PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS - Economy Will Break In May 2019



let's start with your your take on the government you wrote an article no one trusts the US government not even the American people talk about you know because interestingly I just wrote an article that I think that the Democrats should put together a kind of an umbrella issued that looks at too big to fail businesses billionaires and we can talk about that getting rid of billionaires getting rid of and I added getting rid of big government or at least looking at it and making sure that it's not being abused and it's as lean as possible and I've already been attacked by Democrats for attacking the Holy Grail or something but but you know it's about government I think that the stats you gave are startling I mean twice as many respondents regard the US government to be a top problem than regard immigration American see Washington to be six times the problem that health care is some pretty amazing numbers there and so it seems to me that that we need to be looking at the size and power of big government and I think most on the Left would agree about military but it's also about welfare for big corporations and things like that too but so what did your article say talked about yes well Rob is what best as I remember that was I was just reporting on polls both domestic and foreign polls which if I remember correctly view the United States is the biggest threat to peace and have less confidence than us than they have in Iran and Russia and it's not so and I think I just said well actually the farlis don't think very highly of us but apparently need to do the American people because then I gave this other poll results and I don't know which which polls they were he's gallop gallop so no way it was yeah Gallup poll was a Gallup so I was just reporting on the on the polls I think that people you know it may help your bottom up revolution they're beginning to catch on that they get total our lives and you know the weapons of mass destruction and Iraq didn't materialize the nukes and ran didn't tear lives and so on and so on and they are now suspicious of all the good news about the economy because they don't experience it in their own life when you can't get a full-time job you have to work part-time jobs and you you know it's some point all the propaganda wears out and and I think they see through this Venezuela thing and so they kind of feel like I can't trust Washington that there's some kind of agenda running the show it's got nothing to do with them and I get told all these explanations that whatever the agendas are but it's nothing that's doing them any good so I think that's basically mind my take on it if you you know it could well be the establishment the beach they hollered or whatever we want to call them whatever that are they were counted all simply propagandizing everybody and her body would forever go along with the agenda because they they spin it in a way that they're supposed to appeal to the public or at least cover up what they're really doing but it looks like it may not be working for there's more more suspicion there's more more suspicion of the print and TV media there's more suspicion of all the interference with alternative media on the Internet all the efforts of Google and Facebook and Twitter and everybody to filter things with control and algorithms and so on and so we may be getting for the first real time the kind of public suspicion that is needed if things actually hard to have a change it's the old line now you're not paranoid if it's really happening well yeah it's entirely possible that they're losing control of explanations people who control the explanation you know and also the public has to notice that whether it's CNN MSNBC or New York Times the worst post where they all say exact the same thing it's almost like this reading the same strip handed to them you you never find any difference in the coverage you you know the story and one on Venezuela for example is the same as a story on the other they whatever they want to talk about it's always exactly and since almost the same and also the absence of other aspects of the story right not just what they're telling it's what they're not saying – yes there all the sudden what they don't tell you is the same and what they do touch and you know I was I got into the media by accident it wasn't my tension it was just there was a great media interest in the explanations I was given given giving people and so I got drugged in by the media it wasn't my career goal I wasn't sent out to be a journalist but in those days you would get some different explanations and to figure out to get some idea what really might be going oh and you had to read a variety of sources because you there would be some different takes and some articles would have some of the information than the other newspaper would know the other TV show wouldn't and so on but today you just turn to one you know what the official story is you basically cannot find out from the American TV media what is the state of anything in reality so we try adopted news to fit make up for that yes well that's what I'm saying alternative media you try I try there other sites and so now we have thanks to people like you we have we have a better chance of getting some idea what might be really going on hey you know you might want to give a shout out to Sheila samples as well while we're while we're doing this well Sheila listen you know she's the best copy editor I've ever run across in my life and if it weren't for her my art my websites archive would be we have a trillion typos misspellings wrong census and everything you know said it yeah she'll is it been a long-term volunteer editor at append news coms she's one of our three managing editors and she's amazing and she's amazing you know I've had many copy editors you know I've got a dozen or more books including Harvard University Press Oxford University Press I've had all kinds of Connor had anybody like Sheila and you know sometimes I can read my own thing six or eight times and it's got 1520 still catches every whenever yeah she's great so so but let's stay with this topic here no one trusts the US government not even the US people you know I believe in some of the big aspects of government I believe in Medicare and Social Security and I I believe in having a defense that that can keep us safe I think our military is insanely over bloated and and out of control I mean there were reports that trillions of dollars have gone unaccountable and that shouldn't happen but I think that we need to take a close look at government and I'm a lefty I believe that that we need to have some centralized functions but I also believe that we need to do things as much as possible localized so I'd like your thoughts about it how would you talk to people who generally are on the Left who like big government how would you address them and talking about how big government needs to be dealt with in any way well you know I think the old terms that are used between the Conservatives the liberals and a big donor I don't think that's the right way to think about it I myself believe that a society has to be humane and so it has to have social functions that make life possible for everybody whether they people who succeed or fail you don't just you can't just say well this is a Darwinian society and you are the maker then you go down so I you know government has to be humane there has to be a safety net there has to be public provided goods and services there's no doubt about it so I think that argument is is the wrong argument like you social security yes of course you have to have it you're not a civilized country if you don't unless of course you're a country of independent farmers who have big families then they have their own social security system as long as you prevent the banks from taking the land away from well that's the problem globalization has done everything you can to destroy independent farmers that's right so so I don't think it's a question of whether you have a social safety net or aspects of socialism fact I think we should be we should have a one payer national health system the cost would drop dramatically because in our current system there has to be profit at every level and then on top of so that pushes the cost way up and then on top of that and every level they have to have all of this regulation and fraud prevention and that pushes the cost up if you look at how much of a time is spent in complying with paper anti-fraud paperwork as opposed to medical care it's frightening how much time how many resources how much of the doctors time it dropped jobs away and what we've seen is is this incredible lie and fraud that it will cost more reality that it would say corporations the ton all the I think it's a hundred seventy million people who have health insurance through corporations those corporations would be able to save a ton of money on health insurance and pay people more and not only that but people would be able to leave their jobs because it wouldn't be addicted to health insurance for from one company that's right I think the cost would would collapse dramatically because it takes profit out at every level yeah but what about what I mean but I'm asking you to criticize government too but I was just I was just clearing the back I'm not some conservative who wants to be sure there's no social welfare system okay okay so what I think the way you think about government and I think they're only accurate way is you have to look at it basically it's a private enterprise and it's used by the organized interest groups so the government is not an independent factor yet is a puppet of the military security complex Wall Street pharmaceutical industries the the extractive industries timber mining oil I have enough experience in the congressional staff and in the administration to know who writes the bill it's not the congress of the staff members the bills are written by the powerful lobby groups that fund the campaigns including the israel lobby they write all the bills they bring them and hand them to the Senators in the consulate and they that's for the bills come from oh wait a second no but you said including the israel lobby that's gonna get you labeled as an anti-semite well if you even if you even complain that israel's hurting itself by the way it treats the Palestinians that makes you an anti-semite and if I was Jersey would make me a self-hating Jew that's what they call me okay so I think we I think that anti-semite it used to mean somebody who hates Jews and wants to do harm Jews but now it means somebody who wants to protect them by saying hey hey don't do that that's not a good idea you know like to be told you don't want to go step on a rattlesnake you might oh yeah I'm not worried about that I think that's they've overused it to try to shut people up and it's it's wearing out but what but what I'm and I'm not seeing anything now especially about the Israel lobby I'm just saying any powerful group that makes campaign contributions these this is the source of the agenda for the government and you have to look around you know look at Wall Street it got deregulated right they got rid of glass-steagall right and we've had crisis ever since and a new response to the crisis which if we get to it later probably means even a greater crisis in the future we we can't get out of wars we can't a trump can't normalize relations with Russia because the military security complex needs an enemy to justify its 1000 billion and your budget you know a thousand billion dollars is a lot of money you've got to have some justification so it's got to be a big enemy non-state terrorists don't qualify but in a sense what you're saying is that government has already been privatized by lobbyists and industry that's right and it you know really almost from the earliest days it's been but as its scope got bigger you see it used to be the states were more powerful and so there was more constraint on the government because it was local it was directly affecting people when Lincoln destroyed the states rights then you got more centralization and then you got more of it during the Great Depression so that the power is centralized in a way that it's easy for the lobby groups that essentially provide the campaign funds for the members including not just the house of Senate but also the president and if you look at who gets supported to go positions it's usually people from from the interest groups you know this has been look what they've done to the environmental movement Cheney ever since Dick Cheney in the George W Bush administration they put in looters and and all that to run the EPA so you look look there was a economist at University of Chicago named George Stigler he won the Nobel Prize he's dead and gone but when I was a student he was a very important economist wrote one of the main theory books that people used in graduate schools and he said it these many decades ago that that the problem with government regulation of business I mean he of course conceded that it was needed he wasn't arguing against regulations but he said the problem with it is that it always gets the regulatory agency of the government always gets captured by the industry that it's regulated and so that what happens is the regulations end up protecting industries making it even better for them yeah protecting them or or giving them special rights privileges opening up public resources to them you know getting letting them plunder so I remember I was a graduate student and this made a big impression on me and it's affected the way I've thought about government ever since and so yes its price its privatized in the sense it's agenda it comes from the campaign contributors so now we need to do a brief show ID and then when we come back I'd like you to talk about what solutions you would propose this is the rob hall bottom-up show sponsored by op-ed news.com available on Pacifica Radio Network recive radio network iTunes stitcher SoundCloud I'm Rob hall I'm the host of the show I've got a new book coming out the bottom-up revolution in May my guest for this show is Paul Craig Roberts the assists former assistant secretary of the Treasury his website is Paul Craig Roberts so Paul what do we do about this well Rob it's hard to do anything one is if you could get money out of politics that would help for example the the big industry groups would still have a lot of influence but if your election is not dependent on their money you're not their vassal so if you could get they campaign money out of politics you would have a situation where there would be more independence on the part of members of the House and Senate and they could consider other things not just the demands from their campaign contributors so that would be one big improvement if money left politics another big improvement would be if you could somehow everyone could understand that any form of regulation can have unintended consequences it can be dangerous it's not a panacea and so you have to look at it with skepticism whether you're for big government or little government the regulation can have unintended consequences it can be abused it can do the opposite of what you thought and this is often the case and such that the the focus stays all this regulation if you had and you have to have the same thing you have to have the same skepticism about people who tell you you don't need regulation for example when Alan Greenspan and Larry Summers and the SEC chairman told the Congress that weekly books leborgne should not be permitted to regulate over the derivatives because markets are self-regulating people should have said wait just a minute wait what you mean everybody knows that over-the-counter derivatives were very dark opaque instruments of course they've got to be regulated and she knew that and she was the head of the Commodity Futures Trading Corporation which was supposed to be regulating these but the D regulators came in Greenspan Larry Summers I forget the SEC Chairman's name there but he was a guy with a lot of prestige at the time and they all went in and blocked care and what the Congress had testified and said you we have to prevent this and so she wasn't allowed to regulate them and so we're you know what happened we had that fantastic blow-up in 2007 and 2008 and the consequences of that are all going missed out of the news and people don't know about them it's all been packaged hidden away but what what are some of the unknown consequences well the response the Fed was to you know its main constituent so the Federal Reserve or the big New York banks so and of course they the executives of these big banks are the board of directors of the New York Federal Reserve I don't know if you knew that or not but that's the case so in the York Federal Reserve Bank is operating on the Fed that's where all the market participation comes from you know if they go in intervening in the bond market stock market returns mortgage wherever so instantly they went into the mode of protecting the New York banks and what was that well they printed huge sums of money to buy up the trouble derivatives from the banks such that the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve expanded from something like eight or nine hundred billion to over four trillion dollars now that printed money if any money had gotten directly into the consumer we would had a hyperinflation the prices of goods and services food we would had a hyperinflation because the output of goods and services do not grow by anything like this five-minute so where'd the money go well it went into financial assets and we got this fantastic bull Marvel this huge rise in stock prices rise and bond prices the way you get low and zero interest rates you drive up bond prices because the interest rate the price of bond they they move in opposite directions so what says the bond price goes way up the interest rate goes way down and by its first so so we now have this Ponzi scheme almost this what is it 26,000 downs and it's based on all the money that the Fed pumped out purchasing troubled securities from the banks and all the money went in the stock prices there was stock price inflation instead of service and products right and now but you see the the but the reality doesn't support the price because there's not that kind of profits and if you look at the price earnings ratios I've gone up radically the the profits don't justify these real retail sales don't justify the growth in consumer incomes don't justify and so they have to keep it propped up so every time the market tries to come down to adjust the Fed steps in and pushes it back up by bonds S&P futures they go in and buy S&P futures and stops of the climb in the market so you you see how many times the markets tried to go down and it's arrested so we have this propped up market the other way that's happening is also with stock buybacks that's a huge oh that helps the Fed keep the market up and that's also what happened with this Trump tax break that 85 percent went to these big corporations and the extremely wealthy and that's what they ended up doing with it they did stock buybacks that produce the same effect right I don't know if the tax cut had anything to do the bad backs the buybacks are cheap for them when there's such low interest rates because it doesn't cost him anything and carrying the charge and then and what the the buybacks do is you know Congress years ago passed a law that you couldn't pay an executive more than a million dollars a year and still deduct it as a cost of business unless it's performance related and performance relative means the stock price goes up if the stock price goes up they can have multi multi millions of bonuses so most of the income of the top management comes from bonuses not from their contracted salary and so what drives the bonuses up is they use all the profits of the firm and any money they can borrow to buy their own stock because when you buy your own stock pushes price up so then they say well look the price of stocks going up so I can collect all these bonuses it's multi-million dollar bonuses so this has been a big contributor to the worsening of the income distribution but probably most important aspect of this is it shows you that they're not really profitable enough to justify the share price because if they were actually making the kind of profits that accounted for those high high share prices they would be reinvesting the money not buying back stock that they would say wow look how profitably our let's expand business so the money we'd be going into plant and equipment more regulated could they could there be regulations put in place to prevent buybacks that probably should be yeah I don't know the history of it or or why you know I think they were probably rare in past decades I like I say I'm not knowledgeable about this but I don't remember at all my years of graduate study in the years from hours of economics professor disc being initiative buybacks so I think it's something that's new and I think it came in because of the regulation holding down corporate pay for a million dollars see like I said every regulation has an unintended consequence exactly yes it's a good example you know I think if they hadn't passed that trying to say well you know how can you pay president more than a million votes president of company and so we'll make it if you do you can't write it off as a cost so unless they said it's so then they find some way to create a fate before it's a buyback stock so what do you think about this new talk about raising the income tax over ten million dollars to 70 percent I think when you start raising taxes on investment income you discourage savings and investment and it used to be we understood that the way a and economy grew was by encouraging savings and investment now in my opinion what is been far more hurtful to order people than lowering the tax rates is altering of the jobs the minute the corporations began moving the high productivity high value-added jobs that paid middle-class incomes offshore this is when they began in piracy the workforce and this is when the real serious changes in the fairness of the income distribution began because when you move a job offshore say when they when this started for example an American manufacturing worker making $25 an hour and that job can be moved to China at the time for 25 cents an hour well this enormous difference in the cost of labor went directly in the profits went directly into bonuses to management and in to capital gains to shareholders and this is the way these huge fortunes were made when I was assistant secretary of the Treasury in the in the Forbes 400 list the 400 richest people there were only two billionaires and only one I was a multi billionaire he had maybe three billion dollars you see today if you've only got three billion dollars you're not even on the list now that's a huge difference I mean I think the guy I think I think I've been writing about this for eight years I think that it should be illegal to be a billionaire there's no reason that anybody needs that much money I've asked anthropologists what would tribes and bands do if somebody owned half of the resources of the tribe pretty consistent it's either kick them out treat them like they're insane or kill them well you see Rob this is I I agree with you but this is the wrong way to America because the they're billionaires is because they were allowed to move American jobs offshore abroad to take them away from American people and give them to the Chinese and the Indians and others Natalie fix it the weld you obviously when you can for this reason why did they do this a lot of the corporations really didn't want to move offshore because they didn't want to desert their hometowns they were important people in their hometown I mean now I know from personal experience of a large firm the the the president the chairman were locals the home headquarters was local always been there they were important people the community they supported all kinds of organizations the corporation's provided all kinds of employment and they wanted to leave it that way and Wall Street came to them and said haha get your butt off shore right now or we are gonna find a takeover and take your company over and then we'll develop Wall Street I think I keep sayin would be did part of the problem with Wall Street investment bankers because they said look how much more money this corporation will make if you're not paying people and Akron Ohio wages but you're paying them in in China and so you get this company offshore now or we're going to find a takeover and we don't live it offshore so you see what I mean it comes right back to Wall Street well you're talking goldman sachs and that their ilk yeah you know but you see now because when they busted up glass-steagall any bank can be a commercial bank see that's good glass Siegel's separated commercial I mean could be an investment bank glass-steagall separated commercial from Investment Banking well when you repeal it then every bank can be in your best foot back and so it's not just golden Sachs it's JP Morgan Chase its Citibank the usual de box the Bank of America and I think to a much lesser extent Wells Fargo it does other things but are the usual suspects they're always the ones that come up for this though yeah but you but you see again you have to understand it doesn't really original to them you know it originates in a series of things and everyone sees an opportunity in it it's everyone jumps in to push it in their direction and they did look you know suppose the Soviet Communism had never clapped if it hadn't probably China would not have opened to foreign capital and neither would it have India in your socialist China wouldn't and didn't want any for example they didn't trust capitalism in a socialist country China certainly wasn't going to let foreign capital in China but when certain Union collapsed it created the impression there was only one way to run the economic system the way in the United States and the Western I don't remember the end of history don't remember the book the end of history there's only one economic and political system and we have it in this propaganda in affected India and huh and they both changed and went capitalists gave up the socialism so they opened up and they have they had vast underutilized supplies of labor and that's why the labors of chief it's just huge overhangs workers on the labor market and as long as that lasts the labor is gonna be cheaper compared to what it was here so the so the auction starts some people did it only on others who didn't want to do it the reasons I told you they were part of the local community got pushed into it with threats so I'll go millions of high productivity high value-added jobs that produce middle-class incomes and also produced tax base for cities counties and states so now we have to think about it this way Rob the external costs the social cost of all sharing the jobs that is the cost not borne by the firm's that are sure the jobs let's take say Apple Apple moves its production to China all right it lowers its labor costs but the cost of that was all kinds of lost tax base for cities counties States trouble for pension funds lost income for former manufacturing workers who were working here you see so when you add up all those cost I'm sure they exceed the increased profits that Apple got from moving our syrup but Apple doesn't have to bear those costs they are external they are social costs it's the same it's like polluters if I've got some kind of industrial and manufacturing enterprise and I produce pollutants and I dump them on the environment then that's an external cost to me I didn't the firm didn't pay for that cost the environment is going to pay right so we need to do another show ID and then we're going to talk about externalities so you know years ago we I had you on with know'm Tomsky which was a lot of fun and he's another and who always brings up at the costs of externality so quick show ID and then we'll come right back the rock call bottom up show sponsored by FN news.com available in Pacifica Radio Network progressive radio network iTunes stitcher SoundCloud a top n news.com slash podcasts my guest for this show is Paul Craig Roberts sees the a former assistant secretary of the Treasury he's the chairman of the Institute for political economy and his website is Paul Craig Roberts work so Paul you're talking about externalities now my understanding is we should be making companies accountable for the costs of externalities yeah and they have been to some extent and sometimes the way you try to make them accountable actually place in their hands you know like this carbon tax I'm not quite sure that that is the way to handle externalities where you let them bid for who gets to be the polluter yeah you know there's so many once this starts it's hard to control it because on the surface to ordinary people it can look like a good solution but it can actually be a village stuff surfing and if you try to make that point you can get shouted down and since everybody isn't trained to see these things they don't know who to believe be there and yes it's hard to control you this is why I think ideological conflict within a society is very dangerous because it prevents unity it creates disunity and to deal with the kinds of problems we're talking about you have to have a lot of unity there people but people the people who are left-wing they're using that way because they've got some incorrect interpretation of how the world works the same for people who are right now they've got some wrong interpretation the wards and so out of this they come ideological clashes I tried to avoid any kind of ideological position and try just to look at the facts look at the reality and then try to make a decision that works and and so I think it's wrong for conservatives to resist regulation I get wrong for liberals to put so much faith in it because as I've said if it's any break back it bites back and I think that it's wrong to faint and libertarians or an example of this they think that well you know people in the private sector they're and moral and make the right decisions but if they get government there there can corrupted by power and they make the wrong decisions and of course the Liberals believe obviously they believe people in the private sector are greedy and selfish and make the wrong decisions but the same people are in the public sector they do the right thing for the people well both of them are full of it the government is a private organization it serves the most powerful private interests the agenda of these private interests determine the agenda go you have a sleep at night the one solution you gave was get money out of politics get money out of politics but also just have people aware that government is something that whoever can get their hands on it uses it from their benefits it's a career thing you know when I was in when I was an assistant treasurer one of the things that struck me was the people in the government weren't there to help people or to do the President's agenda they were they after their personal thrill and they were using their office not to advance whatever agenda the president but to advance the agenda some group whose purposes they were serving while in office or when they left they would very happy now one a one element that I think is important for government is transparency you know they say that sunlight is the best cure is there a way do you think that we could be assessing the behavior of these people so that they were actually measured as in terms of how well they're working for the their constituents for the people rather than for special interests think about national security this is beside national security standard classified or for example take a property owners association the board the board will hold close members close meetings and the members can't find out and you go and you say well we're going to sue you because there's some sunshine loss the county has to have open meetings and then they'll come and then they'll probably see we're not a government we're not affected by the sunshine people they don't want their decisions examined and not entirely for bad or wrong reasons sometimes you have to make a decision is gonna make the enemy certain people and you just assume that not be known because you've got enough trouble and you don't need this it's not just people who are misbehaving and hiding their misbehavior so there are good reasons sometimes not to reveal things even though there are plenty of bad reasons I think that things get put under classified rate ratings just in order that they can continue to exercise power and they can continue to do whatever they want they got an agenda different from what people think I think that transparency and open government and and even in non non government is a very bottom-up kind of a thing it's where everybody gets to see what's going on when it comes to decision-making processes that that affect everybody and the opposite where you have secrets where you have opaque government and decision-making that's top-down and it's designed to like you say help people to hold on to their power and that's wrong well I agree it is wrong and but it's sort of the nature of governments even the nature of small things like property owners assistants we can change that's what well but see again Rob I would emphasize that a homogeneous United Society can not a disunited well you see once you go multicultural diversity identity politics and you get people at each other's throats it's very difficult because the blacks will say well the whites are doing this for them although I should say well the blacks are doing this for them well the women will sit about the man know the man about the women a homosexual is about to have my second question when you get societies so divided as how business you have a home a time because there's no unity and because everybody sees everybody else as somebody who wants to take advantage of them or victimize them well my book in bottom-up revolution what I say in that is we need to have connection consciousness we need to understand that we're all connected to each other we're all connected to nature and that's the way that we shift from I to we thinking and it's the we thinking that's going to unite us so that we can stand up to these powerful forces when you first have to get rid of identity politics because it dis unites us and it is the leading ideology of the Democratic Party what but how would you define identity politics well identity politics came out of cultural Marxism and it has replaced the traditional Marxism which you had the working class and the captain she had class interest you had the class interest of the working class class interest of the capitalists of the bourgeoisie and these interests were in Marx irreconcilable and so what identity politics does you there's no longer a working class it's no longer in capsules there's the heterosexual white male he is the victimizer he has taken the position of the capitalist and everybody else the women the m'naghten racial minorities who worldwide are not minorities the homosexuals transcend there are victims of the white male and so and so it's just a form of Marxism except that the working class in identity politics is now the trumpet Lawrence is now the what the trunk deplorable so the trunk deplorable okay so the denser Hillary Hillary wrote off the working class there the trumpet warbles a bunch of quite victim answers and that's to elected Trump and all these other good people aren't victims and you can see it now everybody yes everywhere everywhere and so almost every debate that falls in this thing of identity politics and it's now the official ideology the Democratic Party so what's the solution I don't know you know I'd like to go back to the old Marxism the working class and the campus it goes but that's that was not just Marxism that was the capitalism of the 60s – well but it was Marxism this came from Marx and it had a long tradition and it was the socialist and it all came out of Marx and are you embracing Marxism well you people don't even know Marxism means I can't really answer that I'm just saying that this distinction was what's useful in that the Democratic Party represented the labor unions or the workforce and the Republican Party represented the business and so there was balance in the system because they got their funding from different places so the Democrats were supported by labor unions and the Republicans were supported by business contributions so there was a balance in the political system nobody could run away with it well what happened with with the Clintons and beginning of all showing just reunions despaired yes yeah they're down to next to nothing and and so where does the Democrats get the money from the same people the Republicans do the same thing so now both parties have funded by the same groups the military security complex Wall Street the pharmaceuticals the energy miner you see what I'm saying so so there's no longer any balance some political system there was no difference what was the difference between George W Bush and Obama such same war same lives same everything who wrote the Obama Obama care you think Obama did it right no the insurance companies the private insurance companies wrote it why because wow look at the policies everybody has to you have to pay these premiums or you get fined and furthermore the policy for most people you can't afford to use it because the co-pays and the duck this is so high and and when that went into effect insurance company stocks all went up because the profits you know because they wrote that they wrote the bill you know the Democrats I mean I'm sure the political Democrats are wise to know but the people out there they don't understand this was written by the insurance companies for the insurance companies yeah they don't know that so they're out defending Obama care they're defending the profits and insurance come so I you know that's that's the big thing when you had a working class in morale when you had a working class that was a form of unity because the blacks were working in the auto factories with the whites and they had the same interest they wanted good working conditions good benefits good pay they had no reason to be at each other's throat they were unified against the employer well all this has been broken up now you know whites or they victimized box that doesn't globalization and globalism have a role in this what globalism is it's like it reduces the constraints on private corporations from plundering it's easier for them to plunder and that's what the Asian free trade treaty the Atlantic free trade treaty or whatever they were partnerships whether they're called what those do they have nothing to do with free trade they remove the ability of corporations to have to obey the laws of the countries in which they offer and regulations and regulation in other words France has a law against GMOs well under that free trade partnership wherever they call the damn thing if Monsanto can they can sue trick the French government because this law interferes with their profits right and the lawsuit is settled in the French Quarter it's settled in a corporate tribunal yeah but with unnamed people possibly yeah so we got a couple minutes left I want to I want to get your ideas on the Democratic primary and their candidates have any thoughts about any of them I don't think any of them can make any difference and and I think the Democrats are ruining themselves they shouldn't be lining up like nice white people there's no payoff in that they shouldn't be carrying on about Russia gay is no evidence of Russia gay it's a hoax created by the military security complex to stop Trump from normalizing relations in Russia because they need an enemy and the Democrats jumped on it but goes oh there was some man who didn't we got excuse for Hillary's failure to and it's just they you know this is they're ruining themselves just like the mainstream media is with the American public they look at this they shouldn't be lining up against the Maduro in Venezuela Maduro is elected this other guys somebody we pulled out of a hat he's never even been a candidate in the presidential election how can he be appointed president by us this is stupid for the Democrats to line up with this it's stupid of them to insist on everybody having to make an apology every time they open their mouth that any that any of the twelve announced candidates or any better than any of the others no see Bernie Sanders if he had stood up to Hillary I would say yeah but he showed he didn't have any guts didn't have the balls to say hey you've distilled the denomination for me if he had done something but see he oh he got run over – he just – let him run over him you have these these women I like their guts but they take positions that are too far out and then they end up having to apologize because they said something so every one of us had to apologize you know what about Omar and Ilhan those who have been criticizing Israel well I think you should generate to criticize Israel yeah and I agree with you 100% so I mean they're not saying we got to kill the Jews or anything they're simply making the kind of criticisms we make about the United States well got a rap it's the end of the Showtime




Comments
  1. no one here has set any dates for any collapse .. it is only the posters hook to lag you into the interview so it can sink some truth and good information into the sheoples heads who are all asleep at this time If You get my meaning

  2. Dr Roberts is a breath of fresh air. Not only a brilliant economist, but more importantly, a person of honesty and integrity. “The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie. "One word of truth outweighs the world.” 
    ― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *