I put this on science because it is economics is a social science, but if rembar or anybody else wants it removed I'd understand.

Moving this video to rottenseed's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

*beg

Sending this video to Beggar's Canyon to plea for a little attention - beg requested by original submitter rottenseed.

Here's the full video: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279&q

I meant to post it, but never got around to doing it.

Very informative...Almost a sift..just a hair over the *long mark..

Invocations (long) cannot be called by waxxx because waxxx is not privileged - sorry.

good call on the *long. Thanks a million.

This video has been flagged as being at least 10 minutes in length - declared long by rottenseed.

Really important info!

I've watched half of the second video, and they propose to abolish private lending at interest, just letting the government print money to finance its spending. There is a couple of problems with this:

1. If the government is elected like in US, it would be motivated to print more money to coincide with elections, to increase it's electability. This was seen with Carter administration putting pressure on the Fed to lower interest rates (thereby increasing money supply), that were raised to battle stagflation. Fed didn't bulge, Carter got voted out, and Fed managed to conquer the stagflation crisis. US government being forced to borrow from the Fed puts a check on irresponsible spending, likely to prevent hyperinflation episodes like in Russia or Yugoslavia

2. If there's no private lending with interest, how would promising ventures get funded? Surely we couldn't have some government bureaucrat review funding for every start-up

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by notarobot.

Awarding enoch with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.