Worse, the risk that all the failings of financial capitalism, accumulated over 40 years, will become apparent simultaneously is very high: markets built on the flimsiest of foundations, such as the zero cost of capital that most banks have enjoyed for the last decade,
Zero cost of capital for banks? When?
We’ve driven up the cost of capital for banks since 2008. Insisted they hold more capital. Investors have demanded higher returns in return.
Banks have enjoyed near zero cost of funds this past decade, true. But anyone writing about banking had better know the difference between capital and funding, no?
And think through Snippa again. If banks had a zero cost of capital then they’d have lots of it. And that would be good in an emergency, not bad, right?
Banks don’t make money on low interest rates. They don’t like low interest rates.
Add banks to the list of what he knows nothing about.
The “facts” are selected and presented to suit whatever hair-brained idea he happens to have at the moment. Does not matter what he’s said before; does not matter that the idea falls apart when it meets reality and logic.
He’s not talking to people with economic knowledge or experience; he’s just trying to influence the gullible leftists into demanding more centrist “anti-capitalist” policies, so that he can grab a slice of the pie for himself.
It’s all about Spud’s pie.
That boy needs to be tested for long-term loss of short-term memory.
Among other things.
“the risk that all the failings of financial capitalism, accumulated over 40 years, will become apparent simultaneously …” is zero since there are indeed some failings and certain of these act in the opposite direction to certain other failings so they cannot become apparent simultaneously.
There are some failings but they are outweighed by each of (i) the benefits and (ii) the failings of alternative economics systems.
Much as I hate that sack of shite Murph debt is everywhere and at colossal levels. If that unravels the crash is on.