Post 2008 Suspicions

I will readily admit this is a jump to major conclusions type of deal. I am not even saying any of the people I reference have any clue.
But heres the deal- 2008 the world learns about "Too big to fail." Corporations already knew about lobbying tending to be more lucrative than whatever one's original business was.
Many also already knew they could, as large businesses, accept regulatory (and other costs) demands imposed by the governement, and in return they would be safe from competitive pressure. But "too big to fail" is another level.

And I am convinced that somehow, many businesses- very probably these large social media companies with valuations that make no sense from any economic perspective- are shaping American politics explicitly to gain a "too big to fail" status.

Most of the alternatives political positions that have sprouted since 2008 are sympathetic to large socialist government action, such as socialized healthcare and ideas like the universal basic income. Additionally, there's this recurring issue of people being shut down by various social media outlets, which in turn, leads to calls for social media companies to be regulated. A regulated Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc...- being treated as a utility means they would basically have a monopoly and be relatively immune to competitive from smaller, more innovative competitors. Additionally, since these guys are basically communications for a planet, that means they can figure out who to persuade to make them TBTF, and suddenly the American people will pay for the bad risks that they take, much like we pay for the financier's bad risks.

Below is commentary on an interview of Richard Spencer done by Bombard's body language. It is very interesting; she feels the whole thing is basically improvisational acting. Of course, my question is why? There's not much there except a European identity, which, frankly, doesn't even work in Europe because European identity is based on much smaller regions- as we can see with the Catalans, Venetians, Scottish, etc...



I have always noticed that this identity stuff should be met with a admission that our rights are violated and we need private property and freedom of association back. But this is seldom mentioned. Instead we have people who accept a high level of socialism on 'both sides.' If this is an artificial discussion created and paid for by wealthy people who want to use government to defend, maintain, and improve the position they are already in, well, then this starts to make more sense.