Have to agree with his entire view. 2:39 long, I think it ran longer but cannot find anything else on this. Listen to what he says at 1:41, this is exactly right, they are preventing the correction, what they need to do, like I have been saying over and over again and agree 100% with ron paul, is to let the correction OCCUR the way it should without and programs and government intervention. <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jDlaYXEtKgk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jDlaYXEtKgk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
Of course he's right. Here's the thing - you can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time.... ...you can never, ever fool all of the people all of the time. When the truth sinks unto the sheeple, like a giant, fluffy turd, then you'll see the effects that a decade of destruction has wreaked on the core economy and standard of living of middle class America, and the fallout is literally so profound that even now, no one really gets 'it.'
To those who think the government should have let all the banks fail, how do you respond to the statement that it would have been pure chaos and immediate depression if the big banks failed? I always think less government is better and I agree the the government should not interfere with the financial system(impossible with the fed I know), but whenever I say this to anyone they always say something along the lines of "if most of the big banks failed there would be 0 credit for anyone and all other businesses would have gone bankrupt do to no credit". What do you look at that makes you believe it would have not been anarchy.
You are simply bringing up the "moral hazard vs systemic risk" argument again. Ie. govt intervention or just let nature take its course. I think that argument is kind of old. The question is whether or not the stress test is worthwhile or not. I vote no, because the banks constantly go through stress tests (through day to day operations). The gubmint is simply trying to tell us that they have a handle on this. Well they might finally have a handle on what happened 5 months ago, but I simply do not trust them to keep up with what is happening in real time.