Meet the Renegades - Joris Luyendijk 

It's interesting how this kind of people will always shit on private entities and never say a word about the public ones which have a monopoly on the currency and who actually rig the game for everyone. Apparently, being able to manipulate prices does not make you responsible for crises, it's the people responding to these problems. It's like blaming a bat for beating somebody rather than the person holding the bat.

@@psychoh13 OH but he blamed politicians A LOT. Especially Dutch politics is something Luyendijk has always been very harsh on. In another interview he is discussing with a minister how they completely failed in overseeing and regulating the banking market, while only pointing to bankers and not taking blame for their own lack of action. He basically blames both sides, as I think everyone should. Nobody is innocent.

@@TIMxisxHERE The fact that the state oversees and regulates the banks is the issue. They've decided to have a central bank, cheap money, low interest rates, they shouldn't be surprised if the banks are unsound.

@@psychoh13 What are you trying to imply with that...

TIMxisxHERE I'm saying the government is far more responsible for economic crises than banks. Not that banks are blame-free after all they use the government for their own benefits and also sometimes originate the laws that promotes crises like the Federal Reserve Act. But without government their destruction would be far more limited.

Luyendijk has been in the media discussing his book with a banker and a former minister of finance (at least in my country). At the opening of that discussion he complemented his adversary as being the only one of his kind who ever had agreed to discuss it with him.....Is that enough to satisfy your suspicion

Oh, Joris explains that in his book and it's also explained in some of his other lectures; The PR-section of a bank will simply not allow its employees to speak to journalists in-depth about their jobs and how it all functions. Luyendrijk always claims that he tried to speak to MANY more people than he actually got to speak with. On some Dutch radio program someone asked a similar question and Luyendijk's answer was that it's because a CEO or CFO is usually the LEAST economically knowledgeable person in the entire building, whereas many economitrists who do most of the work behind their PCs will know WAY more about a bank's in-and-outs than the actual CEO / CFO. He claims that the CEO's are simply afraid to loose face, which is understandable because; why should they anyways? They gain NOTHING from attending to an interview with him other than the risk of loosing face. (for the same reason many politicians wouldn't wanna discuss stuff with him either)

His support for the European Union, unfortunately, is all too typical of continental Europeans. That said, he does have a good take on the class system in Britain and the corrosive effect it has on British society.

@@view1st If the EU is not democratic, what is? Are we comparing the EU's levels of democracy to that of other countries? (Like how highly democratic May and Johnson have been 'chosen') Or do we compare it to some superficial ideal of democracy that never existed?

@@TIMxisxHERE For all its faults a nation's democratic system, whether it be in Germany or France or wherever, is and always will be better than a supranational entity like the European Union that has essentially unaccountable and corrupt bureaucrats dictating what is in effect a one size fits all economic system skewed heavily in favour of the richer countries of Europe (Germany and France in particular) and committed to neo-liberalism, austerity and a marked anti-Russian/pro-American bias; in effect a politico-economic counterpart of NATO (and perhaps soon to have its own army, thus becoming a full version of NATO but with 2+1 leadership - France and Germany, plus the USA - in charge). It pays lip service to subsidiarity (national political independence) while in actual fact reducing everyone not in the 'club' (the EU's core countries) to little more than satrapies of the Brussels elite. It's in short a corporatist/state capitalist (read neo-fascist's) and bankers wet dream. Also, if you're a person living on the continent you'll probably not understand the strong desire for home rule engendered by living on an island culturally but not physically connected to the rest of Europe.

@@view1st Alright, I'd love to discuss this. First of all, can you elaborate on what you mean with a country's democratic structure being 'better' than that of a supranational entity; Better in what sense? Sure there is a huge political-economic value in the EU, ofcourse it's not perfect, but I wouldn't say its necessarily a bad thing. What's the alternative? No EU at all, or, a different EU? Reshaping the EU is also a way, rather than abolishing it entirely. Moreover, my biggest concern is that 'sovereignty' is being used as a veil for more political power to the British elite and less EU-power. Isn't it more of a nice power-grab for the British elite than it is for its actual population? And if not, is it even an improvement to leave at all, since the british political system is rather bankrupt of democratic factors? (I don't think descriptive factors matter as much but, I'm from Iceland)

@@TIMxisxHERE Firstly, I thought it could be taken as a given that a national legislature would tend to be more in touch with the people over whom it rules than one located hundreds of miles away and staffed by a diverse group of people of varying nationalities whose agendas may differ quite radically, especially if this 'legislature' doesn't in fact actually legislate but rather rubber stamps decisions already made by its executive. Being Icelandic I would have thought that you of all people would have understood this. I think we can both agree on the European Union as being of great value in bringing the countries of Europe together and of making things easier on a certain level and its reform would certainly, in my opinion, be much better than its simple abolition (even if it were possible). As you have said the European Union plays a huge political and economic role in the affairs of Europe, but in the opinion of myself and many of my British compatriots that's the whole problem - it has gotten way too powerful. It's gone from being a simple union of like-minded countries seeking a common economic policy to basically a United States of Europe; from simple union, to confederation, to full-on federation; from free trade area, to economic union, to fiscal union, to political union, and now, in all likelihood, military union. At each step the European Union has become more and more powerful whilst at the same time arguably becoming more and more out of touch with many of the people it claims to represent. We see this on issues ranging from immigration (Hungary), to economic and fiscal policy (Ireland, Portugal, Italy Spain), right to the very heart of the what it means to be an independent, sovereign state (Greece, whose government has been reduced to little more than a puppet of the so-called European troika). Secondly, yes, you're spot on with your assessment of the British elite; it is a power grab but not in the way that many foreign observers may see it. Rather than the majority of the members of parliament supporting Brexit (British exit) they actually want the country to remain within the European Union and, in my opinion at least, seem to be doing everything in their power to keep Britain in, sabotaging our prime minster Boris Johnson's attempts to leave. They seem to want an exit in name only (and they just might get it!). Then there is another group - you can call them the Atlanticists if you like - who want Britain to leave so they can get into bed with the United States of America. Being American-style neo-liberals they want to destroy as much as they can of the social protections built up over the decades since world war two, including those social protections mandated by the EU, and to remove us from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. If they have their way I fear my country will become even more a fawning pawn of the USA and everything from mutagenic GMO's to farm produce treated with carcinogenic chemicals that are rightly banned in the EU and elsewhere will be allowed. Honestly, in my opinion, these are the members of the political class I both despise and fear the most. To sum up the political situation in my country at the moment we are caught between Remainers who don't want to leave (no doubt many of them intending to jump on the EU gravy train when their time is up in the British parliament), and Brexiteers who do want to leave but only so they can turn the country over to the Americans who will privatise everything and turn the country into a money laundering tax haven for the City of London. Thirdly, there is certainly a democratic deficit in my country at the moment (maybe this whole Brexit fiasco is a symptom of this) and one that has existed for a considerable length of time and only seems to be getting worse, but I am hopeful that it can be fixed. Incidentally, I believe that the European Union is just as corrupt and undemocratic as the British parliamentary system but at least we have the potential to reform it from within whereas those within the European Union will have to get the big players to agree and if they don't, well…. We only have to look at the United Nations to see how pathetically impotent the majority of its members are when faced with calls for reform.

Wonderful interview, he is my man

He makes some great points about neoliberalism and class structures and nihilism though...

It had the same effect on me, but I think he means it in a different way. He means a multi-national political state that came into being not through conquest, but through politics.

Almost lost me but he qualified his use of the term empire with based on consensus not force

He is also wrong that the Banking crash was an accident. Goldman Sachs made huge financial bets (shorts) that the products that had just sold would go bad.

worst of this series by far

Why don''t you just say that he is too leftish for you. That way we can atleast see where you come from

He didn't say that. He's saying Luyendijk is arrogant. And Luyendijk is arrogant.

So he's a nasty man? Meaning? Does he need media training?

If there is something I've learned from Luyendijk, while following his career and studying his work, is that he consistently pin points the crux of social problems. His arrogance is obvious. But it's not because of entitlement but because of experience.

yin ng This guest is brilliant... And as pointed out, not because of entitlement... But real work and experience.

I wish.