If it is, its not a benevolent God. When Adam Smith coined that phrase, he was saying there is a intrinsic force within the market, neither good nor bad as he pointed out both benefits and limitations of free markets. Indifferent at best or just not present at all.
Enron is pumped with billions of taxpayer subsidies... then a flood of deregulation happens, with Enron ready to use some capital they happen to have on hand to make first strike in these frauds they're pulling, maneuvers they certainly confranced about with the aides who fine tuned the legislation.
Yes Fascism sucks.
And yes, Fascism is a style of or a possible route for capitalism to take.
Just in case you were not aware I am opposed to this kind of thing, even if state monopolists with their snazzy free-market lingo call it deregulation.
If this is what you call deregulation, I am against what you call deregulation.
I shall call what I am for "unregulation"
And I admit, there will be pains faced, but the empowered people can and will much more quickly set things right - or at least much "righter"
When Sweden had the same banking crisis in the 90s, for the same deregulation reasons, they nationalized the banks and adjusted rates so people kept their home and made good faith payments directly to the government. Then when the market became stable again, they sold the banks back to the private sector, with regulations reestablished, and the net result was a profit to the taxpayer. Yes, the system we did is exactly fascism, instead of people going to jail for fraud we made them billionaires.
This was a govenment op. This was targeted. This was collusion. This was state funded, state assisted, "enterprise interest"(when they decide what law applies to them and get taxpayer money, what is it that makes them not just another sector of government?) directed
FDIC - taxpayer underwritten insurance. Saves the banks big on having to compete for real insurance plans at real prices reflecting real risks (including the risks of new investment schemes from a "deregulation" where the newly "freed" members of the market fail, and are reimbursed?" Reagan never spoke about that ... from companies a customer will trust to actually have the money as much as they trust the masters themselves to have it on hand.
Yes, the FDIC should insure depositors themselves, not the banks. It allows for banks to be reckless as the government will cover loses. I am not stating my support for the FDIC by placing that graph, but it is accurate to the Saving and Loan scandal in the 80s. I don't think we should of bailed out those banks either. The whole point of this video is I am against the bailout of banks.
Even if FDIC ensures the depositors (I thought they did? I was wrong? It still amounts to a subsidy. Banks are able to offer an insured account for less cost to the depositor than could be had though an honest insurer who depends upon solid returns to stay in business and not lose their shirts. And I'm sure with fewer conditions as well, in this wonderful "free market" government run economic failure (failure for who? probably not anybody who could see it coming)
No, the FDIC insures banking deposits, not depositors. So if the bank goes bankrupt, the insured money is given to the bank. Who then remain under FDIC protection, restructure under bankruptcy laws, gain assets by fractional lending and continue to do business. People should not bank with corporate banks at all, use a credit union, they serve the exact same function, they are member owned and they require no bailouts at all.
Rent seeking activities caused this. Now it is a better investment for a company to buy a politician that it is to make money selling products that people want to buy.
The market works when we let it, especially now with information flowing some much more freely than in the past.
We need to get rid of the Federal Reserve, and fractional reserve banking, and go to a money supply that cannot be simply printed from thin air!
No such thing as a free market .... It is a cliche for the rich. "Deregulation didn't cause this" ... correct. The false idea of a free market economy did. Every time you let the wealthy organize it is defacto against the poorer public. Money and power is the only suffice to enjoyment for the two despicable classes... the very wealthy and the very poor.
google Heritage foundation:People who get food stamps — 30 million and growing — will get more. People drawing unemployment checks — 4.8 million and growing — would get an extra $25, and keep those checks coming longer. People who get Supplemental Security Income — 7 million poor Americans who are elderly, blind or disabled — would get one-time extra payments of $250.
one correction. Kucinich does not wish to end the fed. Ending the Fed is impossible. the Fed is a poison to our system, but I've brought the points of why the Fed won't be ended in several of my vlogs (private bankers won't pay gold for greenbacks). Kucinich wants oversight which I agree can be attainable. the Fed as Denis has stated isn't federal at all. it's private. Kucinich is a genius, but Ron Paul is a nut job and their plans are totally different.
Kucinich plan of rescinding the 1913 Federal Reserve act would put the ability to create currency back under the Dep of Treasury. Ron Paul wants to go to a free banking system and a return to the gold standard, both have issues (wildcat banks, price fluctuation). But lets remember on this issue Ron Paul is a ally and we need all the help we can get to remove the most powerful force of corruption in our society and not be too concerned with deck chairs on the Titanic. I might do a vid on this!
the Fed is a poison I agree. Kucinich understands it much better. RP just says abolish it, which I have brought up is impossible because of all the greenbacks people own. the bankers will never pay these people gold for their greenbacks. Ron Paul is short-sighted and idealistic. great talking points though for him, but Reagan also mentioned going back to the gold standard on his campaign platform. once he won, Reagan never revisited that idea again.
Erik, excellent video. I especially like Kucinich's comments and proposals. K called for a WPA like infrastructure rebuilding plan in 2004, when he ran for pres. Just think, if he was elected we could have averted this job crisis, and he would have taken the finance industry to task.
Until the little man (or woman) has the same access to the market as the big man, we will never have a "GOOD MARKET". We will just end up with Giants like ENRON. So that is what is needed....equal access for all buyers and sellers! And then we need Government to do its job of ensuring the GOOD MARKET remains without FRAUD.....now is that regulation or enforcement. Regulation typically means "Price Controls" (regulate=control). Food for thought. Am I wrong?
That's the same as "free market" its just matter of degree from whats called a "perfect market". Both are allegorical, Adam Smith for example was not describing the greatness of the 'invisible hand' of the market, he was saying beware of it. For example, h said that anytime two people of trade get together the end result is a conspiracy against the people. You need to have a eye on the market to avoid exploitation or it does not function as "free".
"you need to have an eye on market to avoid"..... and that's GOVs job, and apparently they don't do that well (or crookedly.... "revolving doors")...so why grant GOV even more power, like "price controls", which could include "price of labor controls" (labor is just another market service).
When Phil Gramm was chairman of the banking committee, the SEC continually asked him for more resources as they could only investigate 20% of their cases and they were always turned down. That is corruption. But oversight and investigation is pointless if you remove the laws themselves, that's what deregulation is. You can tsk tsk and shake your finger at malfeasance all you want, but if its not against the rules then there is jack anyone can do about it.
The worst troubles start when the terms themselves to describe something are twisted and every different ideology uses the term in a different sense. How can any common picture be acquired in such a fog? My forecast is more FOG AHEAD, and lots of PILE-UPS... stay off the roads!
Awesome!! 5*, wish I could give you 10!! You should read David Korten's new book, Agenda for a New Economy... he has a great idea about ending Wall Street, though I'll warn you that I'm only able to read a few pages at a time, it's so infuriating to read the truth about these scams that it gives me nightmares!! Great job, Erik, honors!!!!!
Powerful video, Erik. Great to see you back, too. Will post on Dandelion Salad. Thanks again for the link to the blog in your video description. You're the best!
Isn't "the Invisible Hand of the Market", just a modern term for God? The Big Guy in the Sky who will see that everything turns out right. Ya, sure.
geezzerboy 2 years ago
If it is, its not a benevolent God. When Adam Smith coined that phrase, he was saying there is a intrinsic force within the market, neither good nor bad as he pointed out both benefits and limitations of free markets. Indifferent at best or just not present at all.
erkd1 2 years ago
Enron is pumped with billions of taxpayer subsidies... then a flood of deregulation happens, with Enron ready to use some capital they happen to have on hand to make first strike in these frauds they're pulling, maneuvers they certainly confranced about with the aides who fine tuned the legislation.
Yes Fascism sucks.
And yes, Fascism is a style of or a possible route for capitalism to take.
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
Just in case you were not aware I am opposed to this kind of thing, even if state monopolists with their snazzy free-market lingo call it deregulation.
If this is what you call deregulation, I am against what you call deregulation.
I shall call what I am for "unregulation"
And I admit, there will be pains faced, but the empowered people can and will much more quickly set things right - or at least much "righter"
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
When Sweden had the same banking crisis in the 90s, for the same deregulation reasons, they nationalized the banks and adjusted rates so people kept their home and made good faith payments directly to the government. Then when the market became stable again, they sold the banks back to the private sector, with regulations reestablished, and the net result was a profit to the taxpayer. Yes, the system we did is exactly fascism, instead of people going to jail for fraud we made them billionaires.
erkd1 2 years ago
That's what I'm sayin.
This was a govenment op. This was targeted. This was collusion. This was state funded, state assisted, "enterprise interest"(when they decide what law applies to them and get taxpayer money, what is it that makes them not just another sector of government?) directed
.But i repeat myself :)
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
I want to point out the source on that graph.
FDIC - taxpayer underwritten insurance. Saves the banks big on having to compete for real insurance plans at real prices reflecting real risks (including the risks of new investment schemes from a "deregulation" where the newly "freed" members of the market fail, and are reimbursed?" Reagan never spoke about that ... from companies a customer will trust to actually have the money as much as they trust the masters themselves to have it on hand.
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
Yes, the FDIC should insure depositors themselves, not the banks. It allows for banks to be reckless as the government will cover loses. I am not stating my support for the FDIC by placing that graph, but it is accurate to the Saving and Loan scandal in the 80s. I don't think we should of bailed out those banks either. The whole point of this video is I am against the bailout of banks.
erkd1 2 years ago
Even if FDIC ensures the depositors (I thought they did? I was wrong? It still amounts to a subsidy. Banks are able to offer an insured account for less cost to the depositor than could be had though an honest insurer who depends upon solid returns to stay in business and not lose their shirts. And I'm sure with fewer conditions as well, in this wonderful "free market" government run economic failure (failure for who? probably not anybody who could see it coming)
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
No, the FDIC insures banking deposits, not depositors. So if the bank goes bankrupt, the insured money is given to the bank. Who then remain under FDIC protection, restructure under bankruptcy laws, gain assets by fractional lending and continue to do business. People should not bank with corporate banks at all, use a credit union, they serve the exact same function, they are member owned and they require no bailouts at all.
erkd1 2 years ago
capitalism will destroy it's self....
whilst we watch, and kick it to death with no remorse
stanleymaiden 2 years ago
The main assumption has to change.
Deregulation didn't cause this.
Rent seeking activities caused this. Now it is a better investment for a company to buy a politician that it is to make money selling products that people want to buy.
The market works when we let it, especially now with information flowing some much more freely than in the past.
We need to get rid of the Federal Reserve, and fractional reserve banking, and go to a money supply that cannot be simply printed from thin air!
satyrrr99 3 years ago
No such thing as a free market .... It is a cliche for the rich. "Deregulation didn't cause this" ... correct. The false idea of a free market economy did. Every time you let the wealthy organize it is defacto against the poorer public. Money and power is the only suffice to enjoyment for the two despicable classes... the very wealthy and the very poor.
jdrizd2 3 years ago
google Heritage foundation:People who get food stamps — 30 million and growing — will get more. People drawing unemployment checks — 4.8 million and growing — would get an extra $25, and keep those checks coming longer. People who get Supplemental Security Income — 7 million poor Americans who are elderly, blind or disabled — would get one-time extra payments of $250.
KamikazeKoscki 3 years ago
Excellent Exposure, nice work, like the graph!
KamikazeKoscki 3 years ago
one correction. Kucinich does not wish to end the fed. Ending the Fed is impossible. the Fed is a poison to our system, but I've brought the points of why the Fed won't be ended in several of my vlogs (private bankers won't pay gold for greenbacks). Kucinich wants oversight which I agree can be attainable. the Fed as Denis has stated isn't federal at all. it's private. Kucinich is a genius, but Ron Paul is a nut job and their plans are totally different.
witzkeyman 3 years ago
Kucinich plan of rescinding the 1913 Federal Reserve act would put the ability to create currency back under the Dep of Treasury. Ron Paul wants to go to a free banking system and a return to the gold standard, both have issues (wildcat banks, price fluctuation). But lets remember on this issue Ron Paul is a ally and we need all the help we can get to remove the most powerful force of corruption in our society and not be too concerned with deck chairs on the Titanic. I might do a vid on this!
erkd1 3 years ago
the Fed is a poison I agree. Kucinich understands it much better. RP just says abolish it, which I have brought up is impossible because of all the greenbacks people own. the bankers will never pay these people gold for their greenbacks. Ron Paul is short-sighted and idealistic. great talking points though for him, but Reagan also mentioned going back to the gold standard on his campaign platform. once he won, Reagan never revisited that idea again.
witzkeyman 3 years ago
Erik, excellent video. I especially like Kucinich's comments and proposals. K called for a WPA like infrastructure rebuilding plan in 2004, when he ran for pres. Just think, if he was elected we could have averted this job crisis, and he would have taken the finance industry to task.
peacelf 3 years ago
I really wish he would have won, place him as Secretary of the Treasury and lets get this done :D
erkd1 3 years ago
Until the little man (or woman) has the same access to the market as the big man, we will never have a "GOOD MARKET". We will just end up with Giants like ENRON. So that is what is needed....equal access for all buyers and sellers! And then we need Government to do its job of ensuring the GOOD MARKET remains without FRAUD.....now is that regulation or enforcement. Regulation typically means "Price Controls" (regulate=control). Food for thought. Am I wrong?
Thought-provoking video, erkd!
UnderseaCaveman 3 years ago
well said
onlywhenprovoked 3 years ago
That's the same as "free market" its just matter of degree from whats called a "perfect market". Both are allegorical, Adam Smith for example was not describing the greatness of the 'invisible hand' of the market, he was saying beware of it. For example, h said that anytime two people of trade get together the end result is a conspiracy against the people. You need to have a eye on the market to avoid exploitation or it does not function as "free".
erkd1 3 years ago
"you need to have an eye on market to avoid"..... and that's GOVs job, and apparently they don't do that well (or crookedly.... "revolving doors")...so why grant GOV even more power, like "price controls", which could include "price of labor controls" (labor is just another market service).
UnderseaCaveman 3 years ago
When Phil Gramm was chairman of the banking committee, the SEC continually asked him for more resources as they could only investigate 20% of their cases and they were always turned down. That is corruption. But oversight and investigation is pointless if you remove the laws themselves, that's what deregulation is. You can tsk tsk and shake your finger at malfeasance all you want, but if its not against the rules then there is jack anyone can do about it.
erkd1 3 years ago
The worst troubles start when the terms themselves to describe something are twisted and every different ideology uses the term in a different sense. How can any common picture be acquired in such a fog? My forecast is more FOG AHEAD, and lots of PILE-UPS... stay off the roads!
UnderseaCaveman 3 years ago
Awesome!! 5*, wish I could give you 10!! You should read David Korten's new book, Agenda for a New Economy... he has a great idea about ending Wall Street, though I'll warn you that I'm only able to read a few pages at a time, it's so infuriating to read the truth about these scams that it gives me nightmares!! Great job, Erik, honors!!!!!
Scoppertop 3 years ago
Thanks Scoppertop, and I will check out that book!
erkd1 3 years ago
I have to feature this on my page. GENIUS!
witzkeyman 3 years ago
Thanks witzkeyman!
erkd1 3 years ago
ANoTHER GREAT VLOG ERKD!
witzkeyman 3 years ago
Powerful video, Erik. Great to see you back, too. Will post on Dandelion Salad. Thanks again for the link to the blog in your video description. You're the best!
lorri37 3 years ago
Thanks Lo!
erkd1 3 years ago