Yeah thats what I mean about not agreeing with everything he says. Bush was in the blcak when he came in wasnt he, but pissed it all away on two wars.
But still its an interesting listen, to a degree I get what he is saying about the law no longer working as well as it should, but then I wonder if it ever really did.
The US is in an interesting position because it has such a reach in it's
foreign bases. Their defense spending is vast - like half their entire income, and it has been this way for some time - inconceivably large sums of money has 'disappeared' into the accounting ether. On September 10th, 2001, Rumsfeld admitted that they had 'lost' 2.7trillion
dollars of defense money. it is speculated that this number has doubled or trebled since then (under Bush the junior)
The other thing with Ferguson, is that he has dined at the top table - he has attended Bilderberg and shared space with the
great and the good. (aristocracy, banking, political and business royalty). He will have listened to their hopes and fears and heard their explanations and rationale. They will (one assumes) shift some or all of the blame onto greedy peasants, drunk on easy credit and socialist welfare. They won't (I presume) see their role as enablers, profiteers/racketeers, pimps and pushers in all of this financial mess. Fractional Lending. Derivatives. Sub prime mortgages, etc..
So his story is going to be biased as to where he heard it first. But I take your word for it, and will make time to look at the lectures in more detail. If you yourself are interested, you should read the David Graeber article on the history of debt http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2009-08-20-graeber-en.html
Unlike Ferguson, he is completely impartial and tells it like it is from an anthropological perspective.