The EyeOpener Report- Why Government Regulation is a Lie (and what you can do about it)

BFP VideoEvery time we see a systemic failure such as the 2008 collapse of Lehman Bros and subsequent market panic, the inevitable question is "what is the government going to do about it?" Just as inevitably, the answer is that the government will pass more legislation, or even give more power to the very regulators who failed so signally to stop the crisis from occurring in the first place. The assumption is that the regulators are the defenders of the public interest and that they only need more money and authority to properly fulfill their mandate.

Quite the contrary. The pattern that has emerged over decades of experience is by now undeniable: the regulators that are designed to oversee the system are not just inept, but actually complicit in the creation of the crises themselves, safe in the knowledge that no matter how spectacularly they fail their budgets will continue to increase and their leaders will continue to be praised as defenders of the public interest.

Find out more about this topic, and the real regulatory solutions that exist in the modern age, in this week's EyeOpener Report with James Corbett.

Watch the Preview Clip Here:

Watch the Full Video Report Here (Subscribers Only):

[jwplayer mediaid="22177" image=""/]


*The Transcript for this video is available at Corbett Report: Click Here

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVDs.

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.


  1. Bill Bergman says:

    Three Cheers! and three references

    George Stigler, “The Theory of Economic Regulation”

    Ragu Rajan and Luigi Zingales, Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists

    Robert Higgs, Crisis and Leviathan

  2. tonywicher says:

    I like the idea of competition between private and public agencies. In a situation such as we are in where the government has been captured by international banks and corporations, a citizen-organized regulatory agency is a good alternative. It is also a great idea to find out what your bank is doing with your money. Put it in a local bank or credit union, and make an appointment with the bank manager to discuss the bank’s policies.

    On the other hand, there is no substitute for honest government regulation, especially of banks and the financial sector. Remember, it is deregulation, not regulation, that led to the current financial chaos. In particular, Alan Greenspan led a 20-year fight to repeal Roosevelt’s Glass-Steagall banking act of 1933, when commercial banks were required to divest themselves of the speculative financial instruments that had caused the crash, and the depositor’s accounts were insured by the FDIC. To be licensed to function as commercial banks and get FDIC insurance, banks were to be examined by the Comptroller of the Currency to ensure that the way they used their depositor’s money conformed to prudent banking standards. There are bills in the House and Senate to accomplish this, HR 129 and S 985, the “Return to Prudent Banking Act of 2013”. To reinstate this law at this time would bankrupt Wall Street and the whole international financial oligarchy while preserving what is left of our economy and freeing the country to start an economic recovery using a credit system. Needless to say, Wall Street will kill to prevent this. This Glass-Steagall legislation was the foundation of Roosevelt’s New Deal and gave us a strong and stable economic foundation for 50 years during which this country became the economic powerhouse of the world. This same FDR knew what he was doing when he appointed Wall Street crook and booze-runner Joseph Kennedy to head the SEC, because Kennedy did a great job of regulating. The thing to understand is that Roosevelt wanted strict regulation and Kennedy served him faithfully. Now instead the Presidency is being occupied by a Wall Street stooge. Our government has been hijacked by international banks and corporations, and our main job as citizens is to overthrow this fascist regime and get our country back. The first step is to study history and organize to bankrupt Wall Street by passing Glass-Steagall.

  3. CuChulainn says:

    this is most distressing, since Corbett does great work on civil liberties and terrorism

    consumer groups warning about GMOs however commendable are here disingenuously cited as though this kind of initiative could restrain the financial cartels that control our economy; and Joe Kennedy’s record at SEC is dismissed without discussion because of his past

    we are asked to believe that since regulatory agencies have been captured, they should be done away with altogether–Rubin, Greenspan, Levitt and the gang of thieves who have confiscated global wealth over the last couple decades with such free market innovations as unregulated OTC derivatives agree with James Corbett

    well, as Corbett would say, “you are winning”–Glass Steagall was repealed, the markets have been effectively deregulated, and the notion of the bonum commune–the common good, general welfare–is definitively on the shelf

    and since you’re keen on privatizing the post office, you’re winning there too James, as anyone resident in the US who follows the planned destruction of this and other public services can attest

    because many cops are corrupt all cops should be done away with, because regulations are being manipulated we should hand the whole economy over to the rackets

    this is a crazy train that only Anglo-saxon peoples are perverse enough to ride; more serious folks understand that freedom like everything else is conditional, that you cannot have relatively free markets without regulation to ensure adherence to contracts

    btw I would be interested to learn if Ayn Rand’s books sell in any language besides English

  4. Richard says:

    Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, and good quality food.

  5. Haley11 says:

    I’ve watched a full hour long podcast that Corbett did on this some years ago and thought it was excellent. That being said, I haven’t yet had the time to watch this one but felt compelled to reply to the posters above who keep misguidedly pointing to the partial repeal of Glass-Steagall as proof that regulation works and the sole reason for our economic collapse.

    Please read this concise article written by historian and economist, Tom Woods. Additionally, there are further links and also a book he wrote that addresses these fallacies as well. Glass-Steagall is merely a red herring in deconstructing the myriad reasons for our financial crisis.

  6. This piece is interesting, well done and I’ve learned quite a few things from it. It also shows a Utopian streak in Corbett’s and some other boilingfrogs author’s views which surfaces every time they feel the need to answer the question: What is to be done? They see salvation in some kind of return to the golden age of capitalistic individualism and grass roots democracy which never existed in the first place. It is ironic that the only example which was supposed to demonstrate how people could take matters in their own hands demonstrates the opposite. That Non GMO Project is but a front for the powerful “health food” industry whose only interest is profit just as that of their “regular food” competitors.

  7. Sibel, these comments are directed at you, in particular, but James might want to scratch his head a bit regarding the following.

    1. As soon as the very word MONEY and/or finance is mentioned, all seekers of truth must ask exactly what is MONEY? How is it created? How does it get into circulation? Is it true that only about 3% of paper and coin MONEY are in circulation?–the rest being electronic. What does it mean when one hears that the Federal Reserve “prints” MONEY? What is QE?

    2. What is FIAT MONEY? What are “FRACTIONAL RESERVES?”

    3. This year(in December) will mark the 100th anniversary of the Federal Reserve System. What is this SYSTEM? When James refers to the “system”, he refers to “the establishment”, which is all well and good. But You, Sibel, and Matthew, must come to grips with a very precise understanding of the word “system” regarding the Fed. You will see how the beginnings of the Federal Reserve System(FRS)in 1910 led us to where we are today.

    4. From its’ very inception the FRS has been totally non-transparent by design and impossible to “regulate”. By design, the FRS and its’ 12 member banks belong to a system which, again by design, is very complicated–impossible to understand unless one researches it. It is the greatest Ponzi scheme in the history of the Galaxy! And we are its serfs born unto its web.
    It took me a couple of years to get into the Fed and the Bankstaz(financial terrorists, as per Max Keiser). I have a feeling James knows most of what I’m saying.
    OK, enough by me…it simply takes too long to go into depth. Here are a couple of sites that draw on decades of Fed/bank mechanisms and how they are slowly draining our life blood: and Bill Still created 2 major documentaries regarding my rap: “The Money Masters” and the “Secret of Oz”. Ellen Brown Is author of the great book “Web of Dept.”
    I feel a little guilty asking you to read stuff–I’m sure you have a full plate…but consider the 2 documentaries. Stay strong and thank you!

  8. Oops! I didn’t know you edited out web sites!

  9. CuChulainn, the Rule of Law is the only sort of regulation we need, for no one is above it. All that is required to wield it against an offender is for one to have standing before a court – to show that someone has been harmed, or a contract has been violated, by the action or lack of action of an individual or corporation. The regulator on the other hand is given the leeway to arbitrarily decide who to inspect, audit, fine, license or unlicense regardless of whether the actions of the regulated can be shown to have actually harmed anyone. Whenever it is asked why the regulatory agency harasses the little guy and not the big biz, they say “well we need more resources” – to repeat one of Corbett’s points. Whether it is through conspiratorial capture by the regulated industry or simply through starving for funds by congressional neglect, the regulatory agency is inevitably a poor conduit for the equal application of the Rule of Law.

    What we need is for the people – as taxpayers – to decide who deserves resources and who doesn’t. A very simple way to do this is to allow for a dollar for dollar deduction of donations to not-for-profits from income tax owed. Not-for-profits of the watch-dog type essentially become regulatory agencies, but subject to the direct approval of those who fund them, impressed by the organization’s effectiveness in applying the Rule of Law, whether it be through journalistic reporting on violations, or through the supplying of legal council for those with standing before a court.

    Furthermore, if taxpayers from all income levels could supply the funding, not-for-profit organizations of all types (including charities, schools, hospitals, etc.) would become far more representative of “the People” than such as are now funded by the Rockefellers, Gates, Soros, Koch bros. etc. As the tax code now stands, the ultra-rich have a very disproportionate share in what gets funded, for instance the Rockefellers and their eugenics schemes, Gates, whose vaccination and geo-engineering schemes are as hare-brained as his infamous operating system, Soros with his geo-political intrigues through color revolution foundations, etc.

    This proposal – letting the individual tax payer decide where all of owed income tax goes – would simultaneously starve the federal beast as well as deflate self-important elites.

  10. I just subscribed to your website after listening to your most recent podcasts with the NSA whistleblower and the first Demanufacturing Consent episode with Larry Pinkney (you should give him his own program, he’s a really talented speaker and writer).

    While I agree with the gist of this report about government regulation being captured by the corporations which they’re supposed to be regulating, I wish that you hadn’t spent so much time haranguing against GMO foods. It’s not that the labeling laws are being fought by the companies that sell GMO stuff.

    My criticism is that, in the particular case of GMO food in general, it turns out that GMO (and well-regulated herbicides/pesticides) is actually a really good thing for society, while “organic” farming is basically a waste of money that people in the developed world can afford to waste money on paying extra for, but people in the developing world could greatly benefit from well-regulated GMO products as well as herbicides and pesticides (increased yields for farmers, more affordable food, reduced malnutrition thanks to products like “golden rice” with extra vitamin A) compared to the hippie style of not using those products of science.

    Here’s a New Yorker piece on Mark Lynas, and a link to the speech he gave defending GMO with science:

    It’s a minor criticism though. Keep up the great investigative journalism and I’m happy to be able to support your work with my subscription. Thanks.

  11. CuChulainn says:
  12. CuChulainn says:

    Sibel who presents us with this naive eulogy of capitalism also deplores the passivity of the USA public; she doesn’t seem to see a connection


    The spectacle presents itself as something enormously positive, indisputable and inaccessible. It says nothing more than “that which appears is good, that which is good appears. The attitude which it demands in principle is passive acceptance which in fact it already obtained by its manner of appearing without reply, by its monopoly of appearance.


    The basically tautological character of the spectacle flows from the simple fact that its means are simultaneously its ends. It is the sun which never sets over the empire of modern passivity. It covers the entire surface of the world and bathes endlessly in its own glory.

  13. steveyk says:

    I think the closing statement is a little naive. They wouldn’t create another competing regulatory body to bring trustworthy behaviour back to the civilian backed regulatory body, they would lose trust in all regulatory bodies just like we have with government regulatory bodies. It’s a lose lose situation if these civilian backed institutions become infiltrated. And let’s face it the chances of this happening is high. Just look at our history.

    I know, I’m full of negativity but there it is.

Speak Your Mind