Lone theory on the rise of banking

Investment banking has been under attack ever since the early 2000s and financial crisis. This film canonizes what many young people are growing to think about business in society. A linguistic professor at MIT by the name of Noam Chomsky takes the time to thoroughly layout 21st century America, as he sees it. I've even seen the same sort of ill-feelings towards the finance industry here, with comments that sound kind of like: "banking is value destroying and provides no good to society".

"Requiem for the American Dream"

Noam Chomsky:

Concentration of wealth leads to concentration of power, so we have this vicious cycle in progress. In fact, it was so traditional, that it was described by Adam Smith in 1776 if you read the famous Wealth of Nations. He says in England, the people that were the principal architects in society were the people that owned the society; in his day it was the manufacturers. They make sure that their own interests are cared for, however egregious the impact on others. Now, today it's the corporations and they're following the vile maxim of the masters of the universe - 'all for ourselves, and nothing for other people.'

On students and 'excess of democracy' in the '60s:

Noam Chomsky:

They felt that there was a failure on the part of the schools, the churches, the institutions that were responsible for the indoctrinating of the young--their phrase, not mine. The young were becoming too violent.

He goes on to say this about finance in general:

Noam Chomsky:

The primary business here is business. The director of a major corporation back in the 50s or 60s was very likely to be an engineer. More recently, the directorship and top leadership were people that come out of business schools and learned financial trickery of various kinds. General Electric, for example, could make more money playing financial tricks of some kind than by producing... So that's one phenomenon--its called financialization of the economy

Then he gets down to professionals whom are educated at top universities:

Noam Chomsky:

Schools are receiving their funding from the rise in tuition and not from the state. Now that's a radical change. That's a terrible burden on students. It means that students, if they don't come from very wealthy families, are trapped! Maybe you wanted to become a public interest lawyer but now you're going to have to go to a corporate law firm and by that time you get into the culture and you know you're never gonna get out of it again. And that's true across the board.

The flaw in his argument is a strong philosophical belief

For the record, he's supporting Bernie Sanders. He never explains why or who has organized to 'financialize' the economy and turn the world into a giant scheme benefitting just a few of the total population. He doesn't even seem to have a more concrete theory outside of his belief that the whole world is rigged to benefit the rich.

EDIT: To summarize, my conscious belief is that Chomsky is an unapologetic socialist. America is an open country and ideas are freely traded on the marketplace. But, with the rise of Bernie Sanders has come a rise in discontent with the current strength of the financial world, and even the business world in general. Then I realized that many changes have come from the rise of the financial market, including high volume, more liquid capital markets and new wealth created in domestic markets.

For example, liquid capital markets led to new technology in fracking and drilling and its widespread use throughout the market led to an increase in domestic oil production in the U.S. This reduced the reliance on the Middle East, creating a more stable world in the process, which is why the US was able to scale back its direct involvement in foreign countries, as well as the recent end to the ban on oil exports.

CNNMoney:

Back in 2000, there were just 23,000 fracking wells pumping about 102,000 barrels of oil a day. Now there are 300,000 fracking wells, churning out 4.3 million barrels per day.

This coincides with the rise in fallen angel investing, early-stage investing, or developmental investing in the '80s that was part of the evolution of liquidity in capital markets.

This is just my view on why this theory is just a theory, one that I view as incorrect. I would love to hear other thoughts on this surge in banking and the opposing views that makeup it's controversial existence.