but his conclusion is short-sighted.
Its HIS argument thats irrelevant. Britain is not free market , thats what ive been saying. His point about the Nazi's attacking the stock exchange due to the UK being free market is erroneous and he should know it. I could have phrased my immediate reply with more clarity but your being pedantic about it. You might want to look into some of the events of WW2 - it was a staged conflict.
Hannan's commiting a "non sequitur" fallacy (a conclusion that is barely connected to the assumption), and "begging the question" fallacy (assuming a premise that leads to a conclusion when the premise itself is questionable).
Bin Laden attacked the World Trade Center because he hated capitalism. I can't believe these "intellectuals" are dismissive of precious information that is inconsistent with the government's lies. Also, targeting World Trade Center does not mean Bin Laden hated capitalism.
If sitting and doing nothing is so rewarding, why don't you stop complaining about being penalized and take that route? If the capitalist system were "fair and just" we'd see upward mobility equally across all peoples. Why don't we? If my luck/timing/hard work leads to a massive company, it is my imperative to maintain that advantage even if it means undercutting you. You may have a great idea, but if it threatens me, you're out! Exploitation is not sustainable, but you can pretend it is.
It's not "my program." It's just using science and a systems theory approach to providing the highest possible standard of living to all people. It requires a value shift. Right now, money is a controlled access conduit, winners come at the expense of losers. It does not have to be this way. In fact, continuing in this mindset is causing degradation across all aspects of life: psychologically, environmentally, sociologically.
I think you are referring to the registration of copyright, which has many times been used to stifle innovation instead of protect inventors. That is a government regulated system (Library of Congress) which is abused by the politically connected. So, actually, it is not capitalism but Government regulation thereof, so your example proves Mr. Hannan's point. Government interference in the Market, while it always sounds well and good, can easily be captured by larger players in the market.
That's not true capitalism - true capitalism is simply free and voluntary exchange of goods and services, and does not have corporations and government in each others' pockets. When a big company is threatened by a competitor in our current corporatist system they line some politician's pockets and get "regulations" introduced (or some similar ploy) that make it impossible for their competitor to stay in business.
There are so many research projects that were funded socially. Your reasoning is backwards. Capitalism rode the coattails of technological development, not vice versa. What's a company other than collaborating individuals competing against another group of collaborating individuals. I suggest you explore the research into creativity, innovation, and research. Find out what really motivates people. (Hint, it's not money!) We need to allow this aspect of humans to flourish.
Socialism still operates in the same paradigm of competition, but just in a way that mitigates some of its harmful effects. That's why it's important to change the incentive structure. We need to use a cooperative strategy; there's plenty of research to back up the advantages of that approach. For example, we can't compete our way to a healthier Earth, we must collaborate, but all efforts fail because of the socio-economic zero-sum paradigm in place.
You have a circular argument. We would not have technology and the Industrial revolution without capitalism. The competition which is in a true Capitalism demands research and development. This is what thrived in the late 19th century. A time when we got the most important theories to science like Darwinism.
Regulations by the state actually suffocates development. Even if someone could invent a Jetson style airborne vehicle he wouldn't as the airspace is not for the general person to use.
I fully understand how efficiently most corporations are run especially the banks. Dam they have used the scientific method to fine tune every aspect of their business model, if they were not so morally corrupt a person could easily be dazzled by the brilliance of it. The thing I do not understand about what you are saying is the OUR!...con
con......Now lets say the system crashed and we started again without any regulations. Because corporations follow a very strict business model that does not included any sort of morality they will do the exact same bad trading as before. Would you like to see the chemical industry run just like banks without any regulations?
I agree with most of what you say but this guy was wrong on a few points. The problem is not as easy to fix or to have stopped it in the first place as many would like to believe. The trouble is that we have a catch 22 situation, dammed if you regulate, dammed if you don't. Did you watch The Untouchables FRONTLINE PBS
We should indeed have let the banks fail. Ordinary citizens would have been protected as savings are covered up until a certain pound value. It would have been the super rich that would have lost out & you can be certain this would only have happened once as the banks would have been forced to change without state interference.
Nobody is saying the problem was lack of "enough regulation", it was the purposeful destruction of CLEAR and definitive regulation that isolated investment and speculation banking. Don't pretend we're all as stupid as your logical fallacy.
This Man is well spoken but essentially wrong , corporatism IS the same as capitalism which is the agglomeration of market produced wealth in a privileged few individuals and inheritor families ! Through institutions of trade and business (stock markets , banks , etc !
If you had watched this, you would know that the cause of the problems wasn't under-regulation, it was over-regulation. That's what keeps new banks from starting, that's what keeps the dinosaurs that can't adapt in power. This guy wasn't wrong about a single thing.
removal of Glass-Stegall allowed the bubble to affect more areas on the market, but it did not create the bubble, if you don't have the bubble in the first place you don't have to worry about not having glass-Stegall, and its the government and the central banks that create the bubble
Certainly 10.001 would do the trick. The same goes to budgets, it is always just a few billions below the ideal size which would be enough. Let's just write one more regulation and expand taxes/borrowing/inflation just a little and it will all work like a charm.
A true Brit that wants the end of the NHS ...... I am sorry no Daniel Hannan doesn't come across as a true Brit to me, he comes across as a professional politician. He is a very professional politician hopefully not for much longer.
i have to strongly disagree with his closing statements in the case of the nazi's and 9/11, those attacks targeted the locations they targeted for strategic purposes such as weakening the ecnomic power of their foes, not some symbolic war against capitalism
He speaks some truths mixed up with the establishment lies. He will draw some people in i suppose. The guy that established the Gillette company said one day he expected all companies to merge into one entity one day, perhaps were nearing that point.
CLEAR regulation, lol, what the hell does that mean, and witch regulation would be, maybe your iphone manual instruction. And yes as a matter of fact , that´s one of the arguments most people use
Anyone in the audience who was tweeting rather than listening is being rude. They should listen to what he has to say or leave the room and give their seat to someone who wants to hear him.
con....Are you are suggesting that we let them go bankrupt and let the true free market do its thing, no rules or regulations. If you are then are you happy to do the same with the chemical company's.
I hope Mr. West is listening closely. If he would take the time to learn real economics rather than the government school claptrap that he spouts, he could be an impassioned speaker for truth.
You are acting as though i have called this guy jack the ripper, all i have said is he is wrong on a few points. Why would i lie about watching, i am just saying what i see....chill out.
Wrong my friend - they pay taxes in many other forms. And in relative terms they suffer much more than you and as a matter all us who can afford to be on this plattform!
The fact that so many people can listen to Hannan and not be swayed is proof that all roads eventually lead to violence. It's just a fact of nature. Amitire?
What institution does Mr Hannan mention at 9:27 that the Soviets would close on entering a country?
I don't agree with Ron Paul, but i agree about most of his speech. Also, Human nature, not capitalism, is the cause of greed.
(Lenin and Hitler were rich because being wealthy means controlling wealth and both controlled the wealth of entire nations.)
If everyone works harder they could all earn 40k a month. Everyone could earn that amount, they just have to work hard.
Sounds like a very sophisticated Peter Schiff. Much better at making the points on why capitalism is our best foot forward.
The bail out wasn't just wrong, it was ludicrously wrong, there should be no reward for failure.
How in the world can someone be such a brilliant orator..
4:30 - why would we be wondering about regulation, and regulation of what?
+DavidsonLoops Regulation of the financial sector. Sounds as if an earlier speaker mentioned it.
No idea how I ended up here, but why is this guy doing Dave Gorman impressions?
Cornerl West? are you kidding me? Oh well at least fools like Cornel West portray statist.
I'm guessing Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Paul Krugman and an anonymous OWSer:)
Now I'm just thinking about the shop girl and her stockings.
be careful. there are a lot of wolves in sheep's clothing. do you trust in Ron Paul?
No, he's a Tory, but considering he's a Eurosceptic one wonders for how long.
Hannan has a fake sense of superiority with his permanently raised eyebrows.
There is no consumerism or democracy in the system? Please, explain that.
I agree. We need more classical libertarians, i.e. libertarian SOCIALISTS. ;)
Oooh Hannan.
Opining on a criticism of wall St.
I wonder which side he's on ?
I don't think I'll bother watching !
Gordon Bradley Oooh Gordon. A closed mind is an ignorant mind!
That was only part of my comment, i listened very well the first time thank you.
They said that in the 1930s. It was wrong then and you are wrong now.
Well, if you want to be picky - is a law against murder a regulation?
I’ve never wanted a Brit to be president of the USA till now
That's because the shareholders then get taxed on the profits
And we are all the better for your lack of participation.
Except he's actually much more articulate than Ron Paul.
He attributes material success to capitalism, not to technological development/research. He equates freedom with capitalism. These are the tired talking points that have been used for generations. Why don't they ever explain why the "free market" developed regulations to begin with? Where did they come from? Is the answer that people just got stupid and went off track since clearly the free market was meeting everyone's needs and it was a time of paradise?
Ryan Johnson - In what system is material success not better distributed that capitalism? In what system is technological development/research better done than in a capitalistic one? One may not have perfect freedom in a capitalist system, but one has less freedom without a capitalist system. Hannan never said that regulations were not important, but he did say that regulations were already very high in the financial services industry and that they lead to a concentration of large businesses to manage the scale of compliance costs....that resulted in crony capitalistic behaviors.
I am talking about the reality of the situation. I agree with much of what you say about the banks but the problem is not so easy to fix after the fact. If the banks had not been bailed out it would have crashed the system. Crashing the system sounds good to some people because they don't understand the consequences....con
It would not have crashed the system, it would have threatened Western hegemony. "Too big to fail" was a slogan pushed by the oligarchy because they didn't want to face the consequences of their own failures. People in the know saw it coming, they knew the banks were cheating, and what they prevented from happening was not a collapse, but a transfer of wealth.
It was an opportunity to decentralize the banking system and introduce more competition to prevent a "too big to fail" system in the future and they did the exact opposite, because that's the goal of the fascist oligarchy who hide behind social-democratic platitudes.
Who are the 5 knobs who don't like this speech?
Watch all his videos. He is very thought provoking.
LIBERTARIANISM FTW! PIZZA COULD BE INFINITE!!!
if you trust in Ron Paul you're in a trouble.
That is a logical fallacy. False dilemma.