“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....” - Noam Chomsky... this is exactly what's going on all over the world... we're being dictated the "wrong" debate... competition only leads to one result: a growing inequality... you can't control it, because the powerful eventually become so powerful that they control it... this is where we are now... we need to bring back democracy and the industries of finance, energy, medicine, food and security should be public, not private... then we need to look at the whole range of our dysfunctional thinking and put responsibility at the forefront of who we truly are...
Well the problem is the government is ruled by people who are as much addicted to power or greedy as companies employers and bankers. We are all the same flesh and blood. I strongly believe that nationalizing is long term solution as such power in such few people makes it very vulnerable to corruptio and stagnation. The rules of the game in society have to benefit good behaviours and avoid bad ones. Making it public do not most problems and create others. We need more nuance than that and surely depends of each industry and context of each country.
The problem faced by most major economies is that a majority of capital is trapped in the form of real estate property. Think about the money that could be channelled into consumption instead of being used to service a mortgage. While the prices of real estate goes up, so do the size of your mortgages; there is less money for people to spend and less consumption to drive economic growth.
Gregory Ho true but then in the uk you have a government which subsidise help to buy and make things worse not better.there creating there own downfall by pusting the prices up and forcing people into debt,try saving up for an house,impossible because the prices rise faster than your saving which shouldn't be the case.
that's not true. central banks require our economy to grow quarter by quarter in true capitalism with free market banking it's perfectly ok for the economy to shrink and then let it grow again. and benefits the poor the most and hurts the rich. in a economy with a central bank (federal Reserve) the rich always win and the poor always lose. read the creature from jekyll island.
Was just watching a documentary of an economist trying to find the solution for the problems that occur in the banking system. I saw him struggling with his cognitive dissonance. Economist: Directors are not bad people, blah,, blah, blah. My view: You can't jail someone for legitimized hacking of the system, which is greed and power politics through capitalism. You can't unemotionalize, demotivate and apathethicize a whole banking reward system. The main goal of capitalism is how the incentive is realized. Whic is the rate in which compound interest with all methods available in increased. This is causing psychologically the upward spiral in greediness. It is obvious Bank directors whole job objective is greed, which is a vice, promoted as a virtue, the sinister part is, that this vice, generates exorbitant wealth, and destroys competition, Internationally. Economics is --- war tactics --- Economics has nothing to do with service, the only service is progressivity -- It has to do with international war against opponents who fight for power in politics---- This is Elitism and Power politics. Economic Darwinism, the survival of the most powerful, and finance rhymes on violence.
Yes this is no longer Capitalism, but it certainly is a product of Capitalism. It's a bitter pill to swallow but the first step to recovery for an addict is acknowledgement.
How can banks or business's make ''profit'' The only way, is to demand that more is paid back than is loaned or more is charged for goods than they cost . Guess who therefore creates these '''profits''' YOU !!!!
There are few solutions to this problem of indebtement ofpeople and governments, do like Iceland and put the bankers in jail and go bankrupt. No more debt to anyone. Ank work out a better way, maybe using Iceland's way as a model
I don't think it brought much to the world except maybe lowering the tension with non-communist countries and a few other things, but anyway this was not your point. you said it "has been a catastrophe for the world" and clearly it was not. The world is not poorer, you must be kidding me. We have better technology now than we had then, better medecine, more wealth...
But we humans are hardwired with a higher level of self-awareness than any other species. We are capable of distinguishing ourselves from everyone else and acting in our own interests, contrary to the interests of others. The truth is we are both selfish AND social animals.
That may actually work but I think such a change is 2 far-fetched in a world where greed makes the world go around. Our leaders today choke on words like 'moral & ethical change'. It seems they are 2 afraid to upset the voters rather than standing for a real solution. However it’s not all on them, would such leaders gain the votes and support by the public? These days I feel we are on a runaway train heading for a cliff with no means to break. Hopefully I’m wrong in this view.
The world has failed capitalism. We constantly cripple it while thinking we're helping with stupid ideas. Leave the capitalism to the capitalists rather than shady bureaucrats with no personal interest in the matters that they control.
Alright, look up Market Socialism, Council-Communism, Syndicalism, many variants of Anarchism - such as anarcho-communism, or anarcho-syndicalism - Mutualism, Libertarian Socialism, Participatory Economics, Socialist-Voluntaryism, Agorism, Autonomism, there are also many libertarian-Marxist works on non-centralised economic model. There is a long history of movements on the Left for a decentralised socialist economy, one without the state or without intervention by the state in the economy.
Basically banks are being compared to the story of the tortoise and the hare; in seeking profit banks are behaving like the hare, rushing ahead recklessly and resting on their laurels with no concern to the outcome of present decisions. The proper demeanor of banks should be like the tortoise regarding profit; slow and steady gain ensuring the safety of investments and safeguarding against complete collapse.
ALL POLITICS , BINDED BY CORPORATES ARE GOOD - IN THEIR , "OWN WAY OF , DEFENDING THEIR FORMATION ." BUT THE PROBLEM arises IN EVERY ,' POLITICAL STRUCTURE ' WHEN QUESTIONED BY - MORAL MEANS , WHICH IS "LAWS OF NATURE." OR HUMAN RIGHTS. * MORAL IS NOTHING BUT SIMPLE COMMON SENSE ACCEPTED BY ANY HUMAN ANY WHERE AS TO LIKE OTHERS AS THYSELF IN THOUGHTS , WORDS AND ACTIONS. * CORPORATES DUTY , IS TO MAKE RICH RICHER , POOR POORER AND MIDDLE CLASS AS SHEEPS READY FOR - SLAUGHTER HOUSE. * SO , WHICH POLITICS CAN STAND IN DEBATE BY MORAL MEANS - EXCEPT A SHOW OF - "NO RESULT " .* EVERYTHING IS SIMPLE IF YOU KNOW IT. * CHEERS. *
Start Talking about we're on a planet, much of what money has built/building is detrimental to this planet and its inhabitants.. We need shot of money altogether and allow what naturally drives us to build.. Food, water, shelter and not only will we do this for ourselves, we'll do it for those who don't have it too. Technology is here and its obsoleting money, as money requires things to be scarce for it to have 'value'.. Lets just build much of what we really need to provide Food, water, shelter and use technologies from human ingenuity to get this across the world, which harmonizes the natural laws which govern us.. 80% of this planet is water, yet we hear, there's a shortage of water, lets just get to build salt water distillation plants, using reverse osmosis xx
you are right m8....take free energy tech and why governments make it all disappear.the reason is if there was unlimited amount of energy how could you charge people for something that don't run out.what happens then there goes the value of all other energy fields...its supply and demand that puts value on something that pretty much everybody uses....take water also there is so much of it and yet you have to pay for some thing that gets constantly recycled.....things that all humans need to live should be free so that takes one less worry from people.if the rich lose so much money why cant they make up for it by making luxury's in life more expensive.....they make the luxury's so cheap that you become lazy little sheep....education,free....housing,free....water,gas and clothing,free....make up in lost profit by making lets say chocolate £40 a bar or something like that...
lol! ...Putting words in my mouth much?... If you knew anything about anti-capitalism, you would know that a non-capitalist economy does not automatically mean a planned economy.
all economic systems have flaws.. Capitalism has been proven to be the most effective economically .. Thanks Stacy.. the liberals are just jealous.. socialism and communism have been utter failures in history and have destroyed millions of lives both financially and physically.. hiding all the murders has been hard for them.. why would you need walls or gun boats to keep people from leaving your paradise?
jackjofaz how does it value luck???????Capitalism is about the free exchange of goods and services,for example when governments tax force or the threat of of force is used....Ford for example has to convince me to buy their product,a bank loan the same is true...
TheChristianRight09 Hard jobs pay less than easier jobs, don't they?. Or I guess I should say that it values looks and social skills over physical work.
A rich person doesn't have a dime of mine that I didn't freely choose to give them. Think about why this is. The preceding is true unless you are talking about Elon Musk. Now think about why THAT is.
@@gilliqbal13 Leftist argument?? Or a Realist argument?... It's an argument from someone who is deep inside the system to see it actually! Even the guy in the video said "when banks have profit they keep it to themselves, when banks have loses they distribute it to the populace". LOL You're an idiot! Even when a guy says it here bluntly, with proved facts, you dismiss it and think this is a political agenda or statement
@@Trip4man It’s a leftist argument and it’s literally false. Your wealth is driven by your ability to provide a product or service that is in demand in a capitalist society. That is why in America we have a record number of people who start out low and become millionaires.
Well, the fact is that Capitalism is good for America but bad for the world, a lot of countries have been reduced to pauper. IMF and the world Bank must take responsibility.
'how can anyone defend an economic model, a system, in which the richest 300 people control more wealth than 300 million or 3 billion people on this planet' Well, how many of the '300million or 3 billion' even understand the system in the first place? I'm a 19 year old (with hardly any knowledge of economics) on the verge of entering the 'real world', already stressed out of my mind about the effect money has on quality of life. It seems only those in the system can even think to defend something as heinous as this. I don't even know what to say
Hey this looks like it's going to happen, with more and more left wing politicians moving to the left by supporting Medicare for all and the green new deal. 2 democratic socialists in the American Senate. It's looking like we can see significant policy change in the near future.
@Ross MacKenzie I love capitalism, but a market crash will come again. And likely soon. The fools will blame capitalism, ignoring central banks are anything but capitalist.
Ideological Capitalists are fond of claiming that capitalism brought progress everywhere it was established. But it is difficult to know for sure, because the nations that have embraced it have spent trillions of dollars making sure that no other method gets off the ground.
you are making this comment using RU-vid, which is a result produced by capitalism. You are using thousands of things daily which are the result of capitalism, nothing else. I suggest you read the history of mankind before modern capitalism implementation (i-e before 1800 or so) and find examples of life people were living at that time. Today, the problem with capitalism is not inherent to capitalism itself. But it is because of government involvement at a deep level. Crony capitalism, lobbying, too-much taxation & too much government spending.
I think these men with their capitalists ideology have been manipulating the global economy using their professional jargon...the vivid example is the credit facilities given to developing countries by the international financial institutions in which the governments of such states were subjected to strict capitalist economic policies that continuously leaving their people in abject poverty, and yet they have to pay back such loans with skyrocketing interest rates. The financial inequality will continue until the global financial economic policy makers get it right. Kudos to Mr. Mehdi Hazan.
Capitalism was associated with freedom when the communists where the enemy. But capitalism (de-facto the worship of money as a religion) is compatible with any ethos. Slave trade anyone?
I'm sure you meant slightly. And what would you define as a miserable failure? The success of a country can be measured by something more than its rulers, its military budget, its instruments of dominance and destruction, and its profiteering giant corporations. Certainly these countries that "slithely leans" towards a Socialist government are far from perfect but at least they strive to have more democratic institutions, create a society free of poverty, racism, sexism, exploitation, imperialism, and environmental devastation. As with famine, there are far more factors involved in famines that occur all over the world not merely because of Marxism. Besides, most of the statistics that are propagated about famines in Socialist countries are heavily skewed or are outright falsehoods. With a statement as that the same could be said for the inverse. For example, how cash crops are grown in Latin American countries for the purpose of being sold in the United States while the citizens of those exploited countries starve and die.
Luiz Motta You do realise that any country that dares to become communist, or when the communist parties even gain a litle momentum within that country.. At that moment they will get heavely sanctioned, (demonised by the media) and threatened by the UK, Israeli and the US bases of capitalism. The civillions will have a setback because of these sanctions but to blame the sanctioned and threatened for the dispair of their people.. goes beyond the therms cruilty and hypocricy. Do you have morals that take into consideration: the well being of other people in general?
No they don't. They are brainwashed and lack the emotional maturity to feel empathy for others and are petty infantile children that see this as a some sort of bizarre competition
The end of capitalism The purpose of capitalism is to drive growth of the economy. It uses human greed to motivate people to work. In the sense that capitalism and greed fuelled the industrial revolution, they are a good thing. However, the purpose of accelerating growth is to reach a point where we have enough collective wealth, enough technology and enough intelligence to be able to support everyone. Once this point is reached the purpose of capitalism has been fulfilled and it becomes necessary to change the rules. At this point the quality of greed, which could previously be seen as a necessary evil, no longer becomes necessary. Greed is to be replaced with altruism and selfless service to society as the driver of growth. We have reached this point.
well said, but capitalism or over growth only helped to destroy our planet so fare, and it only help a few, so te majorities need to take the wealth of the few and spread it and do to the few what the french did to their king during their revolution... capitalism is the idea that we can always grow, but that was shown not to be possible, well not at the rate we are accustomed to... we have had overgrowth for decades so we need to go back to a more reasonable kind of growth...
david maltais What the FEW need to do is use their drive, ambition and education to obtain their own wealth .. get off their lazy a$$ and quit thinking someone else owes them something..
You mus-understand life and death. It can't be just static, we are living beings. The need to continual renewal is what is nature. It is the animal spirits that drive the will to live. I can accommodate that we need new rules and new thinking rather then the old tired policies that have led from one crisis to another.
So what is your alternative that you propose? Communism? I am serious. I agree Capitalism sucks, but it's better then socialism and communism for sure.
Interesting debate - with multiple viewpoints presented - and some ulterior motives laid bare (if one carefully parses the careful selection of words used to describe the actions, consequences, and failures of the banking system)
10:38 wtf is with economists and economics that after 40 years in banking, a top financial regulator comes to a realization of what banks do? HILARIOUS!
Mr. Turner's last statement included change the rule to the game...I don't think people comprehend his decision to use such a word to describe this system as a game...we don't have to play this game but ignorantly we play because we have become satisfied with illusions created by those having present power...serious dilemma we are in these days...
Nobody spoke about capitalism as a system. The topic looks deceiving. They only spoke on the crisis. Apart from the question raised by one gentleman on Full reserve banking none of them challenged the system........Questions should have been more about corporations and banks are allowed to dictate the system, discrepancy in incomes between people. Why follow a system that is unstable, fractured and unregulated.....
So whats the point in having a flawed system that can be continually 'dictated'? In other words, when in the history of capitalism, has capitalism been without cronyism? Never, it will always be a system to have a small group of people dictate to the remaining majority, how we are to live.
mehdi should get a job on b.b.c. question time!! how many agree with me? with all the shite employed by the bbc since it down marketed itself, it is about time they had a clean up there. i bet you will all agree with me there, will you not?
Al Jazeera, come on. You don't have a single anti-capitalist there. How can you debate the capitalist system if you don't have BOTH sides of the debate present?!?!?!
Yes you're right, he is. I was wrong. Regardless, he barely gets a word in. The whole discussion is one sided. I should have rather said that anti-capitalism is underrepresented here.
there is a problem with escaping the model in it's fundament.... There is essentially no alternatives, what can be done is to find ways to make the economic systems immune to attacks.
Yeah..I see what you mean, although a complete system crash would be devastating. Global poverty would spike within weeks. Hopefully we’ll find a better ship before the current one sinks.
With the growing financial sector and its octopus like presence and hold sometimes on everything else, and with the fog it can create as it 'inks' credit and cash, one is very tempted to call it capitalism....whilst exploitative free market can be an ugly face of jungle-book capitalism, however I believe banking to be anything but capitalism; free market in their structure, banks have become in many cases hubs of interest, credit and leverage, restructuring capitalism to fall short of its potential! Not trade, but rather a monetary service usually, banks are supposed to be service provider, but in reality are becoming an anarchy of futile cash concentration logarithm bleeding the society of its balance and blinding it from its potential. As public banks loll around economics, private banks prefer the credit line; radical banking reform seems to be the only potential horizon, as we run away searching for a solution to stop the bleed... In Islam we are told that blessings happen through charity; should banks be forced to do more that just pass on their problems to society? Should they be taxed to help as much as they credit? One of the audience spoke about funding rent accommodation projects?! While your guest suggests minimum levels of liquidity and assets (but not to the extent of a full-reserved bank; that will have philanthropic effect in taming the nature of 'credit gambling'(!!!)) but at least minimum levels of altruism should also be enforced on a banker's balance sheet. Interest feeds interest, it is a vicious cycle just as potential lures to credit; as much as gambling is very addictive; overwhelmed or wanting to stop or restructure our inclinations to be the stoner or the gamey, or just make them a little bit milder, minimum public service must be incorporated.
The Glasstegal rule was in place long ago until it was eliminated by Bill Clinton. This rule kept the banks as two separate entities, the normal commercial side of Keeping customer's monies safe and the INVESTMENT side where the banks can "Gamble " their own money as they see fit. Once the rule was eliminated the banks were then given the go ahead to gamble their customer's money into whatever risky business they see fit. Why wasn't this brought up in the discussion??
1. Blame the regulators because it is impossible to regulate capitalism. 2. Blame the economists because it is impossible to regulate an economy. 3. Politicians can be blamed because they are politicians. Can you expect anything more from a politician? I blame people who are naive enough to think that politicians are going to do the right thing. Deregulation does not exist when you have regulatory agencies in existence.
YES. thank god our generation realizes this. the 40-50 generation can't seem to grasp this, and it's tragic. i told my family i want to pursue a major in philosophy, with a minor in psychology, and received, "who the fuck wants to do that? accountants make 100 grand outta college!" in response. needless to say, their fundamental understanding of having a good life has been corrupted by capitalism. here's to generation z retaining its ethics and morality, and hopefully un-fucking the world!
The guest can't but talk in circles around the solution, you see, "Socialism" requires too much "selflessness", all for one, one for all, with "competent" administrators at the helm.
Capitalism isn't the least worst system. It's not the worst, but isn't the best. There's been a lot of propaganda to promote the idea that any other alternative has been tried and has failed. Socialism has never been tried in its truest form. There seems to an open debate about if we are actually living in capitalism, but the debate is closed wen we talk about previous practices of socialism and communism.
It is the few rich who used the system to claim on the back of the poor,is the worst danger to any financial system. If poverty is not irradicated The few rich will get a very rude awaking.
The State capitalism as practiced by China is better then Capitalism as practiced in the West. Because in the western system profit goes to the banker and loss to the public. In Chinese system both profit and loss goes to the public. We can learn from Chinese here
yes, the economics profession is the problem. it is a false science because it derives values from fluctuations and not the item itself, nor the time for production itself nor the true worth of natural resources (specially alive ones). so long as economics continues to use a narrow focus to discern value it will continue to be a religion and not a science. the fact that the fiat currency model we are using provides no real value to currency means the fluctuations can always be manipulated, which is further proof that this is not a system of fairness nor accounting, is a belief system. Our economic model is a religion masked as a science, is more about laws and less about natural order.
At 10:40 he states in a rather esoteric way: banks print money out of thin air. After all, credit is money. Yet, no one focuses on that... Why do I work for money? How is a fine going to punish someone who can print money out of thin air. This sanitised language disgusts me... Much love
