The large banks should have been allowed to go bankrupt with the government nationalizing the pieces of the businesses that made sense. The $11 trillion bailout of Wall Street could have been used to pay off every mortgage and provide universal health care for all.
The taxpayer owns the banks in Britain? Neigh, in reality the shadowy figures within the Government now own the Banks in Britain. This is why the American way guards against such government monopolies as it only leads to a greater chance of corruption and a greater power for the Government is areas which it should have no say. The end result is increased ultra control of the Government, the oppression of healthy competition and tyranny .
What do you mean by "the shadowy figures within the Government"? Any legitimate references to verify this? Last I read in the papers, two mega-banks have been nationalized. Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland.
How would you insure the fairness of the "competition" without a referee?
Healthy capitalism needs to be within the law to ensure the legitimacy of civil contracts and Health and safety etc. In a healthy capitalist system people vote with their feet, if the product or service is any good they will carry on using it and recommending it to others. If the product or service is bad they have the choice through Market. Same with employers and employees, the cream rises to the top unhindered by overbearing red tape and this in itself creats opportunities for others.
2/2The British Government has tricked the British people time and time again, by throwing them further into an E.U. socialist oligarchy against their manifesto promises, by increasing immigration to massive unsustained levels all with no mandate, it was crept upon us, and the Government has introduced thousands of laws, many of which restrict individual liberty. The Government are not the people who should own the Banks- it is worse than the Government owning the media.
The intention of my inquiries was to comfirm the validity of your comment. Your self-definition on the matter, I have no need for. Let me ask you again. Are there any legitimate references to support your argument?
As for health services, do you have the notion that the system in America is better functioned that NHS (Britain) or Medicare (Canada)?
Secret Government despises it's electorate. Hence, my explanation to Britains headlong commitment into Europe and swamping immigration whilst implementing thousands of back door laws. The America system
is much better than the NHS. As for Canada, I dont know, I do know that Canada has bags of mineral exports and other raw exports that create unbelievable wealth which allows the social security burden to be economical viable despite not being value for money.
Again, yes, the health service in the USA is (much) better than the health service in Britain. I do not know about Canada. I do know Canada is a very rich country..
Good video. However, I have one question. You say that the $500 billion dollar deficit cutting measures that Obama is attempting will negate his 700$ billion dollar stimulus bill.
Now, I haven't really looked at Obama's proposed budget in depth, but from what I've read and heard, he's decreasing defense spending and increasing domestic spending.
So my question to you is this (if what I've read is correct), how would cutting defense spending and raising domestic spending negate the stimulus?
While I very much hope Defense Spending will be cut, I doubt any president has the power to do so. In any case, Obama has said alot of things that have proven to be inauthentic (i.e. untrue). However, if a cut in Defense spending is part of Obama's proposed $500 Billion deficit cutting program it will be recessionary (i.e. negate the stimulus).
While the "stimulus program" is helpful to the economy, the deficit cutting program reduces the effect of the stimulus, according to Prof. Joe Stiglitz.
You need to visit the DemocracyNow web site and search on Stiglitz. The second video story down is entitled: "Nobel Prize-Winning Economist Joseph Stiglitz: Obama Has Confused Saving the Banks with Saving the Bankers"
Dude, you're ready to go back to school!
Jorn2222 1 year ago
I understand Bank Of America is on the verge of repaying their **ENTIRE** TARP loan (by April 2010). What do you say to this?
pnovaone 2 years ago
The large banks should have been allowed to go bankrupt with the government nationalizing the pieces of the businesses that made sense. The $11 trillion bailout of Wall Street could have been used to pay off every mortgage and provide universal health care for all.
radiohogan 2 years ago
$11 Trillion? Are you doing drugs?
shahen13 2 years ago
This guy is a giant idiot!
shahen13 2 years ago
Please elaborate.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Another nobel prize winning idiot.....PETER SCHIFF BITCHES!
deltapunk21 2 years ago
Is Peter Schiff an economist? Please elaborate on your comment.
radiohogan 2 years ago
The taxpayer owns the banks in Britain? Neigh, in reality the shadowy figures within the Government now own the Banks in Britain. This is why the American way guards against such government monopolies as it only leads to a greater chance of corruption and a greater power for the Government is areas which it should have no say. The end result is increased ultra control of the Government, the oppression of healthy competition and tyranny .
MewHamHead 2 years ago
Comment removed
rivetgunner 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What do you mean by "the shadowy figures within the Government"? Any legitimate references to verify this? Last I read in the papers, two mega-banks have been nationalized. Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland.
How would you insure the fairness of the "competition" without a referee?
rivetgunner 2 years ago
Healthy capitalism needs to be within the law to ensure the legitimacy of civil contracts and Health and safety etc. In a healthy capitalist system people vote with their feet, if the product or service is any good they will carry on using it and recommending it to others. If the product or service is bad they have the choice through Market. Same with employers and employees, the cream rises to the top unhindered by overbearing red tape and this in itself creats opportunities for others.
MewHamHead 2 years ago
2/2The British Government has tricked the British people time and time again, by throwing them further into an E.U. socialist oligarchy against their manifesto promises, by increasing immigration to massive unsustained levels all with no mandate, it was crept upon us, and the Government has introduced thousands of laws, many of which restrict individual liberty. The Government are not the people who should own the Banks- it is worse than the Government owning the media.
MewHamHead 2 years ago
The intention of my inquiries was to comfirm the validity of your comment. Your self-definition on the matter, I have no need for. Let me ask you again. Are there any legitimate references to support your argument?
As for health services, do you have the notion that the system in America is better functioned that NHS (Britain) or Medicare (Canada)?
rivetgunner 2 years ago
Comment removed
MewHamHead 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Secret Government despises it's electorate. Hence, my explanation to Britains headlong commitment into Europe and swamping immigration whilst implementing thousands of back door laws. The America system
is much better than the NHS. As for Canada, I dont know, I do know that Canada has bags of mineral exports and other raw exports that create unbelievable wealth which allows the social security burden to be economical viable despite not being value for money.
MewHamHead 2 years ago
Correction.
As for health services, do you have the notion that the system in America is better functioned than that of Britain or Canada?
rivetgunner 2 years ago
Again, yes, the health service in the USA is (much) better than the health service in Britain. I do not know about Canada. I do know Canada is a very rich country..
MewHamHead 2 years ago
Good video. However, I have one question. You say that the $500 billion dollar deficit cutting measures that Obama is attempting will negate his 700$ billion dollar stimulus bill.
Now, I haven't really looked at Obama's proposed budget in depth, but from what I've read and heard, he's decreasing defense spending and increasing domestic spending.
So my question to you is this (if what I've read is correct), how would cutting defense spending and raising domestic spending negate the stimulus?
jodiro92 2 years ago
While I very much hope Defense Spending will be cut, I doubt any president has the power to do so. In any case, Obama has said alot of things that have proven to be inauthentic (i.e. untrue). However, if a cut in Defense spending is part of Obama's proposed $500 Billion deficit cutting program it will be recessionary (i.e. negate the stimulus).
While the "stimulus program" is helpful to the economy, the deficit cutting program reduces the effect of the stimulus, according to Prof. Joe Stiglitz.
radiohogan 2 years ago
Would you be able to send me a link of Stiglitz comments on deficit spending and its relationship with the effectiveness of the stimulus?
jodiro92 2 years ago
You need to visit the DemocracyNow web site and search on Stiglitz. The second video story down is entitled: "Nobel Prize-Winning Economist Joseph Stiglitz: Obama Has Confused Saving the Banks with Saving the Bankers"
radiohogan 2 years ago
I've found it. Thanks for your help and keep up the good work with your videos.
jodiro92 2 years ago
I write my congressmen. They don't always get it.
tenagliac 2 years ago
good vid
MicEntity 2 years ago