1. Why is it unrandian? You need to organize your medium exchange on some basis. While I wouldn't be surprised to find out that many of the gold nuts are Randians, I know that many top government officials who are big fans belive that strong independent central banks are the way to go. Strong central banks are certainly better in the Randian world view than Congress setting monetary policy. 2. Nope, sorry, you are wrong, it's not just deregulation, the BBC is not just shilling for Wall Street here, someone knew what they are talking about. Computational methods did a lot to cause the Asian and later Mexican financial meltdowns. Wall Street was hiring physicists and other people with strong computational backgrounds left and right in the 80's. These guys made computer models that were supposed to minimize risk, and the models worked great for quite a while. Huge institutions were investing only on the basis of their algorithmic information. The old fashioned investors/partners couldn't understand a thing about the basis for these trades, where they saw risk firms were realizing profits, so the geeks ruled. Rough thing was that there were variables that the modelers hadn't understood or accounted for. Fortunes put entirely into mostly undiversified portfolios were wiped out overnight. I"m sure unfettered regulatory over site had a a share of the blame, but the story they are telling may not be the whole truth, but it is definitely a valid perspective. And just so you know not every member of what I imagine you think is the great financial conspiracy moves between Wall Street and government, not that the it really matters one way or the other, but I can think of at least three top Treasury and FED officials who have almost no Wall Street experience. 3. Bill Clinton had been painted into a corner, he had a Republican congress and to get anything done he was gonna have to play ball. I don't know how much he talked to Greenspan, but he was defiantly trying to be flexible to maintain effectiveness, I would be surprised if he wasn't talking to Alan. Most the political economic stuff in this documentary seems to be told from an unusual perspective one that isn't the standard version, but also isn't inaccurate. Stuff like the Asian crisis is normally explained from the perspective of the "Washington Consensus" or the "Chicago Boys" angle, but that doesn't mean the the version shown here is wrong. It's what I liked about the video, unusual version of events that I've been taught about woven together in a novel way.