He is especially accurate in highlighting that the top 1% of the population is increasingly dominated by financiers, but, far worse, the top 1% of the financial sector has increasingly egregious compensation and an increasingly immorally larger and larger share of the income within their firms and within the economy. They need to share in the downside risks and costs, as they used to do, rather than profitting heavily from the upside without responsibility for the downside.
Excellent insights and summary analysis of the desirable role and purposes of the financial system! In particular, we note his historical point that banking evolved from personal relationships and community-focused bankers, to anonymity, large-scale activities, rapid transactions, and detachment of finance from people and their long-term best collective welfare.
Restore the Glass-Seagull Act. Separate commercial banks from investment banks. The FDIC should only insure the commercial banks. When the investment banks gamble and loose the investors and stock holders loose not society.
Why not just enforce the laws of the land? Commit fraud you go to jail. If you launder money for criminals you go to jail and under RICO have all your business assets and possibly if you benefited personally your personal assets confiscated by the government. If you cheat your employees you go to jail. If you cheat your customers you go to jail. How about we just treat big criminals just like we do petty criminals and in fact give big criminals longer sentences? The biggest problem is that we do not live in a democracy, we live in an oligarchy where the oligarchs have the divine right to cheat and steal from the rest of us with impunity and in fact are rewarded for doing so.
Many of the laws allow cheating in a sense like the carried interest loophole, real estate depreciation, overseas pass through corps and so on (but others aren't properly enforced).
I really thought that most of the points made are really on the point. But how can you say that on the one hand we need to look back to the 70s to see how culture has shaped our economy to our disadvantage and on the other hand imply that people like corbyn are dangerous? I downvoted just because of that comment. Many of the proposals of Corbyn wouldn't have been seen as far left in this time period. The problem is the centre of the political system that adopted economic policies of the right and sometimes of the libertarians. We need "far left" leaders like Corbyn and Sanders that can energise the people that are voting populist right out of desperation.
Cesar Farinho Rather ironically he says that the democratic system now has no answers, but at the same time he calls a moderate lefty like Corbyn a "fringe lunatic" Maybe that comes from being a elitist prick, he talked this whole interview in this very simplistic "smar/educated people", "not so smart people" terms, where it wasn't even nessecary.
They are both fringe politics coming from rejection of the moderate parties. If you say Corbyn is not fringe then how do you explain his participation in terrorist conferences and TV shows?
Cesar Farinho this surprised you? The problems run deep my friend, they run real deep. You don’t know how many times I’ve heard someone give the proper diagnosis (to the economic problems of the last 30+ years) only to then hear them say something ridiculous like this or worse.
Of course I am commenting as lay-person in this regard, but boy oh boy this man uses so many words to politely and pseudo-eloquently say... nothing. Oh, it's systemic... Oh, it's cultural... Oh, it's all merely academic. Oh, really? Oh dear.
@@watching99134 Yet another comment from someone who clearly misunderstood what was written. You now have an opportunity to re-read what I wrote, give it a little thought, and consider your misunderstanding. Then you'll have another opportunity. That will be show that you have understood that I did not express a belief that the content of this video was difficult to understand. No sophistry, now! I am not the only only one watching.
John Kay is hands down amazing and so was this interview. He talks about so many of the problems I have suspected but hadn't fully articulated yet.
Mr. Kay tells it like it was. He understands America and speaks the truth, without being judgmental.
How can you be more grateful
He is especially accurate in highlighting that the top 1% of the population is increasingly dominated by financiers, but, far worse, the top 1% of the financial sector has increasingly egregious compensation and an increasingly immorally larger and larger share of the income within their firms and within the economy. They need to share in the downside risks and costs, as they used to do, rather than profitting heavily from the upside without responsibility for the downside.
Excellent insights and summary analysis of the desirable role and purposes of the financial system! In particular, we note his historical point that banking evolved from personal relationships and community-focused bankers, to anonymity, large-scale activities, rapid transactions, and detachment of finance from people and their long-term best collective welfare.
Kondratiev focused on prices and interest rates.
CONGRATULATIONS AND BEST WISHES FROM RAVINDER TALWAR JALANDHAR CITY PUNJAB INDIA
Restore the Glass-Seagull Act. Separate commercial banks from investment banks. The FDIC should only insure the commercial banks. When the investment banks gamble and loose the investors and stock holders loose not society.
Glass-Steagall but yes (among others).
I want more details! "We need better regulations." Yeah no kidding! But what does that look like?
He did mumble something about how to incentivize things, maybe the book "The Moral Economy" by Samuel Bowles would be of interest to you?
Land traders took over.
Are you familiar with Henry George?
The Big Bang wasn't in 1986: it may be coming, or maybe just a long, slow train crash!
For Financial Marriage. Your Divorce Papers Need Signed. No more Breaks.
Why not just enforce the laws of the land? Commit fraud you go to jail. If you launder money for criminals you go to jail and under RICO have all your business assets and possibly if you benefited personally your personal assets confiscated by the government. If you cheat your employees you go to jail. If you cheat your customers you go to jail. How about we just treat big criminals just like we do petty criminals and in fact give big criminals longer sentences? The biggest problem is that we do not live in a democracy, we live in an oligarchy where the oligarchs have the divine right to cheat and steal from the rest of us with impunity and in fact are rewarded for doing so.
Many of the laws allow cheating in a sense like the carried interest loophole, real estate depreciation, overseas pass through corps and so on (but others aren't properly enforced).
Of course CEO wont think of themselves as overly compensated, their inflated ego's would allow that.
he was wrong the UK has Boris Johnson
Not anymore
I really thought that most of the points made are really on the point. But how can you say that on the one hand we need to look back to the 70s to see how culture has shaped our economy to our disadvantage and on the other hand imply that people like corbyn are dangerous? I downvoted just because of that comment. Many of the proposals of Corbyn wouldn't have been seen as far left in this time period. The problem is the centre of the political system that adopted economic policies of the right and sometimes of the libertarians. We need "far left" leaders like Corbyn and Sanders that can energise the people that are voting populist right out of desperation.
i think he was refering about boris johnson but mispoke and the other guy didnt catch it
Trump=Corbyn????? you gotta be kiddin,
+Cesar Farinho I think the use of the words was a bit strong.. "lunatics from the fringe" and just lumping them both together was extremely lazy.
Cesar Farinho Rather ironically he says that the democratic system now has no answers, but at the same time he calls a moderate lefty like Corbyn a "fringe lunatic" Maybe that comes from being a elitist prick, he talked this whole interview in this very simplistic "smar/educated people", "not so smart people" terms, where it wasn't even nessecary.
They are both fringe politics coming from rejection of the moderate parties. If you say Corbyn is not fringe then how do you explain his participation in terrorist conferences and TV shows?
Mindaugas that is simply untrue. Why don’t you do the explaining?
Cesar Farinho this surprised you? The problems run deep my friend, they run real deep. You don’t know how many times I’ve heard someone give the proper diagnosis (to the economic problems of the last 30+ years) only to then hear them say something ridiculous like this or worse.
We can do better than capitalism.
Wayne P ???
no you can't
We can create something which fits our needs better (post-capitalism but not simple state socialism).
Of course I am commenting as lay-person in this regard, but boy oh boy this man uses so many words to politely and pseudo-eloquently say... nothing.
Oh, it's systemic...
Oh, it's cultural...
Oh, it's all merely academic.
Oh, really?
Oh dear.
No, he says an awful lot. He's just using British understatement. It's a different speaking style than is common in the USA.
It's not that difficult unless you're used to only watching cartoons.
@@watching99134 Yet another comment from someone who clearly misunderstood what was written. You now have an opportunity to re-read what I wrote, give it a little thought, and consider your misunderstanding. Then you'll have another opportunity. That will be show that you have understood that I did not express a belief that the content of this video was difficult to understand. No sophistry, now! I am not the only only one watching.