I like the central theme, but there's not really a lot of facts and I would argue the details. For example, he claims there has been a simultaneous growth in wealth concentration and government control, resulting in misallocation of resources. But it was deregulation and lack of government enforcement in the financial markets that allowed them to misallocate capital so egregiously.
I would say that the checks and balances that kept our country strong have been steadily eroded, with the result that he describes.
Deregulation is not the problem. The financial industry is highly, highly regulated. The Federal Reserve, a corrupt union of government and big banks, controls the money supply, which is always used to bail out big banks. To suggest that "deregulation" is the problem is to ignore the corrupt regulations at the very heart of the financial system--and indeed the entire free market in the US, and even the world--in the form of Federal Reserve Notes.
It's true there's a great deal of corruption. But many kinds of activity that lead to the financial crisis were impossible under the Glass-Steagall Act. You might argue that corruption is the root cause, and lead to the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (key enablers that were deregulatory in nature). But it was still the rolling back of a successful regulatory system that paved the way.
BTW, It's interesting to look at the environment in which Glass-Steagall was enacted and compare it to our own times.
Let's not overgeneralize by lumping everyone into a single "financial industry" - really some sectors like banking are highly regulated while others (like hedge funds) much less so. Despite high bureaucracy, the financial industry as a whole isn't effectively regulated in terms of the types of financial instruments that are traded. Hence our problems with massive underwriting of mortgage-backed securities.
The financial industry has too much bureaucracy and paperwork - not enough sensible regulation and with that I'm 100% in agreement. Why not treat financial instruments like drugs are treated by the FDA? Each new financial instrument would need to be studied, approved, and it's distribution controlled for the public benefit. We could reduce reporting burdens for financial houses, but increase common sense controls on the types of securities that actually serve a public benefit. That would be my vote.
I'd like to add to this. In addition to checks and and balances being eroded, the ever increasing technological advancement and efficiency of our economy means that welfare for the unemployed is even more important. Instead of chasing unrealistic employment goals with central planning, we should just install adequate social welfare.
We need to start accepting the fact that near 10% unemployment could easily be equilibrium in a modern economy like the US.
I really hope that 10% unemployment IS NOT an equilibrium for the US, but I agree that all the major increases in US productivity lately are not being shared evenly among the working class. Capital (held ever-increasingly by the wealthy) is being used to increase productivity and grow their wealth, but those benefits are not passed on to average Americans. That happens now because you don't have to employ more people to make more money - not like 30, 40 or 50 years ago when you had to employ more workers in your factory to sell more and thus grow your wealth.
So I guess productivity going up isn't attached as strongly to more employees being hired, and that does imply the potential for larger, structural unemployment (though probably less than the current 9%). It also means that trick-down ideas of a "factory owner using his money to hire more employees" are increasingly irrelevant.
Exactly. We need to start addressing both culturally and politically the fact that unemployment in a modern economy is going to get progressively worse as it increasingly requires less manual labor and more intellectual prowess to create value.
The only way to deal with it is proper social welfare, because you can't just "create jobs."
We could have a freer market and near full-employment if we replaced all our social welfare programs with a single minimum living stipend (you apply if you make below it, and if you qualify, get a check for the difference), and abolished minimum wage. It would save tons of money to as so much complicated and unnecessary administration of multiple agencies would be eliminated.
Sadly, a proper social welfare system is exactly what the US refuses to implement. From healthcare to unemployment to disability.
The economy is fine. It's not booming, but companies are flush with cash. The only thing wrong is unemployment, and the only option to deal with it is some form of welfare. The other option is to let the number of unemployed get to a point that social unrest starts becoming a problem.
We could have a freer market and near full-employment if we replaced all our social welfare programs with a single minimum living stipend (you apply if you make below it, and if you qualify, get a check for the difference), and abolished minimum wage.
I disagree. A minimum stipend, at least in the way that you described, would create a perverse incentive. Let's say this stipend is $20,000/year. Why should anyone who makes $5,000/year and get $15,000 free want to work harder to earn the same amount?
A slightly better take on this is to have some sort system were it always pays to earn more. For example, you get 1/3 of the difference between what you earn and $30,000. Under such a system, if you earn $10,000, you would get $6,667 for a total of $16,667. If you earn $15,000, you get $5,000 for a total of $20,000. Thus, it always pays to earn more/work harder.
Personally, I don't like either idea. In my opinion, things like the minimum wage only serve to create unemployment. By making it more expensive to hire workers, companies find other means of being more productive, such as automation or illegal labour.
Well they could only qualify if they were looking for work, disabled, or a senior. People who literally choose to do nothing but are able to work should be exempt.
You could abolish minimum wage if you had a system of welfare that covered everybody adequately.
Rather than having an increasingly small portion of the population work 40 hours (and often much more) a week to provide for the living of all members of the population, why not have more people work for less time?
I understand that there are forces at play that make this difficult, but if we are willing to steal from some people to give money to others it seems like we would be morally no more wrong to say that people may only work some smaller number of hours a week from now on, with this and that exception for emergencies.
I would say that the checks and balances that kept our country strong have been steadily eroded, with the result that he describes.