i don't want to really argue with any of the points in the video, i just want to kind of point out that being an academic in the neo-liberal era is going to result in picking up some biases, no matter how much one may align against them, and point out a few things that, by being omitted, presented the kind of status quo idea of markets being drivers of peace.

1) the us military (and i'm going to include intelligence agencies in that category, for the purposes of this comment) acts as an enforcement arm on the "liberalization" policies pushed by the imf and similar organizations. that is, those states that don't want to do what they're told are subject to intervention, destabilization and all manners of coups, who will impose violent policies on the population. it's consequently rather inaccurate to suggest or imply that this is a peaceful or stabilizing process. even canada has arguably seen some soft coups over the last several decades (trudeau, chretien).

2) these policies mostly apply to small states, and it's of course a process of extraction. large states, like russia, cannot be controlled quite like this. and, so you don't get this peaceful market order of capitalists colluding for profit; rather, you get the old nineteenth century model of empires competing for resources. and, we saw this all through the cold war and still see it with american policy against russia and china.

now, i understand it's hard to stand in front of a classroom and speak like this in 2014. but, that's a reflection of academia's willingness to tow the line, rather than of reality.