The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 PodcastsKevin Barrett Archive
Falling Into Line: Turning Endless Deficits Into a Power Base
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Michael Hudson Interviewed on Kevin Barrett’s Truth Jihad Radio, 11/15/21

Kevin Barrett: Welcome to Truth Jihad Radio, the radio show that wages the all-out struggle for truth by uncovering all sorts of interesting facts and perspectives that are normally banned, covered up, obscured, spun or otherwise messed with in the corporate controlled mainstream. Today we’re going to the rather complex subject of international economics, but by way of an analysis of empire. John Perkins and Confessions of an Economic Hit Man showed us the debt dimension of empire. Our US empire is the first empire ever that runs on debt more than anything else. And if you want to learn how that works, the place to go is Super Imperialism by Michael Hudson. It’s been recently reissued with a new concluding chapter, and it pretty much breaks it down: It’s a fantastic book, and kind of disturbing, too, that makes you realize how shaky the foundations of our whole world right now are. So let’s talk about it. Hey, welcome Michael Hudson, how are you?

Michael Hudson: Well, I’m pretty good, and it’s good to be here.

Kevin Barrett: Good to finally have you. I’ve been reading your stuff for years, and I just read Super Imperialism actually for the first time, I hate to admit, and it’s quite a masterpiece. I would think anyone teaching a university course on these matters would have to assign it. But I’m not sure that it’s mainstream acceptable enough to get that assignment. What’s been the response?

ORDER IT NOW

Michael Hudson: To this book? The problem is not acceptability. The problem is getting it into the curriculum. I was a professor of economics since the 1960s, and there’s no way to fit either international finance or even money and credit, or the balance of payments, into the curriculum . I don’t think the balance of payments, which is the key to the world’s debt problem today, is taught anywhere. I was told that in 1969 and 70, my course was the only course in balance of payments accounting in the United States. Most economists actually look at economies as if they’re done on barter. And money doesn’t really appear because economists say, “Well, we owe the debt to ourselves, so it doesn’t really matter.” But the “we” who owe the debt or the 99 percent, and the “ourselves” or the one percent that things are owed to in America and internationally (are not the same). Right now, you’re seeing crises erupt throughout the world. Argentina, again, is about to default or repudiate the debt that it owes to the International Monetary Fund that essentially serves as an arm of American foreign policy. And that’s what I discuss in Super Imperialism: how the International Monetary Fund lends money to support governments that are friendly to the United States.

Michael Hudson: And when the U.S. policy, neoliberalism usually, gets these economies in trouble, the IMF will lend money to a country like Argentina to support flight capital. It will enable all of the U.S. corporations in Argentina, and the rich families, to move their their domestic money in pesos or escudo, or whatever they’re dealing with, out of the country into dollars. And then the IMF lets the currency collapse—and in fact, insists that the currency collapses. Because it says when if you can’t pay your debt, the way to repay it is to impose austerity and lower your wages and stop investing in public infrastructure, stop government spending. And so the result of this policy of the IMF with the World Bank right behind it, is to make countries less and less able to pay their debts. And so they fall deeper and deeper into debt and more and more dependent on U.S. official credit. IMF credit and essentially debt is used internationally to impoverish other countries, just as it’s now impoverishing the U.S. economy.

Kevin Barrett: And this all raises the question of why you were the only one teaching this in the universities, given its central importance for history, geopolitics, and the way things really work in the world. And that’s where I wonder whether there must not be some kind of political resistance in the form of a kind of a propagandistic way of pushing particular views of politics and economics coming down from the top. Before I read John Perkins’ book years and years ago, I had no idea that that was actually how it worked. It seems like somebody must not want us to know that this is how it works.

Michael Hudson: Not really. Certainly, the government wants to know how it works. The reason that I taught balance of payments was I’d been working for many years for Chase Manhattan as their balance of payments analyst, and then for Arthur Andersen, the accounting firm that was later closed down for fraud, as its balance of payments analyst. And the topic just wasn’t taught in economics. The economic theory in the universities pretty much ignores money and credit. That’s what Steve Keen and myself and the MMT people at University of Missouri at Kansas City, who have now all been dispersed—Stephanie Kelton, Randy Ray—we’re all trying to say, “wait a minute, you’re looking at the economy as if it’s purely technological, purely physical, and you look at technology and GDP growth, but actually, what grows most rapidly is debt, and the debt is what is slowing the economy down and preventing the economy from growing. There’s an attempt not to look at money and credit created by banks or what they’re creating it for, which is essentially for real estate, for economic rent.

Way back in the 1890s, economics stopped. There was an anti-classical reaction against Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Marx, Henry George, all the people who were talking about economic rent. Most of the fortunes in America were made by economic rent. So the wealthy fortune gatherers and rent extractors promoted a kind of barter theory of the economy. But in terms of what the government wanted, when my Super Imperialism came out, I had thought that probably a lot of left wingers would buy the book. And indeed it was quickly translated into Spanish and Russian and other languages. But immediately, Herman Kahn at the Hudson Institute, a National Security Institute, hired me and said the Defense Department wanted to give me an \$85,000 grant for me to come to Washington…

Kevin Barrett: So they could understand how they’re ruling the world.

Michael Hudson: Yes. They didn’t realize that going off gold for the United States left other countries’ central banks with nothing to keep their foreign exchange reserves in except U.S. dollars, which meant U.S. Treasury bonds—loans to the U.S. Treasury, essentially. And so they looked at my Super Imperialism as how to do it book! And for the next four years, I was going back and forth to the White House and other government agencies sort of explaining this, and there was no attempt at all to to prevent this from being discussed.

In fact, I worked for a lot of brokerage houses who wanted me to explain to them what the foreign exchange effects of American dollarization and the Treasury bill standard were, and America’s free lunch. And Herman Kahn and others said, “Well, look, this is great. American imperialism is giving us a free lunch, and we’re able to get foreign countries not only to finance our debt, but our balance of payments deficit, which is mainly military.” So in effect, foreign central banks paid the foreign exchange costs of America’s military expansion all through the the Korean War, the Vietnam War and throughout the 1960s and 70s into the 80s, all over the world. And again, economics as a discipline doesn’t deal with politics, and political theory doesn’t deal with economics. And so there really was nowhere for me to fit this into the curriculum at all. But the book’s been translated into many foreign languages. There have been at least two editions in Chinese where it sold more copies than anywhere else.

Kevin Barrett: I can see why China would be interested in this.

Michael Hudson: Yes, because if you understand how America gets a free lunch through the dollar standard, if you understand how the IMF and The World Bank are impoverishing countries, then you realize why other countries are trying to de-dollarize, getting rid of the dollar, and why this is causing desperation in the United States, which now has to finance its own military expenses throughout the world with its own dollars. And that’s causing the dollar to go down. It’s causing inflation here. It’s causing other countries to break away from the U.S. orbit and leave the United States isolated. So the United States, when it went off gold in 1971, created a system that gave it an enormous amount of free lunch and foreign money for 50 years. But now that’s ending. It became so predatory and so abusive and so destructive of the Third World, destructive of other economies through the bad economics of the IMF, the bad economics of the World Bank, and essentially the destructive economics of neoliberalism from Reagan and Bill Clinton, Margaret Thatcher in England, and Social Democratic parties in Europe, that other countries are now changing and the whole world is splitting up and fracturing geographically, largely as a result of financial factors, monetary factors, and balance of payments issues. And all of a sudden, the whole emptiness of the way in which economics is taught in the United States is changing.

Kevin Barrett: Well, I guess that’s a good sign. But the good fortune for your book may not necessarily be good fortune, certainly not for the U.S. Empire, or maybe not even for the world. So the first question that arises after reading your book is: If at this point this new block of Russia and China—and Iran is on their side—and various other countries are interested—if this new bloc is going to try to break out of the dollar scam that you describe in the book, the biggest question is, why hasn’t anything like this happened before? Because as you describe, before World War Two, it was just kind of taken for granted that the the country that runs a huge deficit and gets into debt, ends up at the mercy of its creditors. And somehow the U.S. has flipped that around, especially after Nixon went off the gold standard. And rather than the world responding the way that all countries did prior to World War Two by pursuing their own national interests, it seems that most of the world has spent many decades accepting a grossly unfair system in an unprecedented way. So why has the reaction been so bizarre after World War Two, when before that it would have been unthinkable?

Michael Hudson: Well, all along, other countries realized that the system was unfair. General de Gaulle explained how it was unfair already in the 60s. The problem is, in order to have an alternative, there had to be a critical mass. And that meant a critical economic mess. The United States had one way of convincing other countries to go along, saying, “Well, we’ll wreck your economy if you don’t follow our rules and we’ll wreck your economy by doing what we’re trying to do to Russia and China and other countries today.” By imposing economic sanctions and by sanctions, they meant: “You need our exports and you need our market. Where are you going to sell your goods except to wealthy Americans? Where are you going to get your food except from American farms?” Other countries weren’t able to feed themselves, and they weren’t able to find a market because all of the markets were plugged in to U.S. consumption and U.S. foreign investment, and other countries weren’t willing to take the step towards public infrastructure investment themselves. There was somehow an idea that if you privatize infrastructure, it’ll become cheaper. And of course, that’s not the case. It’s loaded down with debt and becomes a monopoly and becomes more expensive.

Michael Hudson: Well, it took 50 years for other countries to develop to the point where two years ago, when the United States imposed agricultural sanctions on Russia, Russia said, “Okay, we’ll make our own cheese, we’ll grow our own grain.” And now two years later, Russia is the largest agricultural exporter in the world. Well, that wasn’t the case during the Cold War years as a result of the awful collective farm system that was over there. Same thing with China. Thirty years ago, China had not developed an ability to produce high technology, goods, cars, aircraft, electricity. It took a long time for other countries to develop. And fortunately (for China and Russia) you had Bill Clinton and George Bush and Obama essentially promote the offshoring of American industry. They pushed American companies to say, “Why hire American high wage labor when you can hire foreign labor?” And the foreign countries have all had their currencies decline, largely because whenever a country has to pay debt, it throws its currency onto the foreign exchange market, and the currency goes down. And what’s really devalued when a country lowers its exchange rate is the price of labor. So all of a sudden, the result of this dollar standard and IMF pro-creditor policy was to make labor outside the United States much less expensive than labor in the United States.

Michael Hudson: So American industry began to move to Asia, not only China, but also other countries in Asia. European industry did the same. And all of a sudden China said, “Well, you know, we’re quite happy to have you come in and build factories here and use our low wage labor. But you have to show us how to build the factory. You have to share your technology with us.” And so the American companies were glad to share their technology since the 1990s and (especially) since China joined the World Trade Organization around 2000. And now other countries say, “Okay, thank you for the technology. We really don’t need you anymore. We’ve we’ve got rich enough exporting to your market. We’ve got (to the point that) we can rely on each other for our own market. We can create our own currency. We don’t need dollars. We have our own printing presses in our countries. We spend our own currencies, yen or or whatever.” And so you can see how all of this has unfolded. And basically, that’s what my book Super Imperialism is about, how this process unfolded and left America all of a sudden without industry and as a debtor country.

Kevin Barrett: And what were they thinking when Clinton and subsequent presidents and the people behind them decided to go ahead and basically export the U.S. productive capacity and move the factories abroad? Did they really believe that was sustainable? Or—there’s a conspiracy theory out there that there are these evil globalists who are out to destroy the United States? Many Trump supporters believe in that. Of course, the Trump supporters also believe that the system you described is actually working against the United States, that the U.S. has been totally generous and throwing away all its money to these ungrateful other countries and so on and so forth. So but getting back to the issue of exporting U.S. productive capacity, why did they do that?

Michael Hudson: Well, you asked whether they didn’t see where it was leading? That’s the wrong question to ask. They didn’t care! The time frame of corporate investors is usually three months to one year. All they care about is the next year. That’s what their salaries are based on. So they knew exactly where it was leading. They didn’t care, because they said “we’ll be retired by then. We want to make as much money as we can as quickly as we can. Our salaries as CEOs are based on how high we can push the stock price. Let’s push the stock price high. We’ll get our bonuses, we’ll get our high salaries, and even if it collapses later, by that time we’ll be retired as multimillionaires.”

Michael Hudson: And there was also something else: They wanted to hurt labor. The Democratic Party has always looked at labor as what Hillary Clinton said: White Labor is deplorable. Employers don’t like Labor. There’s a class war and Clinton —like Tony Blair in England—Clinton revived the class war against Labor. He threw all of his weight behind corporate industry. And the Democratic Party, ever since Clinton and Obama, essentially became the party of Wall Street and large corporate America and the oil industry and foreign investors. And their business plan is to make money as quick as they can, and take their money and run.

Michael Hudson: And so it was perfectly logical to them. Of course, they knew what was happening. But to them, the fact that they were getting rich and labor was getting further and further in debt was actually a bonus. Because they’re really very nasty people. Their ideology is nasty. They want to get rich by making other people poorer. That’s their strategy. The whole business plan of the United States economy for the last 20 years is for the wealthy one percent to get the 99 percent in debt, and for American investors and banks to get Third World countries in debt, and then say, “you have to lower your wage rates, you have to stop unionization, you have to essentially just provide low priced labor.”

Michael Hudson: Clinton and all the subsequent presidents, especially Obama, essentially forced other countries to go it alone, which was the opposite of creating an empire. You can’t have a unipolar single global economy if you force other countries to remain in your empire only by impoverishing their own labor force. At some point they’re going to push back and they’re going to say “we don’t want to be impoverished.” And that’s exactly what’s happening, week after week and month after month, in today’s news.”

Kevin Barrett: And in today’s news, we see claims that this new Democratic administration wanted to change things and push these big infrastructure projects and engage in a certain amount of Bernie Sanders style redistribution and so on—you know, claims that the Democrats were sort of revitalizing the American Left such as it is. You write in a new article about the demise of the Democrats that today’s U.S. political duopoly features the Democrats as having the key role of protecting the Republicans from attacks from the left. And that’s basically all they do. So I imagine you weren’t particularly surprised when these ambitious Bernie Sanders style proposals have pretty much all fallen by the wayside.

Michael Hudson: There was never a chance of them taking place, because the philosophy of the Democratic National Committee that really runs the party is: Well, if we do have infrastructure, it has to be as a giveaway to monopolies that are going to get rich off government grants.

Michael Hudson: There are two kinds of infrastructure spending. The United States in the late 19th century developed the whole philosophy of infrastructure spending. And Simon Patton, who was the first economics professor in the United States at a business school—he was a business school professor at Wharton School—said: “Infrastructure is a fourth factor of production alongside labor, land and capital. But the purpose of infrastructure isn’t to make a profit, it’s for the government to invest and provide low cost essential needs education, transportation, communication and to provide low cost infrastructure so that the American industrialists can employ labor that doesn’t have to pay a high cost for education, doesn’t have to pay a high cost for health care, doesn’t have to pay a high cost for communications or cable TV or telephones or anything else.” Well, all this changed after the 1980s with the neoliberalism of Margaret Thatcher and Reagan and Bill Clinton.

Michael Hudson: They said: “We want to privatize infrastructure instead of having the government provide low cost infrastructure. Our political campaigns are paid for by the big monopolies, and we’re going to give a Comcast and Spectrum the right to charge huge economic rents from cable TV. We’re going to turn our free public roads into toll roads like the Indiana Toll Road. We’re going to turn over the streets and parking meters, we’re going to privatize them, as Chicago did by privatizing its’ meters. We’re going to make America the highest priced economy in the world. And all (the wealth of) this high priced economy is going to go to infrastructure monopolies. And so the the original concept of the Biden plan, essentially the Democratic Party’s plan, is to give its campaign contributors monopoly rights to infrastructure. It’ll be like pharmaceuticals, where the American government will pay the cost of developing a pharmaceutical and then it’ll give it to a drug company, whoever is its biggest campaign contributor, for \$1, and let the drug company make half a trillion.

Kevin Barrett: That’s pretty much what they’ve done with the COVID vaccines.

Michael Hudson: Yes, that’s exactly right. The government paid for developing the vaccine, told its campaign contributors “You can make all you want here, and this is wonderful. Now we can make the Third World countries pay so much money for the vaccine that their currencies will go down and we can employ their labor even more cheaply and get their raw materials even more cheaply.”

Michael Hudson: So that’s part of the system. Infrastructure as the Democratic Party sees it is a travesty of what American infrastructure was a century ago. And they don’t realize that the way infrastructure is financed, and what it’s priced for, is the key. Of course, Bernie Sanders said, “look, American companies won’t have to pay their employees so much money if the government pays for all of their medical costs.” Right now, eight percent of America’s GDP goes for health insurance and health care. That’s higher than any other country, and the health care is much worse because it’s all done for profit and done as cheaply as possible, and it’s been financialized.

Kevin Barrett: So the angry reaction to this that we would expect has to some extent developed, as abroad this new bloc with Russia and China is pushing to de-dollarize, which could take down the empire by preventing the U.S. from running these massive deficits to support its military occupation of so much of the globe. But here in the United States, the angry reaction to it has come through the Republicans and the Trump movement. And those people, of course, are even less interested in keeping public infrastructure cheap and pushing through Bernie Sanders style proposals. They’re even more interested in giving their contributors monopoly rents to make fabulous fortunes by ripping people off. So where will the well-informed, angry reaction to this come in the U.S. political system? Do we need a third party? Or could the Trump movement morph into a more enlightened angry populist movement?

Michael Hudson: You’ve stated the problem very clearly. What you just said is exactly what’s occurring. It’s almost impossible to start a third party in the United States. Bernie Sanders looked into that years ago. And the way that the state laws are written really blocks any third party from getting onto the ballot. The Democrats and Republicans have small print in the laws such that it essentially blocks anyone from doing anything. So when you have someone like Bernie coming in as an independent, he has to caucus with either the Republicans or the Democrats. I certainly don’t see the Trump Republicans being any better, because they’re just like the Democrats. I think of them as the same party. There’s really no difference. But they have different constituencies, and they both are financed by the same campaign contributors—by Wall Street, the large corporations, oil and gas, the pharmaceuticals industry. And it really doesn’t matter… For instance, if you look at last month’s elections for mayor in Buffalo, New York, you had the Democratic Party candidate being a left winger. And so the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic National Party backed the Republican, saying, “We’ll back the Republicans against any follower of Bernie or any progressive.” So you have the duopoly firmly in control, very much like the Roman Senate was in control at the end of the Republic and was able to block any kind of progressive movement. And you have the big media, the New York Times, the Wall Street, New York Times, The Washington Post and the major TV networks just not talking about the kind of things that we’ve been talking about for the last half hour, certainly not.

Kevin Barrett: Well, the progressive movement used to be quite different from what it is now. In the late 19th century, in the early 20th century, it was much more interested in these kinds of issues that you raise. Today, it seems like the so-called progressives are mostly interested in gender pronouns and racial hysteria. Do you think that could be a deliberate strategy by people with a lot of money who have the money to hire Edward Bernays style PR experts in order to hoodwink the average people and get them paying attention to the wrong things?

Michael Hudson: I think that’s exactly what’s happened. The question is, if you were to have a third party or a progressive movement, what are they going to talk about? They’re going to talk about economics, about wages, about economic issues, about debt. And how do you, how do you prevent any movement from coming and talking about economics? Well, the Democrats from already in the 1960s, but especially from the 1980s, said, “Okay, let’s divide the electorate into hyphenated Americans.”

So in the 1960s, you had Italian-Americans, Greek Americans, Irish-Americans. Now, if you just say it’s divided by gender, by ethnicity, by race… what all these different hyphenated identity groups have in common is they’re all wage earners. But the one thing you don’t talk about is wage earners. If you can get people to think of themselves in terms of ethnic or racial or gender groups, then they won’t think of themselves as having the common denominator of being wage earners, debtors and taxpayers and consumers. And if they think of themselves as consumers and debtors, then they’re going to want debt relief, they’re going to want an end of monopoly pricing for consumers. They’re going to want progressive taxation and to shift the tax burden on to the billionaires, not onto themselves. And both the Democrats and Republicans want to make sure that doesn’t happen. So the Republicans have become the party of white working class labor, while the Democrats say, “well, they’re deplorables, we’ll take all the rest and we’ll play them off against each other.”

I don’t know how long that can last before people wake up and say, “Wait a minute, we all have a common problem and the common problem is debt. We’re all in debt. We’re struggling to make a living, our wages aren’t going up while profits are going way up. We’re having to pay more and more to the monopolists, and we’re afraid to quit our jobs and complain about working conditions because then we’d lose our health care and we’d fall behind in our rents and be evicted or we’d lose our homes. This is not the situation we were promised in 1945 after World War Two.” And they’d all say “there is an alternative.”

Well, the Democrats and Republicans have have adopted Margaret Thatcher’s slogan “There is no alternative”: TINA. And as long as people believe there is no alternative, they’ll just somehow blame themselves and they’ll think, Well, gee, we’re a failure. We haven’t succeeded. And they don’t realize that the deck is stacked against them, and they have to change how the economy works systemically. And now that there is an alternative in China and other countries, they can say, wait a minute, it doesn’t have to be this way. Our wages can go up. What China does that makes it so unique is it hasn’t left the financial system and money creation in the hands of banks. The government creates the money and the government can write down debts. So when you have big companies going into debt to essentially expand the economy, the Chinese government can just write it down.

Michael Hudson: The U.S. government can’t have Chase Manhattan or Citibank or Bank of America write down the debts because they’d lose all the political campaign contributions and the banks would create a crisis. So essentially, what’s blocking the United States recovery is financialization. And as long as you have this financialization, which is also occurring throughout the world and is causing a whole crisis in the Third World today—as long as you have financialization, you’re going to have a slow crash. You’ll be getting more and more austerity until you end up looking like Argentina.

Kevin Barrett: Well, “financialization” is a kind of a fancy word that seems to describe the transfer of the economy from Main Street to Wall Street. And it occurs to me reading your work—and one of the great things about your work, of course, is the sweep of history where you can touch on these historical examples from the Roman Empire and even back to biblical times—it occurs to me that the two basic underlying scams at the heart of these processes that you describe are, on the one hand, compound interest, which of course, is mathematically unsustainable, money growing faster than the physical things it can represent; and rent extraction, unearned rent extraction: Somebody has a piece of paper that says, “I own this land or whatever, I own this money, I own this infrastructure, and so you have to just pay me for sitting here on my butt doing nothing because I have this piece of paper I can wave in your face.” And these two kinds of unearned wealth seem to be at the root of so many of these problems.

Kevin Barrett: I’m Muslim, and we’re quite fervently opposed to usury, although most Muslims don’t have the faintest concept of what’s really going on, what’s really at stake. But that core principle of usury being a horrendous sin and something that just needs to be stomped out, and that God and his prophet and by extension the community of his prophet, has to be at absolute all out war with usury, meaning all forms of lending and interest, for all of eternity—that principle is still there. So I’m wondering if you think that enlightening people to this (can help), just like people, when they understand a Ponzi scheme, can avoid being taken in by it. At some point, will humanity awaken and recognize that unearned rents and compound interest need to be abolished?

Michael Hudson: Well, this is what classical economics was all about in the 19th century. Everything from Adam Smith to David Ricardo to John Stuart Mill to Marx, to Alfred Marshall to Thorstein Veblen—the whole 19th century tried to get rid of land rent and economic rent by the landlord class. John Stuart Mill said economic rent is what landlords make in their sleep. It’s unearned income. A classical idea of a free market was to free markets from economic rent and from monopoly rent, from land rent and from natural resource rent. And the idea was that taxes should essentially siphon off all the rise in land values and natural resource values and economic rent. And that was where the world was moving towards until World War One. Everybody expected the governments to play a rising role. And it was in the United States and Germany where government was playing the most active role in promoting industrialization and preventing economic rent, by the U.S. antitrust laws and other countries’ similar laws. These became the leading industrial nations.

Kevin Barrett: Today, economic rent is being opposed primarily in China and the socialist countries. And now it’s called socialism. But it used to be called a free market by Adam Smith. And so this is one reason why in the last 30 years, they don’t teach a history of economic thought in the economics curriculum anymore. They’ve replaced it with mathematics. And so people are not even aware that the whole idea of a free market has turned away from a market that’s free from rent extractors, free from private banking and credit, towards a market free for landlords to get as much as they can and not pay taxes on it, free for the banks to make financial interest and not have to pay income tax on it.

Michael Hudson: One of the big fights over the Biden so-called social infrastructure plan was to say: The most unfair economic giveaway of all is the giveaway to the financial sector in the form of what’s called carried interest, which means trading speculative gains by large banking firms that are manipulating the market. And of all of the proposals that Biden had to tax financial gains, this was the first to go, because the financiers said, “If you want us to continue giving money to your candidates to beat the Republicans, then you’d better drop anything that’s going to attack Wall Street. Remember Democrats, you were the party of Wall Street.” And so they did that.

Michael Hudson: The next most popular proposal that Biden had originally made in his plan was to forgive student debt. Well, again, the corporations said, “Wait a minute, you’ve got to have student debt being paid because the students have to pay the student debt. They’re going to have to go to work and go into the labor force and take whatever we are willing to pay them in order to not fall behind in their student debt.” So essentially, what is holding down wage rates and holding down working conditions in the United States is finance and economic debt.

Kevin Barrett: And the rent extraction seems to be also happening on the other end with the current inflation, which is not just the result of all of this COVID money that’s been blasted out into the world, mostly through through the big corporations and banks, but also the monopolization of the various goods and services that we all buy. That’s happened at the same time that the small businesses have been driven out of business by COVID. And now Wal-Mart and Amazon are the only options. And since they have de facto monopolies, they can charge whatever they want. And hence prices are rising very quickly. Do you think that that’s a big factor behind inflation, this consolidation by the big retail outlets?

Michael Hudson: Sure. The last year and a half since COVID have been a bonanza for the one percent. The stock market and bond market have gone way up. Corporate profits have gone way up. And for the 99 percent, for the workers, what’s gone up is their debt. They’re talking about eight million families about to be evicted from their homes, who were unable to pay rent while there was the COVID crisis and they lost their jobs, especially low income jobs. And the moratorium on back rents and back debt is supposed to expire in February, and it’s already in fact expiring in some states. And you’re going to have millions of people thrown out of their homes. And that’s why you’ve had the private capital funds use this money that they’ve cleaned up in the stock and bond market in the year and a half of COVID to buy property. And now I think over a quarter of all of the homes that are being bid up in price are being bought by private capital companies. The idea is they want to turn America from a country of homeowners into a country of renters. That’s their business plan, and they’ve vastly succeeded. Obama started the process by not, by bailing out the banks and breaking his campaign promise to roll back the junk mortgages to realistic mortgages. Instead, he met with his campaign contributors. He invited the Wall Street bankers to the White House and said, “I’m the only guy standing between you and the mob with pitchforks. But don’t worry, I’m on your side. My job is to deliver my voters to you.” And that’s just what he did.

He immediately evicted two and a half million homeowners. He did not write down the debts, and he did not throw a single Wall Street bank crook in jail, despite their massive rip offs and financial fraud. He did not even take over the insolvent banks like Citibank, like Sheila Bair, who was head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, had urged him to. The problems we’re having now in a way can be traced back to the Obama administration. The Federal Reserve has been single handedly financing the stock market and the bond market. The government has been giving away monopoly privileges to increase profits, to help support stock and bond prices, and that’s been a disaster for the economy at large. But again, I’m not sure where one can fit this into the academic curriculum, which is why most students decide that economics really wasn’t very interesting to get a degree in and went into other subjects like anthropology or sociology or whatever. And that’s why you’re talking about these problems on radio and the internet, but it’s not being talked about in the New York Times or The Washington Post.

Kevin Barrett: Well, here’s a question for for you, since you’re an economist. This is something that I wouldn’t be able to figure out myself. My dad was a professor of finance as his final job, his last job, and we used to discuss these matters. He was a pretty conservative, common sense guy who thought differently because he’d actually run a business and then retired and became a professor of finance. And he thought that a lot of the profession was overly theoretical. He believed in the regression to the mean: that is, if the price earnings ratio is out of whack, it’s going to have to return back to the norm and so on. And so one of those ratios that I believe is a little out of whack right now would be the percentage of people’s incomes they’re paying for their housing compared to their overall income, right? Supposedly it always has to return to some—I don’t remember precisely what the numbers are here, maybe you do. But the question would be: If these rent seeking oligarchs succeed in buying up enough of the U.S. housing stock, are they going to be able to permanently change that ratio so that it’ll never regress down to the mean? Maybe you have the right numbers. But let’s just say normally people spend 25 to 30 percent of their income on housing, and let’s say it’s up to 35 to 40 percent now. Can they permanently change that and force people to continue to pay 35 to 40 percent of their income for housing if they buy up enough of the housing stock? Or do you think it’ll inevitably bounce back to the historical levels?

Michael Hudson: I don’t see it bouncing back unless there is a change in the tax system. And if there was was a change in the tax system, the whole financial system would collapse, because 80 percent of bank loans in the United States are mortgage loans, and these mortgage loans to homeowners are guaranteed by the government up to the point where they absorb 43 percent of your income. And this is the legal maximum in the United States. Well, imagine that Fannie Mae, the government mortgage insurance agency, says we will guarantee the loan so that you will not make money, but you can’t take more than 43 percent of the income because otherwise it would be unstable. When I came to New York in 1960, there was a rule for banks. Banks would not make a mortgage loan for a home that absorbed more than 25 percent of the borrower’s income. So already we’ve had the income cap go from 25 percent to 43 percent. Well, just imagine the status of workers now if 43 percent of their income goes for housing. In New York City, it’s often 50 percent of their income.

Kevin Barrett: In San Francisco, it’s 200 percent. (laughter)

Michael Hudson: This is why the United States cannot industrialize as long as the house prices absorb this high a rate of income, and as long as the banking sector is supporting this, and as long as the political parties say we will not tax real estate so that all of the rising land value will be able to be pledged to banks to pay interest instead of to pay taxes. Essentially, it’s the (lack of) taxing of real estate in the United States that has subsidized the increase in housing prices, because housing prices are worth whatever a bank will lend to buy a house. If you have to go to a bank, and if they lend more and more and this money isn’t taxed away, the price is going to go up. So you have the government policy, the bank policy, all trying to promote this high diversion of income into paying land rent. Again, this is the exact opposite of what Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill and classical economics and the whole 19th century had advocated. This has priced American labor and industry out of world markets.

If you have to pay 43 percent of your income for rent, then even if the government were to give you all of your goods and services for nothing, all of your food, all of your clothing, all of your transportation for nothing, you’d still have to pay so much money for rent and for health care that you couldn’t compete with labor in Asia or the Third World or even Europe. And so this is what has essentially excluded the United States from having a successful empire. It’s the greed of the financial sector, basically, and the takeover of the government by the financial sector here as happened under Margaret Thatcher in England and then Tony Blair. You’ve had both countries essentially enter permanent austerity programs, and the only way to cure this is for housing prices to go down. But if the housing prices go down, then the banks will go broke. That’s why Obama said he had to support the banks: because if he’d actually lowered the housing prices to realistic levels, that would enable America to survive, but the banks would go under. Until you’re willing to restructure the banking system, you’re not going to be able to industrialise the American economy.

Kevin Barrett: Ellen Brown has been on the show many times, talking about the need to make banking a public utility. And I recently read Stephanie Shelton’s The Deficit Myth. She argues that we can fix all kinds of problems and bring back full employment and have all sorts of goodies simply by having the government spend more money. This is the modern monetary theory position. And maybe that is true to a certain extent in the U.S. due to these privileges that you describe in Super Imperialism. I doubt if it’s nearly as true anywhere else, for all these reasons that you’ve been describing. Do you think that if the U.S. ever does opt for more of a Bernie Sanders style modern monetary theory approach, would they quickly run into the limits of spending money due to these international factors?

Michael Hudson: No, there’s no limit to how much domestic money you can create to spend domestically. Right now, the banks are creating all the credit. And Stephanie says you don’t have to rely on banks to create credit. The government can simply create the credit instead of the banks, and it doesn’t have to charge interest. It doesn’t have to go into debt. Stephanie was my department chairman at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, and we’ve gone around the world together giving speeches and lectures on this. Her logic is quite correct. The problem is that modern monetary theory has been taken over by somebody in a much stronger position than Stephanie—by Donald Trump. And Donald Trump said, “We can just create all the money we want.” And he cut taxes and went on spending and he was willing to do it. Stephanie was the economist for the Congressional Budget Committee and was an adviser to Bernie Sanders. But the Democratic Party gimmick the election to make sure that Sanders and people who were advising him would not have a chance of getting into government. And they chose the Donald Trump version of modern monetary theory, where the government creates money and gives it to the banks. This quantitative easing has created trillions and trillions of dollars, but it’s all been used to buy stocks and bonds and package mortgages. It hasn’t been used to spend into the economy, which is what Stephanie wants. So the question is: if the government’s going to create money, is it going to be spending into the economy, which is what the MMT group that I’m a member of is advocating? Or is it going to be given to Wall Street just to support stock and bond prices and promote financialization? That’s really the the great issue financially in economic policy today.

ORDER IT NOW

Kevin Barrett: Ok. And I think that’s a good place to end it. So thank you so much, Michael Hudson. I appreciate your fantastic landmark book, Super Imperialism, as well as your ongoing columns, which people can find at the Unz Review, that’s U.N.Z., where I’m also a columnist and probably where many of you are listening to this radio show. I appreciate your great work, and I hope that down the line you can come back on the show and we can talk about some promising solutions, or at least some more positive political developments than we’ve seen so far.

Michael Hudson: Well, you’ve asked all the right questions, and our discussion shows that there are a lot of powerful interests preventing a solution. So I’m not sure when we’re going to have a realistic discussion about that, but it is important for people to know that there is an alternative.

Kevin Barrett: Ok, well, thank you. Michael Hudson, great conversation. I look forward to talking again sometime. Take care.

Michael Hudson: Thank you for inviting me.

(Republished from Michael Hudson by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Economics, History • Tags: Academia, Dollar, Imperialism, Wall Street 
Hide 136 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. RogerL says:

    Thanks so much for the transcript – I can’t listen to or watch recordings, and this subject is incredibly important.

    This statement by Michael explains so much:
    So the question is: if the government’s going to create money, is it going to be spending into the economy, which is what the MMT group that I’m a member of is advocating? Or is it going to be given to Wall Street just to support stock and bond prices and promote initialization? That’s really the the great issue financially in economic policy today.

    So the bottom line is that we (the bottom 99% of society) are screwed until we form a coalition large enough to force the government to start spending money into the economy, and stop spending money into Wall Street.

    This gets back to how critical it is that we set aside the the divide-and-conquer wedges, and work together for the good of all of us.

    • Replies: @onebornfree
    , @onebornfree
  2. Thanks for the transcript, Kevin! Good stuff! Excellent economics lesson for the little people. Makes a case for consumers to self-regulate, especially when they go house shopping.

    • Agree: showmethereal
    • Replies: @RogerL
  3. RogerL says:
    @Jim Christian

    Jim, please tell me what you mean by “self-regulate”.
    Its probably really important, but could mean all kinds of things.

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
  4. onebornfree says: • Website

    Kevin Barrett: “Today, economic rent is being opposed primarily in China and the socialist countries. And now it’s called socialism. But it used to be called a free market by Adam Smith.”

    That’s because Smith was _not_ promoting a free market – neither were the other classic economists. Government control of “economic rent” ( or of anything else, such as banking) _is_ socialism. Which means that Smith was essentially a socialist disguised as a free- marketeer.

    [MORE]

    Barrett and Hudson are both promoters of government control of rent and of banking (and god knows what else!) , therefore they both qualify as full-on socialists, with Hudson being an admitted Marxist.

    Practically all of Marx’s economic theories were based on the classical economists utterly disproven labour theory of value- which means that practically all of both classical and Marxist economic theory is false: https://mises.org/library/bread-mine

    Boiling It All Down:

    But leaving that important issue aside, and just “boiling it all down” to the essence of Hudson’s and Barrett’s core arguments/assumptions, what we have here amounts to two individuals fantasizing, advocating and promoting the controlling of rents, landlords, banks and banking by the government.

    Really? They want the likes of a Biden, a Harris, a Pelosi, a Schumer or a Nadler, or a Trump to decide how much rent I should pay, and to whom? They’re kidding, right?

    This “just” in: there are _no_ government solutions to _any_ problem in this world. Government _causes_ the problems, it can never solve them.

    “There is no remedy for the inefficiency of public management.”Ludwig von Mises

    “Everything government touches turns to crap” Ringo Starr

    “The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic” H.L.Mencken

    “Government doesn’t work” Harry Browne
    https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Why_Government_Doesn%27t_Work

    “The planner is a potential dictator who wants to deprive all other people of the power to plan and act according to their own plans. He aims at one thing only: the exclusive absolute preeminence of his own plan.” Ludwig von Mises

    “Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings.” Ludwig von Mises

    “Regards” onebornfree

    • Agree: Truth Vigilante
    • Thanks: Kali
  5. Anonymous[349] • Disclaimer says:

    The argument for deindustrialization by offshoring productive capacity, adjusting taxes to favor the capital asset rich, and imposing an austerity policy leading to the suppression and ruin of the working class in a financial sense takes us exactly where?

    There is no limit to this process. The working poor and those immediately above can be driven into starvation by this policy. Where does it end? This brings me to ask the question, where does Covid fit, if anywhere, into this scheme? Covid “vaccines” as a death dealing bioweapon seems primarily directed at the working class. If the purpose is depopulation and even somewhat selective depopulation then how does the destruction of the working class and the labor they represent fit into the economic policy outlined above?

    It would seem that if you are going to downsize the level of economic activity then downsizing the supply of labor would follow. Hence the kill shot appears. However, this would also diminish the demand for housing, increase supply, so eventually the price of houses would be affected and the real value of these houses would tend to vanish. The same consequence for all types of consumer goods would seem an obvious corollary.

    So how do these wealthy rent extractors expect to survive a diminishing real economy? Have they no long term view or is it entirely a range of the moment policy for them? If range of the moment is this still true for the very top of the financial pyramid as well? Do any of them have any idea of how to keep out of the implied smash or are they mad enough and blind enough to just ride the economic trajectory into the ground?

  6. onebornfree says: • Website
    @RogerL

    “This statement by Michael explains so much: So the question is: if the government’s going to create money, is it going to be spending into the economy, which is what the MMT group that I’m a member of is advocating? Or is it going to be given to Wall Street just to support stock and bond prices and promote initialization? That’s really the the great issue financially in economic policy today.”

    Wrong. The question is: Why do we need government creating money in the first place?

    Subsequent questions about what that fake money gets “properly”spent on by the very criminals that created it, are exercises in pure,futile fantasy – the criminally created “money”, of course, will be spent on exactly whatever who or what the criminals want to spend it on. And you know who that is, right? Clue: themselves and their acolytes and cronies.

    “Regards” onebornfree

  7. @RogerL

    I’m from DC,/No.Virginia, a land of boom and bust real estate fortunes. Couples go for ALL they can possibly afford. These are couples that have high earnings, they will buy into anything. It’s driven by the wives of course, and here we are, millions of home loans in the 40-plus % of income. These are loans of 125% to value, given the interest rates are so low. And that’s just the DC region. Couples OUGHT to self-regulate in this process but they do not. And don’t look for the agents and loan officer to intercede on their irrational exuberance. Hence, for their own good, they should self-regulate.

    Capish?

    • Replies: @Muralidhar Rao
    , @RogerL
  8. @onebornfree

    Libertarianism with its nonaggression principle is a great heuristic. But as a totalizing ideology it’s madness.

    What you and other kool-aid drinking ultra-libertarians don’t understand is that all groups, whether families, local communities, small businesses, schools, “government” entities, “corporate” entities, “organized crime” mobs, (not much difference, really), etc. develop rules and enforce them one way or another. The way to minimize onerous and unjust rules is not to remove all rules governing what rich and powerful people do with their money. That road leads to oligarchy, which is where we are now. It’s an Orwellian nightmare.

    We need to impose extremely strict, even draconian rules on big money in order to free up the rest of us from the unjust, onerous, ubiquitous aggression of the oligarchs, who hold the real power in our society. That’s the realistic way to put the non-aggression principle into practice.

  9. onebornfree says: • Website
    @RogerL

    “So the bottom line is that we (the bottom 99% of society) are screwed until we form a coalition large enough to force the government to start spending money into the economy, and stop spending money into Wall Street.”

    [MORE]

    No. The government is yours, and societies enemy. You’ll all remain to be screwed just as long as you continue to believe it’s your friend and that government taking your money and “spending money into the economy,” (or into anything else), will create a wealthier society. It won’t. Never has, never will. It’s a scam.

    Get the federal government entirely OUT of the economy- including getting it out of ALL infrastructure spending, something which at least in the US, it has no original constitutional authorization for.

    Current, massive state interference in real estate and rental markets is the reason for the ongoing massive distortions in those same markets.

    So what do Barrett and Hudson promote here? Even _more_ state interference in these markets (of course! 😂).

    Beware! Just as the state is your real enemy, so are its myriads of promoters and sycophants, such as, for example, the afore mentioned individuals , who fake- intellectualize their “arguments” with fancy, French- sounding, psuedo- intellectual word concoctions such as “rentier capitalism”, in itself a meaningless phrase.

    “Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure” Robert LeFevere

    “Everything government touches turns to crap” Ringo Starr

    “The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic” H.L.Mencken

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @coolhand850
  10. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Kevin Barrett

    “We need to impose extremely strict, even draconian rules on big money in order to free up the rest of us from the unjust, onerous, ubiquitous aggression of the oligarchs, who hold the real power in our society. “

    [MORE]

    You are living fantasy land if you believe that government can, and will do that.

    This “just” in: There are _no_ government solutions to _any_problem in this world. Government “solutions” always make things even worse than they were before the “solutions” were enforced.

    This also “just” in: the oligarchs got so rich _because_ of government regulations . Just like yourself ( and Hudson), they _love_ regulations because they understand that more of the same will make them even richer and more powerful.

    The free market is their eternal enemy, they’re terrified of real competition because it destroys their state enforced business monopolies which are otherwise guaranteed obscene profits.

    “Competition is a sin.” John D. Rockefeller

    As Gary Allen observed:

    “Why are the super-rich for socialism? Don’t they have the most to lose? I take a look at my bank account and compare it with Nelson Rockefeller’s and it seems funny that I’m against socialism and he’s out promoting it.” Or is it funny? In reality, there is a vast difference between what the promoters define as socialism and what it is in actual practice. The idea that socialism is a share-the-wealth program is strictly a confidence game to get the people to surrender their freedom to an all-powerful collectivist government. While the Insiders tell us we are building a paradise on earth, we are actually constructing a jail for ourselves.” Gary Allen, “None Dare Call It Conspiracy”

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @Biff
    , @Punch Brother Punch
  11. Anon[179] • Disclaimer says:

    Hudson makes the error believing reform is possible before collapse. The past 15 or so years have shown our elites will stubbornly continue until the power gets cut off. The system isn’t going to be reformed.

    Biden = Andropov

    Plan accordingly

    • Agree: Kali, GomezAdddams
  12. Here is an interesting theory circulating in Chinese internet:

    Whenever the US government reduces deficit a recession follows. Has been true since the 1800s.

    • Agree: GomezAdddams
  13. Biff says:
    @onebornfree

    My guess is you are a disgruntled low wage time clock puncher, that hates anyone who has a shinier new dime than you.

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  14. Herr K says:

    All these “leftists” have their monopolies on certain themes, which they milk for rent. Hudson has “debt” etc., another typical trope is “military”. And happily they all ignore the “Great Transformation” which is ongoing, which is worldwide and fully includes China, Russia, Iran.

    And actually the “Great Transformation” has finance at its heart: it is about the financialisation of every aspect of human life and nature (“green” -> financialisation of CO2, “covid” -> financialisation of natural immunity).

    Why do these “leftists” completely ignore the greatest threat to humanity ever? Is it just fear (the feminisation of “the left”)? Plus corruption?

    • Replies: @JM
  15. @Kevin Barrett

    Since money more or less equals power, how do you impose limits on power without power? I mean without resorting to violence.

  16. @Kevin Barrett

    You wrote:

    We need to impose extremely strict, even draconian rules on big money in order to free up the rest of us from the unjust, onerous, ubiquitous aggression of the oligarchs, who hold the real power in our society.
    That’s the realistic way to put the non-aggression principle into practice.

    No one is disputing that the extremely rich and powerful oligarchs that obtained said wealth from financial and political chicanery should be dispossessed of their ill-gotten gains and prosecuted for the manner in which it was obtained.

    There is more than enough documented evidence to prove that, wealth accumulated in one generation is greatly diminished in the generation that follows, and mostly dissipated by the third and fourth generations.
    This is because the entrepreneurial skills and/or ruthless business acumen is rarely transferred to subsequent generations. (Not to mention that those born into wealth seldom have the drive and determination to accumulate wealth like their forebears).

    Why then, you might be wondering, have the Rothschilds, the Sassoons, Schiffs and Warburgs etc (ie: the old money family dynasties), managed to maintain, and indeed increase, their phenomenal wealth ?
    The answer is simple enough.

    They have managed to utilise GOVERNMENT to enact laws that enable them to maintain their monopolies, impose tariffs and quotas (in the alleged interest of protecting local jobs when in fact it’s just to keep out better priced, better quality products from more efficient foreign manufacturers).
    Governments enact laws that restrict new entrants and shackle them with an outsized regulatory burden, governments use taxpayers money to subsidise inefficient oligarch owned businesses and the working class is hurt the most, by paying more for less.

    And, as we saw in 2008/09, it was Government that SOCIALISED losses by BAILING OUT the likes of Goldman Sachs, J P Morgan, Citigroup, AIG and the rest, by getting the politicians they owned to enact legislation like TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Programme) and getting Federal Reserve (also owned by the same cartel of usury bankers) to print endless trillions to dole out amongst their Zionist cronies.

    ONE politician stood out as the MOST VOCIFEROUS opponent of said bailouts, and he said that ALL these corporations deserved to go bankrupt for the reckless business practices that put them in this position in the first place.

    And that politician was a LIBERTARIAN – none other than Dr Ron Paul.

    Hardly a murmur was heard from the left and the Trotskyists like Michael Hudson.

    BOTTOM LINE: What we have now in the U.S [especially] and to a lesser extent in other western nations, is NOT Capitalism. Real capitalism entails NO subsidies, NO preferential treatment, no imposition of Tariffs , quotas or excessive regulatory burden that disproportionately affects small and medium sized businesses from gaining market share.

    Any system that advocates MORE GOVERNMENT REGULATION (as you Kevin and Michael Hudson advocate), will invariably have said oligarchs CAPTURE and CONTROL said governmental players and bureaucrats to enact initiatives that MULTIPLY THE WEALTH OF THE OLIGARCHS.

    The one and ONLY solution is to strip government down to a bare minimum, abolish entire government departments, leaving that money in the private sector where it will be used far more efficiently and yield much better outcomes for all demographics of wage earners.

    YES, we will see Captains of Industry rise and accumulate vast fortunes like a Henry Ford, a REAL entrepreneur that created REAL wealth for America and played an integral role in making America prosperous and an industrial behemoth.

    No one begrudges wealth attained through being able to satisfy customers needs with world leading products.

    And, as rich and powerful as Henry Ford was, that Ford family dynasty collectively (as a fraction of GDP), is today a small fraction of what it was 100 years ago – as new entrants, more efficient and entrepreneurial competitors stole market share.

    THIS is the essence of real Free Market Capitalism. ie: to the winner goes the spoils.

    And that ‘winner’ will change from generation to generation (sometimes multiple times within a single generation), and the ladder of upward opportunity will be made available to those who strive hardest and deliver the best products and services.

  17. Instead of disecting the chore problem, THE PRIVATE PRINTING, the good professor is suggesting to tax American home owners even further…

    „It’s not federal, and there’s no reserve“. The chore problem is the Jewish privatization of the dollar, the jewed up dollar and the forced “socialization” of the Jews printed fakes the world over.

    The Jewish Federal Reserve System is the issuer of Federal Reserve Notes, which are considered U.S. dollars. These are put into circulation by lending them at interest to, among others, the United States Government, which has no own government monetary system.

    The Federal Reserve Act was created by „American high finance“, passed by the United States Congress on December 23, 1913 when the Christians were holidaying, and subsequently signed by the Woodrow Wilson, whom Germans also will never forget let alone forgive. With this bold capture the Jews could straight away start the First Jewish World War.

    The pretext for the bankstering was to establish a private “central banking system designed to add both flexibility and strength to the national financial system.”
    And „nation“ never stands for Americans but for Jews and Jews only.

    The Federal Act provided for a system of several regional banks and a seven-member board of directors. Banks that operated nationally were required to affiliate with the Federal Reserve System; other banks were free to participate. The owners of the regional banks are the respective member banks, which on the one hand share in the risk of the regional banks through their membership, but on the other hand also receive annual dividend payments. The most important body of the Fed is the Federal Open Market Committee, which conducts monetary and exchange rate policy in the United States. Its chairman from August 11, 1987, to January 31, 2006, was Alan Greenspan, who was Jewish; on February 1, 2006, he was succeeded by Ben Bernanke, another Jew and another Jew and another Jew and again a Jew…

    The Federal Reserve’s monetary monopoly in the United States has been challenged only once since 1913, when John F. Kennedy issued government-issued dollar bills, the United States Note, in 1963. Immediately after Kennedy’s assassination that same year, the Federal Reserve’s monetary monopoly was restored by Kennedy’s violent, violent, violent successor, Lyndon B. Johnson.

    In Essence
    The Federal Reserve is a private Jewish corporation that is neither federal (state) nor has reserves. It is conservatively estimated that profits exceed \$150 trillion a year on the back of Americans and the world in general, yet the Federal Reserve has never in its history had to publish its books. The Federal Reserve is a money machine of Zionist high finance. It prints U.S. dollar notes (on paper) and resells them at a high price. E.g. it forces Europe to exchange Euros for Dollars and that is why the EU is now competing with printing istead of production.

    Only one thing is certain: they do not belong to the state. And the state is not the American people. Nevertheless, they perform the function of a state-owned national bank. Their decision-making takes place in the Federal Reserve Board, which the president represents to the outside world and whose meetings are held in Washington in a separate, suitably imposing historic building.
    The most important of this exclusive circle of private banks is the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which controls the huge financial center of New York.

    The problem is the FED alone and healing those Bolshois will take fed rounds instead of more blenders “professional talk” on radio no one listens to. There is only one air wave they will listen to:

  18. It is the evolution of what began by assaulting ships in the seas, then murdering indigenous people to steal their lands and with the progress they try to rob all of humanity. And they prepare to do it in space and if they find any life then kill it and steal it. A beautiful destination for a people and all in the name of God.

  19. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Biff

    “My guess is you are a disgruntled low wage time clock puncher, that hates anyone who has a shinier new dime than you.”

    Well you guessed wrong. 😎

    “Regards”, onebornfree

  20. Tom Welsh says:
    @Anonymous

    “So how do these wealthy rent extractors expect to survive a diminishing real economy?”

    A reasonable question, the answer to which is clear as soon as you remember that they have no attachment or loyalty to any country or people.

    They will simply take their money and other negotiable wealth and move to some other nation where they will be welcome as big spenders.

    Behind them the USA will be going “Glug glug glug” all the way to the bottom, like the “Titanic” – and they couldn’t care less.

    • Replies: @Geowhizz
  21. onebornfree says: • Website
    @coolhand850

    Thanks. You know you’re right over the target when your comments get mysteriously “(MORED)” to hide content by the moderator (presumably Hudson ), as mine usually are for any articles by Hudson. 😎

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @coolhand850
  22. @Anonymous

    “The whole of your comment”,

    The contradiction you see between Covid policies and the outrun(if it is) of financial policies is indeed there. Can we suspect that there is a phase of experimenting going on, there is a minority fraction within the power circles pushing REDUCTION, hence Covid policies, are the powers that be just manifesting a lag, or inertia effect in pushing the convention of the usual GROWTH in all matters(including the main variable of any economy: populations, density of populations, planetary migrations and their consequences: disgenics, pollution, exhaustion of resources).

    i tend to see the Chinese hanging on to Growth and Intensity and ultimately overheating further. Their Covid policies were not applied in “killing” the regular economy. It all is not decided…

    …in the long run the policies of reduction are the only way, but that requires planetary coordination of the main power nuclei. Ron Unz seems to be plainly on the side of the early starters of the Reductionist concept and policies, as a superior intellect should be. He plays it very prudently though, not at all certain these policies have enough steam to complete the push.

  23. @Truth Vigilante

    There is more than enough documented evidence to prove that, wealth accumulated in one generation is greatly diminished in the generation that follows, and mostly dissipated by the third and fourth generations.

    All is takes is one generation for a society to experience oligarchical aggression. For example, in their lifetimes Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer made themselves wealthy enough that they could buy their way into the 2020 presidential election, making an even bigger joke of our political process than it already was.

  24. @onebornfree

    This “just” in: There are _no_ government solutions to _any_problem in this world. Government “solutions” always make things even worse than they were before the “solutions” were enforced.

    I had a problem once.

    I needed to get from point A to point B in my car.

    Then the government came and built a road for me to drive on.

    Somehow I don’t think I’m worse off then I was before.

    Libertarians always engage in the fallacy of “because the government can’t create perfect solutions to problems it shouldn’t do anything at all.”

    As beloved libertarian economist Thomas Sowell is fond of pointing out: there are no “solutions” in life. There are only “trade offs.”

  25. SafeNow says:

    The essay mentions critical mass. I am no economist, but I think about critical mass frequently and in many contexts. Putin and Shoygu recently went fishing in Siberia, where they formulated plans to build five new cities there. Each would have a population of 1 million – – critical mass! Shoygu, the defense minister, is fluent in nine languages, including Mandarin. China is nearby. It looks like a Russia-China alliance is coming. Meanwhile, the US has chunks of proficiency/sanity all over the place, but each seems to lack critical mass.

  26. @onebornfree

    The question is: Why do we need government creating money in the first place?

    Another question is why do we need private central bankers creating money and shoveling it over to the favored few in the first place? In fact, that is largely the ultimate motive for the creation of the US Constitution, despite all the high sounding flim-flam.

    The concept is nicely explained here.:

    Cronyism: Liberty versus Power in Early America, 1607–1849 Paperback – October 27, 2021
    by Patrick Newman (Author)

    IOW, crony capitalism with its corruption to the core stinks yet it invariably controls more and more with government as well as many of the rest of us as enablers. Whoever controls the creation of money winds up effectively owning nearly everything so another question is how to realistically remove oneself from that ever increasingly fetid miasma. I suspect we need, somehow, to follow the example of driving the money creators and changers from our temples.

    However, good luck with all that. And please not buy the book from Amazon or some other large multinational.

    • Thanks: Curle
  27. Katrinka says:
    @Anonymous

    Why do you think the globalist parasite class are behind mass immigration open border policies? Kill off the heritage working class Americans who are becoming problematic, and then import a new non English speaking working class population that can be endlessly exploited. Problem solved.

    • Replies: @Maddaugh
  28. @coolhand850

    Tell it onebornfree.

    He should be telling everyone how big money controls government instead of praising the Constitution as some sacred roadmap for the Messiah. The CONstitution which was a big money endeavor from the get go.

    [Alexander] Hamilton devised a plan [which] tied up the fortunes of individual investors with the fortunes of the government, and gave them a proprietary interest in maintaining the government’s stability; also, and much more important, it tended powerfully to indoctrinate the public with the idea that the close association of banking and government is a natural one.

    Albert Jay Nock, Liberty vs. the Constitution: The Early Struggle

    mises.org/daily/4254

  29. onebornfree says: • Website

    Article summary:

    In light of the already massive regulation of real estate, commercial and residential building construction in general, property rental agreements, fiduciary media, usury etc. etc., and of the increasingly obvious negative effects on the economy and the cost of living for Mr and Mrs Joe Average that all of that regulation has had to date, economic “genius” Michael Hudson, and willing acolyte Kevin Barrett, with seemingly straight faces, both suggest what as the giant fix-all?

    [MORE]

    That’s right, ladies and gentlemen, their proposed “fix-all” is:

    EVEN MORE STATE REGULATION of those markets! 😂

    In the immortal words of tennis ace John McEnroe: “You cannot be serious!”:

    “Regards”, onebornfree

  30. The business of unearned income, be it usury or money earned in sleep, won’t go away anytime soon, not at the least in my lifetime, because the cunting class (1%) will co-opt Russia, with the promise of equal treatment for its own oligarchy, and then attacking China to break up the emerging threat. I am all for eliminating the Chinese threat and then reforming the grifter class (1%) through weaponizing pitchforks.

  31. Anon[132] • Disclaimer says:
    @Punch Brother Punch

    Why can only governments build roads?

    • Replies: @Punch Brother Punch
  32. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Punch Brother Punch

    “Then the government came and built a road for me to drive on. Somehow I don’t think I’m worse off then I was before.”

    That’s because you are, like most here, quite obviously, “punch drunk” (on government) my friend . 😆

    Get a grip.Time to sober up, methinks.

    “Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure” Robert LeFevere

    “Everything government touches turns to crap” Ringo Starr

    “The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic” H.L.Mencken

    “Regards”, onebornfree

  33. Right now, eight percent of America’s GDP goes for health insurance and health care.

    Actually total health care cost is now 18% of GDP:

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/184968/us-health-expenditure-as-percent-of-gdp-since-1960/

    If an American company that provides health insurance to its employees hires a new worker with a family, the annual health insurance premium cost to the company for that worker will be approximately \$20,000.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  34. @Anon

    Did I say only governments could build roads?

    Just assume, to gratify me, that I’m aware of the concept of private roads.

    Now trying building enough private roads to accommodate the needs of a society of hundreds of millions or even a billion citizens.

    Jesus, libertarianism has been around for a century now and it still hasn’t figured out how to deal with friggin roads. That’s the first question that comes to every sane person’s mind: “who’s going to build the roads?” THE FIRST QUESTION!

    • Agree: Emerging Majority
  35. @Punch Brother Punch

    Then the government came and built a road for me to drive on.

    For you to drive on?

    I think you have another problem; one that you do not recognize. But don’t ask me to waste my time explaining, so I’ll just leave this hint.:

    SLIGHTLY UP FROM SLAVERY, by Doug Casey

    https://www.fastrope.com/slightly-up-from-slavery/

    • Replies: @Punch Brother Punch
  36. @Punch Brother Punch

    Punch-Drunk Brother writes:

    I needed to get from point A to point B in my car.

    Then the government came and built a road for me to drive on.

    Somehow I don’t think I’m worse off then I was before.

    Actually, you are significantly worse off.

    For starters, the government never ‘built’ said road, in the sense you’ve made it appear the government is a benevolent entity that did it out of sheer altruism.

    TAXES that they extorted from the average Joe built that road.

    The only thing is, when a certain number of billions are siphoned off from the general public and ‘earmarked’ for road construction, probably only 25 or 30 cents in the dollar (at most), actually gets spent on the road building.

    The rest is squandered on wages of government workers in some overstaffed government department, their lavish business offices located in prime locations in the central business district with stratospheric rentals rates, lavish retirement payouts to said government parasites and bureaucratic bungling (not to mention corruption as road construction contracts are handed out to cronies at above market rates* in return for kick-backs to the politicians).

    (*Many of you will remember the \$600 hammer that the Pentagon bought in the 1980’s as an example of government unaccountability and cost overruns).

    As Peter Schiff’s wise dad Irwin once said:

    Government taxation and transfer payments are like getting a blood transfusion from your left arm to your right arm, while spilling more than half the blood on the floor in the process.

    Now, in relation to the situation you’d be facing if government never built that road, individuals with a vested interest to build it in your locality would have built it AT A FRACTION OF THE COST.
    Those who most needed said road in your locality (business persons and retailers whose manufactured products need to get to market etc, with a lesser contribution from other residents in that locality), would’ve pooled their resources and built those roads.

    To recompense them, they would levy a small toll (or perhaps even exempt local residents who would use it toll free and ONLY charge those from a different district who were passing through).

    For those that were subject to this toll, it would be so small that in NET terms, even a 100 years worth of usage travelling throughout your city and beyond, would be negligible in comparison to the taxes saved (that would otherwise have gone to fund a bloated, inefficient, centralised Big Government department in a distant city).

  37. @onebornfree

    I love this thing libertarians do where they try to convince you their ideology of arrogance and the abandonment of common sense, which anyone with a little thoughtfulness can see will lead to first widespread societal immiseration and unparalleled plutocracy, and eventually to societal breakdown, is actually the ideology on the side of Jane Q. Normal and John P. Little Guy against the evil socialist oligarchs.

    Have you ever worked in construction? Do you realize what would happen if you deregulated that industry too much? The amount of corner cutting and cheap, shoddy and unsafe buildings that would be made? The amount of civic life and natural beauty that would be ruined by the erecting of hideous steel and glass monstrosities all over the place without good zoning laws?

    NIMBYism forever!

    And why wouldn’t you want to regulate usury?

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  38. @onebornfree

    As impressive as I find your pointless repetition of cliched libertarian quotes, I must object to the notion that, because I use public roads like literally every single other member of society, I’m somehow suckling at the intoxicating teat of Big Government.

    Is it possible that the great philosopher Ringo of “Back Off Boogaloo” fame might be engaging in a bit of hyperbole here (possibly embittered by his tax rate)? That, in reality, things are not that stark and simple? That government has some essential functions to perform while other functions are best left to the private sector lest government, indeed, turn them to “crap?”

    Is it possible that the world isn’t as black and white, rigid and binary, or as simplistic as libertarians imagine it to be?

  39. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Fart Blossom

    “He should be telling everyone how big money controls government instead of praising the Constitution as some sacred roadmap for the Messiah. ”

    To be clear, I am not a big fan of the US constitution, and do not see a return to it as “some sacred roadmap for the Messiah.”

    But it appears to be the best we’ve got at this time.

    I’m an “ancap”( anarcho-capitalist), so for me personally, ideally, the Federal government, and the state governments all need to be entirely eliminated.

    [MORE]

    But that, of course, is a political non- starter.

    However, as a “grit my teeth” compromise, a return to the original constitutionally designated functions of the US Federal government would result in it’s drastic downsizing by about 95%, and for the most part get it out of yours and my life, ( at least temporarily). Far from perfect but better than what we have now.

    As further compromise on my part, I would admittedly even willingly support a presidential candidate who consistently ran on a platform of “only”cutting the federal government, across the board, by 50% in the first year. That at least would be a small step in the right direction, in my view.

    But at this time, no such candidate exists, even on the distant horizon.

    And not even Ron Paul ran on such a radical platform, much to my disappointment at the time.( consequently I did not support him).

    To the best of my knowledge, the only US presidential candidate to consistently run on a platform of an overnight return of the federal government to its originally delineated size/functions was the great Harry Browne, in 1996 and again in 2000.

    See: “Why Government Doesn’t Work”:
    https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Why_Government_Doesn%27t_Work

    Regards, onebornfree

  40. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Punch Brother Punch

    ” Have you ever worked in construction? Do you realize what would happen if you deregulated that industry too much? “…….”And why wouldn’t you want to regulate usury?”

    In other words: mo’ gubmint, mo’ gubmint, MO’ GUBMINT! 😆

    “Everything government touches turns to crap” Ringo Starr

    “The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic” H.L.Mencken

    “Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure” Robert LeFevere

    Book: “Why Government Doesn’t Work”:
    https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Why_Government_Doesn%27t_Work

    “Regards” onebornfree

  41. @Jim Christian

    But how does that change the game? The only way is to change the system. That means grass roots organization, and boycott of the media that doesn’t give these alternate voices a platform. As the movement grows setting up their own platforms to educate more and more people. It means lots of ground work, don’t forget it takes time and hard work

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
  42. @onebornfree

    So please tell me how that free market working out for the fly over country? Their factories are emptied out, and their cities are infested with drugs, and their leaders despise them to the extent as calling them deplorables.
    No matter how you see it the ordinary working class has to borrow the money from somebody for big ticket items. Who would you rather borrow from? The money lenders with scrupulous morals or some what accountable public officials?
    Oh by the way who did Jesus Christ threw out of the temples? And by the way why were they in the temple in the first place? Even in ancient times the kings were smart enough to forgive the debts. What ever happened to our intelligence that we are so proud of, and despise our ancestors?
    The ruling class invented the Critical Race Theory and peddle it to the society at large, while they all cozily associate among themselves irrespective of race. (Look at the Birthday Bash for Obama, the great savior of the mankind).
    These very same people go about preaching regime change in non-compliant states (mostly Brown). I can go on for ever. Thaks

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Truth Vigilante
  43. @Anonymous

    These parasites move on to the next victim:

    Killing the Host;

  44. @Truth Vigilante

    you’ve made it appear the government is a benevolent entity that did it out of sheer altruism.

    I never said that, or implied it. The government builds roads to facilitate commerce.

    probably only 25 or 30 cents in the dollar (at most), actually gets spent on the road building.

    Government waste and corruption are real problems but that’s a separate issue from doing away with government all together.

    Those who most needed said road in your locality (business persons and retailers whose manufactured products need to get to market etc…would’ve pooled their resources and built those roads.

    Wouldn’t this create cities whose roadways are a chaotic and confusing hodge-podge built by numerous competing interests, each of whom built their private roads with only their own needs in mind? Wouldn’t getting around be a nightmare for ordinary citizens? What’s to stop some wealthy citizen or company from building a private highway, that only they’re allowed to use, right through the heart of the city?

    To recompense them, they would levy a small toll (or perhaps even exempt local residents who would use it toll free and ONLY charge those from a different district who were passing through).

    This would make travelling around town unbelievably complicated and time-consuming. You would have to pay somebody a toll, or prove you’re exempt from the toll, every few blocks.

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  45. @Fart Blossom

    For you to drive on?

    They didn’t build the roads for me specifically but, yes, I’m allowed to drive on them.

    Perused the essay. Typical libertarian disproportionate analogies: “You’re a SLAVE because you pay taxes!!” “Taxation is literally the government sticking a gun in your face and threatening to rape your wife and murder your children if you don’t pay up!!”

  46. Maddaugh says:
    @Katrinka

    Why do you think the globalist parasite class are behind mass immigration open border policies? Kill off the heritage working class Americans who are becoming problematic, and then import a new non English speaking working class population that can be endlessly exploited. Problem solved.

    You got that right. At present, we have immigrants and that includes their very elderly parents, uncles, aunts, distant cousins, Grand and Great Grand Parents wandering all over the place on the dole. or hanging out at the coffee shop all day long screaming into their \$1200 cell phones.

    Add to that the darkie immigrants (the whites who can are headed in the opposite direction) who hunger to come to America to deliver pizza, McDonalds, do any flunky work or line up for the dole. A drive by the social assistance office reveals a long line up with not a single white face in the queue. The other night my neighbour had a pizza delivered by a turban head driving a flashier car than the beater Maddaugh uses.

    The car dealership down the road is doing great. The Lebanese owner told me he does not like dealing with whites. They waste a lot of time negotiating. He loves dealing with the new class of immigrants. They accept the sticker price, load all all the options heaved at them, pay nothing down and finance the whole lot at interest rates that would give our ancestors the runs. The Toyota Corollas remain in inventory but the high end SUV’s go like hot cakes. The customers also take out photos of the delivery so they can impress their relatives back in the Sahara. ” Come to America Mohammed. I used to ride a camel but shortly after swimming the Rio Grande I am now driving a Lexus !”

    Businessmen tell me gleefully that back in the 70’s there were 400 jobs and one uppity white applying and making all sorts of demands. Today there is one job and 400 hand to mouth border jumpers applying, all anxious to to work for next to nothing and the majority can hardly pronounce one word of English. From time to time I hear an amusing tale of life on the factory floor. Like the production manager who could not understand why a press continually malfunctioned. Upon checking, he discovered the Wakanda operator was eating at the work station and throwing the containers into the press. This activated the infrared safety and the machine would stop LOL. In trying to save the salary of one white man the factory ran up a tab of \$500K in scrap in one week.

    Another sad tale was the one of 2 Somalis who had a family feud they brought over from Mogadishu. While one was working in a transformer (unsafely) the other threw the switch barbecuing his clan enemy. Multiculturalism and diversity makes us stronger LOL.

    To your point, the “heritage working class American problem” was temporarily solved but it seems that with LeShawn, Abdul, Singh, Mbongo, Troung Dong and Pablo on the scene the chickens have come home to roost.

    LeShawn, Abdul, Singh, Mbongo, Troung Dong and Pablo have figured out they can rock and roll at the coffee shop all day and collect a stipend from Uncle Sam. Why would any self respecting non-white immigrant get his fingers dirty when Whitey is so accommodating.

    Businesses these days are advertising signing bonuses of up to \$25oo……..with no takers. Welcome to the new America….land of the free and home of the ________________fill in the blank !

    • LOL: Katrinka
  47. @onebornfree

    Then as a Libertarian I am sure you want to abolish the military and let the private sector take it over, pay for their own wars and take care of the Brave Proud Veterans coming back from the battlefield. Never mind there will be absolutely no Homeless Veterans Camping on the streets

  48. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Truth Vigilante

    Where’s Mofo Bill? Isn’t he about due to show up here and start pontificating about “polity” and other such mind- numbing, pseudo- intellectual bilge, and how “we” all need to emulate Hitler’s German economic model? That’s always good for a laugh, at least! 😎

    Regards,onebornfree

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  49. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Punch Brother Punch

    “As beloved libertarian economist Thomas Sowell is fond of pointing out: ”

    FYI: Sowell is not , and and never has been, a “libertarian” in any way, shape or form. He’s admittedly said some good things, but in final analysis he’s just another, albeit “conservative”, rabid statist, not much different from yourself, apparently. 😒

    “Regards” onebornfree

  50. A typo at the beginning, Hudson says I was a professor of economics since the 1960s, I think he meant the 1990’s probably.

  51. @onebornfree

    Of course We the People do not want the likes of “Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Nadler and Schumer” to form the government and control our economies. But who paid for their campaigns?…the banks and the Bankster financiers who own them, working tirelessly through the DNC.

    Marxism and classical economics are dirty words to many self-styled libertarians. Yet, Hudson and Barrett, in reality, can be described as populists, more than anything else. Both political parties are owned by the banksters and the prostiticians who have transmuted our national capital into the Di\$trict of Corruption. The current officeholders are best described as prostiticians and waiters—those who faithfully carry out orders in order to remain in office.

    Jesus got hung up on the cross primarily because he drove the moneylenders outta the temple. He favored the seventh year Jubilee, where all debts are forgiven. It all boils down to money. Who makes it? Will it be a duly elected government or will it remain the province of highly secretive private bank\$ters, who are nothing more than highly organized Crime Clans?

    However many faults the Chinese government happens to have, they are doing one thing extremely right: There, as Hudson points out, the government controls credit rather than it being strictly the province of greedy bank\$ters. One righteous libertarian, former Congressman Ron Paul, had it right: Audit the Federal Re\$erve—and I would add–then abolish it and return our nation to Constitutionally mandated Congressional control over the entire money system.

    Of course, we would first need to demolish the smothering Two-Peas in a Pod Party system and establish firm term limits of six years for a Representative and a single six-year term for a Senator.

  52. Anon[336] • Disclaimer says:
    @Muralidhar Rao

    free market working out for…

    ?

    • Replies: @Muralidhar Rao
  53. @Truth Vigilante

    I say a combination of the two sounds reasonable.

    I.e.

    Limited Government Regulation in regards to certain agreed upon dangers or desirable issues

    Limited Government Spending: publicly and carefully tracked expenditure on infrastructure, etc. German or Japanese style contractors, possibly a Chinese style State Corporation. Do the same for the military with Armories.

    Autonomy in most else.

    This gives, I think, the best balance of libertarian American cultural-economic practices and American “industrial-development” practices.

    Also, abolishing taxes on primary residencies and nationalizing mineral resources. That’s a longer argument though, but connected.

  54. profnasty says:

    Why can’t some gazillionaire lead Trump voters into a new political party?
    [Insert humorous moniker here.]
    Is Ross Perot still alive?

    • Replies: @profnasty
  55. Kali says:
    @Anonymous

    Here’s what’s really going on:

    Seizing Everything: The Theft of the Global Commons – Part 2

    [MORE]

    If we look at the ISA’s record of stakeholder engagement we quickly find their Strategic Plan for 2019 – 2020. This succinctly outlines how the scam operates:

    “In an ever-changing world, and in its role as custodian of the common heritage of mankind, ISA faces many challenges[…] The United Nations has adopted a new development agenda, entitled ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development'[…] Of most relevance to ISA is SDG 14 — Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources.”

    The shared resource – global commons – of the Earth’s oceans are not freely accessible to humanity as a whole any more. Rather, the ISA determine who gets access to oceanic resources based upon Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Effectively they have turned access to the global commons into a new market.

    https://in-this-together.com/global-commons-part-2/

    Best regards,
    Kali.

  56. I hope the hard moneyers (Gold Standard) would be able to accept the very basics of money creation, without getting into apoplectic shocks: that money is external to the economy, it has to be created, and the process of creating money should cost a reasonable amount of time and energy (let us call this Resistivity), else it can be created in infinite quantities at least cost, and anything that could be created in infinite quantities is essentially worthless.

    Gold Standard puts the natural characteristics of gold – it is rare and it needs good amount of time and energy for its extraction – into Resistivity; where gold standard would fail in our times is not that it is not available in sufficient quantities (upwardly revising its price will be enough), but it is so costly, day to day transactions would need subsidiary currencies. The present value of gold is kept artificially low through many stratagems, but even at this price, it is beyond the reach of a common man for his daily living. And moreover, what people forget is, fractional banking, the original evil by which banks create money, is still possible under Gold Standard.

    Currencies can be divided into two types – Proof of Past Work (gold, silver, bitcoin) and Promises of Future Work. Bitcoin is a special type, in that though it is a PPW type, it is useless for any practical purpose – a gram of gold or silver or iron not only proves that the owner has spent some time and energy to make it, but also saves the receiver from spending that time or energy, he can directly use it for some purpose; a bitcoin also proves that the possessor has spent his processor’s time and energy, but it is not useful for anything else; the very fact such a useless thing is in demand shows the depths to which our monetary policies have descended. The PPW currencies have not much of problems, except the time and energy needed to create them; it is the PFW type that causes a lot of problems – those are mere promises, and their value is completely uncertain and arbitrary. (Paper further complicates the scene, by acting as a proxy for both PPF and PFW currencies).

    Even under Gold Standard certain laws are undeniable; that inflation cheapens the value of currency; that Cantillon Effect is highly pronounced with currencies that have high Seigniorage; that money needs to be supplied externally, it is not created automatically by the economy.

    Now there is a concerted effort to slander MMT – it takes away the bread and butter of the banksters. But ultimately governments will have to jump on to MMT. And the punishment for uncontrolled inflation is losing the power to create currency.

    One funny fact is that the world was taken off the Gold Standard because the American government had printed more paper currency than it could back up with its gold, and now the same American government has created so much digital currency that it cannot back it up with paper!

    Gold will have a significant role in future international trade, but a return to the classical Gold Standard is impossible. So the second best option is MMT – Governments creating money at no interests, and spending it on infrastructure. And abolishing the compound interest is a must.

    • Replies: @Kevin Barrett
  57. profnasty says:
    @profnasty

    Well that’s a good question, professor.
    Let’s lay down a skeletal platform, shall we.
    1. 20% tax on all income over \$10k.
    No more no less.
    2. Balanced Budget ammendment.
    3. 500 mile military limit.
    4. SECURE BORDERS. Interlopers prosecuted.
    5. No free shit. Feed all children well. Feed freeloading parents rice and beans.
    6. Provide basic work for every citizen unable to find it in private sector.
    7. Dedicate 20% of Federal budget to find a cure for male pattern baldness.
    8. I’m not even kidding.
    Note: People around here overheat their keyboards with a lot of thoughts of less merit than these. Just sayin’.

    • Replies: @moron
  58. Agent76 says:

    A great informative article and read.

    January 14, 2020 The world is drowning in debt

    In fact, it broke that record in the first nine months of last year. Global debt, which comprises borrowings from households, governments and companies, grew by \$9 trillion to nearly \$253 trillion during that period, according to the Institute of International Finance.

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/economy/global-debt-record/index.html

    The most honest speech on and about the global Bankster’s system ever.

    May 21, 2013 Why the whole banking system is a scam

    Godfrey Bloom MEP • European Parliament, Strasbourg, 21 May 2013 • Speaker: Godfrey Bloom MEP, UKIP (Yorkshire & Lincolnshire)

    • Thanks: Truth Vigilante
    • Replies: @GomezAdddams
  59. Kali says:
    @onebornfree

    Wrong. The question is: Why do we need government creating money in the first place?

    Partly right, but given that what we call “money” today began its cultural existance as the “tally stick”, and, as such, can be regognised as mear convention, then the question becomes why not just drop that convention all together.

    Why not begin to opperate a Gift Economy instead, in order to to support our own and our communities needs, as we swiftly sys-exit “the system”, untangle ourselves from its tentacles by giving what we can to, and taking what we need from, the pooled resources of our community and our commons?

    Simplistic, I know, but a world better than helplessly waiting on the planets self-apointed overlords to impose their premeditated cull/power-grab.

    All the best, OBF,
    Kali.

    • Thanks: moron
    • Replies: @Mefobills
  60. moron says:
    @onebornfree

    The government CREATED rents and mortgages to begin with, but that doesn’t seem to bother you any. Try getting possession of real property when you have to actually PAY for it, AND have no other alternative. Try getting possession by proving title in the “regular court”, instead of state subsidised accelerated “eviction courts”. All libertoonians and conservatoons are the same 8th grade social studies try hards that never grew up. It’s an infantile, juvenile fantasy fixated on cartoons.

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  61. moron says:
    @profnasty

    1. There is no such thing as “income”
    2. The United States has the power to borrow money
    3. Label it “private contractors” instead, same diff
    4. 19th c. int’l treaty borders running across the prairies and desert?
    5. No free roads? Unfree park benches? Everything in life is free
    6. You mean loll around in a burocracy of make work
    7. Try martial arts and stop jerking off
    8. You are only kidding, the list is infantile

    IOW the typical bunch of mental labels founded in zero comprehension of math

  62. moron says:
    @onebornfree

    It’s a fake question. The money IS getting created whether you “need” it or not. So long as people can tally up ‘sticks, currency will be issued. Should be none of your business either way!

  63. Anon[319] • Disclaimer says:

    Turing endless debts into a power base? It’s happening in the U.S. The Democrats are running up our national debt to bribe Democratic voters so they can create a power base here in the U.S.

  64. Geowhizz says:
    @Tom Welsh

    “Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States it can dry up and blow away.” B. Netanyahu. Parasitical? The MO.

  65. @Truth Vigilante

    Reason for the diminution of the Ford empire after the time of Henry himself, was precisely your aforementioned falling-off on the part of those heirs of inherited wealth.

    Solution for that is to reinstate near-draconian inheritance taxes, leaving those heirs sufficient capital for their daily needs (not necessarily wants) and for entry-level entrepreneurial ventures. Such a course of action is a genuine stimulus plan. Few measures could stimulate responsive and responsible actions than being largely deprived of a free ticket to Easy \$treet.

  66. @Kurt Knispel

    One must add that the 12-23-13 passage of the Constitutionally unlawful Federal Reserve Act, was the action of a RUMP Congress.

    Though the session had not formally closed, both the Senate Majority Leader and the Squeaker of the House were in on the deal. However, there was no quorum. The plotters did not have sufficient Members present to pass legislation lawfully.

    But they had an ace up their sleeves: Thomas Woodrow Wilson had been blackmailed over his maintaining a mistress. With ample gold to offer her, the mistress provided the J.P. Morgan interests, and his Rottenchild backers with all Wilson’s love-letters. Armed with this ammunition, which in the Neo-Puritan era of 1910 when Wilson was still merely the Chancellor of Princeton University; the schemers had no problem for their wholly owned president to sign off on the legislation.

    Deal done. Wilson had signed the “Fed” into law.

  67. Kali says:
    @Punch Brother Punch

    Then the government came and built a road for me to drive on.

    LoL. “The government” did no such thing! Working men with shovels in their hands (our forfathers in fact) built the roads.

    “The government” just taxes us for the use of what our fathers built.

    All the best,
    Kali.

  68. @Kurt Knispel

    Slight correction here: Kennedy issued TWO-dollar bills, lawfully backed by silver held by the U.S. Treasury Department. By challenging the monopoly (here, we can again quote John D. Rockefeller–son of David Aaronovitch Rockefeller (note the patronymic Aaronovitch for prima facie evidence of Rottenfeller’s crypto identity): “Competition is a sin”.

    Observant researchers have generally agreed that it was this challenge to the foundation of the Rottenchild/Rottenfeller usurious fractional reserve system, which effectually was the primary ingredient as to why JFK’s death-warrant was decreed.

    In more recent years, Libyan strongman, Muamar Gadhafi was assassinated via torture, while his nation was being dismembered, because he was about to establish a gold-based, usury-free monetary system for ALL of Africa. At that time, based on Libya’s oil-wealth, even the common people of Libya enjoyed the highest standard of living among all the nations of that plundered continent.

    When an individual, heading up a nation-state, gets a bit big for his britches, the Crime Clans who rule the roost via their control over most worldwide monetary systems, render their verdict, establishing in the minds of other leaders who get ideas–just who the Hell is Bo\$\$.

  69. moron says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    We just need to abolish the rules that allow Big Money to exist in the 1st place. Possession is 9/10th the Rule and the other 1/10 is demonstrable priority. Money is an illusion, and it cannot be “controlled” except in evaporation. All of you completely miss the Land Question.

  70. @Anon

    Ok here is what I meant. Have you ever drove to a Super market and not notice young ( I mean able bodied in their 20 to 30’s standing around the entrance with a card board) homeless people. Can you kindly tell me did you notice this say even 10 years ago. So the question arises what has changed? The economists tell us that the GDP is gallopping along nicely, so why do we have these young people begging around street corners? Also did you notice the homeless encampments around the parks?

  71. @Kali

    So am I to understand that these men in shovels did it on their own for free and out of their social conscience?

    • Replies: @Kali
  72. barr says:
    @onebornfree

    Fake money or printed money without losing values aginst the rest of the world currencies are taxations on the rest of the world.

    New Zea land is facing inflation less than what USA is. But it has the incraesed interests rate . USA doesnt and on top prints more money . NZ has to do because it has to use US dollars for buying anything from foreign markets . If it were able to use its own currency eveywhere in the planet,it would be printing the money ,not raise the interest and will be exporting the cost of living to the world.

  73. @Kali

    “The government” did no such thing! Working men with shovels in their hands (our forfathers in fact) built the roads.

    “The government” just taxes us for the use of what our fathers built.

    Oh, OK, I see we’re playing the hyper-literal game.

    In that case, my “fathers” didn’t build anything. I never saw my dad or grandfathers out in the proto-streets with shovels in their hands.

    • Replies: @Kali
  74. @Kurt Knispel

    A third addendum: Research has indicated that the Rottenfeller Crime Clan holds a 54% interest in the Federal Re\$erve Bank of New York.

    When anyone references Wall \$treet, they should be aware that fluctuations in the stock and bond markets are determined by those primary owners of the NYC Fed and also by their agent, the made man, George \$oro\$, on behalf of the Rottenchild Crime Clan, that outfit presumably the primary agency for the Sanhedrin, a regenerative entity of “judges” over connected and also Orthodox Judaics . These self-styled judges have been running that racket since they learned the tricks of fractional-reserve based credit lending during their Babylonian “captivity”.

    It is more than slightly probable that the “Synagogue of Satan” as referenced by the Jewish rebel Jesus, was precisely these “judicial” shotcallers for the Pharisees and Sadducees

    Currently, the majority of the world’s population is the captive audience of these Crime Clans, of which only the most highly connected of the planet’s Judaics are even aware. One must learn to discriminate between (and with full discernment) those ruling Crime Clans as compared with ordinary people who happen to be Jewish or of Jewish heritage.

    • Replies: @Kurt Knispel
  75. Kali says:
    @Kali

    About this time last year our friend, Chico came up the mountain in his JCB and levelled out a few hundred meters of (public commons) track. My husband (an engineer of many tallents) went out with an assortment of hand and power tools, raked the surface, and cut dranage and run-off channells the full legth of the track. Since then, every time it rains he goes out and makes sure the water flows where it should so that the surface doesn’t get washed away. That track is freely used by everyone with land on this part of the mountain.

    We do what we need to do to meet our own needs. And we have enough intelligence to work in coordination with our friends and neighnours so we don’t make a hash of things.

    As a species we are capable of a lot more than some would have us believe.

    (Why the “more” tag on my original comment, Kevin?)

    Vive la Rebellion!
    Kali.

  76. Kali says:
    @Muralidhar Rao

    You are to understand that government has come, over recent centuries, to insert itself into a process which does not require its intervention. (See my wee anacdote in my last comment for clarification.

    Best regards,
    Kali.

  77. @Fart Blossom

    No doubt that Hamilton was a prime shithead. He achieved his rapid climb up the ladder largely because the “Father of Our Country” found the handsome bastard rather personally attractive and thus the elevation. Along the line, in the company of John Jay, several other speculator types who had made up the Federalist faction and various private bankers in Philadelphia and New York (for the most part) Hamilton became connected to the “brotherly” consortium of Bank\$ters, the Rottenchild Crime Clan.

    Enter the First Bank of the United States and later, the Second such institution, which was duly scotched by President Andrew Jackson. There was, of course, an assassination attempt made on the feisty Scotch-Irishman. The attempt failed and so the Rottenchilds and their American associates engineered the Panic of 1837, where specie disappeared and where lines of credit were called. Countless businesses failed and numerous Americans lost their livelihoods.

    To ensure future success, the Rottenchilds—who already controlled Britain, France and much of Continental Europe–openly dispatched their prime agent, one August Schoenberg to America. That gentleman, much like the name-change by John Kerry’s father nearly a hundred years later, translated his German-Jewish surname into the more user-friendly French variant via a magical transformation into August Belmont. That man supervised Rottenchild affairs in the Republic for years thereafter.

  78. Kali says:
    @Punch Brother Punch

    I’m not playing any game. I’m just living in a world where economic realities (putting rooves over our heads and food on our tables) has been subsummed by myth-makers who don’t like getting their (invisable) hands dirty, n t’ang. 😉

    Best,
    Kali.

  79. @onebornfree

    There are everyday libertarians and there are fanatically religious Libertarians.

  80. Mefobills says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    Kevin,

    You cannot reason with ideologues. If you collapse their worldview, they become unmoored.

    Also, in my debates with the Lolbertarians, inevitably they have broken elbows.

    How? They pat themselves on the back with such fervor, their elbows must be broken or dislocated.

    Usually their comments have ad-hominems interspersed, with is a Sociopathic tell. Sociopaths actually believe they are superior, and do not have the milk of human kindness in their soul. By demonizing others, they elevate themselves.

    Hudson has already told them he doesn’t want to get fleas.

    https://www.unz.com/mhudson/soros-and-china-the-vocabulary-of-neoliberal-diplomacy-in-todays-new-cold-war/#comment-4912434

    Well, as Mefobills says, the problem is vocabulary — what language to speak.
    The words of libertarians exclude serious discussion and analysis of reality. They establish a parallel universe that is so unrealistic that a reasonable person must stop and spend all the time unpacking just the first paragraph of circular reasoning.

    One needn’t get fleas in the process of explaining why not to go to fleabag hotels.

    I’ve caught onebornfree admitting that he would pay money to see people get hurt. Note also that he camps out, and every Hudson article he is one of the first commentators. This is yet another sociopathic tell. Or, the fact that he signs off with his regards, to then establish himself high up in the hierarchy.

    Truth Vigilante has no truth in him, and is beyond reason. You can witness this in my comment history. He does hero worship, and wants Hudson to debate his heroes. (Which prompted Michael’s response posted above.)

    The fleas from flea bag Hotel, angrily buzz around every-time Hudson posts an article. This is more than just passive behavior, it is an attempt at active destruction; they have malice.

    For example, if I pointed out in this very article Michael talks about how the gold trading standard was a good thing, the Lolbertarian fleas would ignore that fact. Their being ideologues makes them unable to acknowledge fair points. Beyond reason means holding an ideology that cannot broker challenge.

    So the United States, when it went off gold in 1971, created a system that gave it an enormous amount of free lunch and foreign money for 50 years.

    Lolbertarian heads should implode, but they don’t.

    Its not up to me to tell you what to do, or Michael for that matter. But, there is a pattern of Sociopathy evident, and these types of people should be unwanted in certain circles.

    Personally, I would ban them, and that assessment is based on my many engagements to determine their mental state. Mostly I wanted to know if they were innocents who had been led astray by false ideology, and were simply demoralized dupes. I no longer hold that view, again – based on the evidence.

    • Replies: @Biff
    , @Truth Vigilante
  81. Jon Chance says: • Website

    Money is a representation of territory.

    In a genuine Libertarian economy, all money is issued by public treasuries — not by “banks” or other corporations.

    Genuine money (such as United States Notes) is fully backed by sovereign national territory (Location Value Rent).

    Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of all money (preferably over 90 percent) is issued as our National Citizens Dividend — not spent by governments — in a genuine Libertarian economy.

    There has never been a good reason for any taxation or large government subsidies for education, healthcare, or other social services.

    Social services are not a natural monopoly.

    Social services should be provided in a competitive market and payed for with our individual Citizens Dividend.

    Competition minimizes costs and maximizes quality.

    Socialism is the billionaires’ best friend.

    Socialism was invented to bail out the Jews’ “bank” corporations and their puppet governments.

    http://JPChance.Org

  82. @Muralidhar Rao

    You wrote:

    So please tell me how that free market working out for the fly over country?

    It worked out spectacularly well for ‘Fly-over country’ in the 130 or so years that elapsed between the start of the Republic and the formation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. ie: the period that the U.S was as close as possible to a near Free Market, Minimalist government, Low taxation economy.

    Of course, now that the U.S is heavily immersed in socialism, and Big Government has expanded to off-the-chart levels (especially in the aftermath of LBJ’s disastrous expansion of the role of government), this has been a disaster for flyover country.

    • Replies: @Punch Brother Punch
  83. Feuerbach says:

    This is all so depressing. It looks like the US will be able to print money forever. They get their free lunch and the rest of the world is paying.

    Maybe someone in China has a plan of how to bring about the collapse of the US banking system.

  84. @Punch Brother Punch

    You wrote:

    This [using a privately built system of toll roads] would make travelling around town unbelievably complicated and time-consuming. You would have to pay somebody a toll, or prove you’re exempt from the toll, every few blocks.

    No, not at all.

    There wouldn’t be a toll levied every few blocks. It would be levied as someone travelled from one county to the next.
    And, as I mentioned before, individuals within a specific region, say within their own county, would be exempt of paying the toll.
    Electronic tags fitted to their vehicles (as I have fitted to my car and is being utilised in most civilised nations of the world), ensures simplicity and no time consumption. (I assume you were referring to the manner in which tolls were paid 40 or 50 years ago when you hint at ‘complexity’, where you’d have to stop and physically have to hand over a few coins to a toll collector).

    Now, in the case of a major highway that needed to be built that would pass through, let’s say, 10 counties in a particular region of the state, said counties would get together and pool their resources and decide on what toll should be charged for passage through each particular county.

    Naturally, different counties could (and should) levy differing tolls for passage through their respective neighbourhoods.

    For example, passage through a county where most of the proposed highway traversed through a region that necessitated the purchase of prime commercial or residential real estate should be charging a higher toll, to compensate them for the excess millions (or billions) they had to spend to purchase said land that was earmarked for highway construction.

    Let’s take the case of a particular county that decided to play hard-ball and wanted to apply extortionate tolls of say (for example), twenty times the going rate.

    In that case, the consortium of the other counties would simple decide to redirect said tollway around that county and bypass it.

    Of course, that would NEVER HAPPEN in reality as there would be an outcry from the residents of that region that were being deprived of that infrastructure.
    Said residents of the county that was likely to have the highway bypass them, would immediately sack their local representatives who were asking for the extortionate tolls (assuming they didn’t lynch them), and renegotiate to have the highway built through their region.

    Bottom Line: A system of private tollways could and WOULD be infinitely better and cheaper than the present system we have.

    YES, their would be a ‘government’ of sorts that would negotiate all details, but this ‘government’ would be localised, consist of individuals known personally to many of those in your neighbourhood, and the likelihood of corruption, overpayment for construction of a particular stretch of road would be greatly diminished.

    • Replies: @Punch Brother Punch
  85. Biff says:
    @Mefobills

    Or, the fact that he signs off with his regards, to then establish himself high up in the hierarchy.

    A pathology from internal jealousy of others who are doing better, or even possibly getting rich inside a system they hate, or most likely don’t even understand.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  86. @onebornfree

    The Mofo has copped a succession of shellackings as one after another, all of his authoritarian Big Government tried-and-failed policies of the Stalinist era have been eviscerated.

    I suspect he’s locked himself away, sulking and in a state of depression.

    I’m sure he’ll be back. He’s a glutton for punishment and will be pummelled into the turf once again when that time comes.

    Stay well O.B.F and keep up the great commentary – a lot of the Hudson groupies are badly in need of the enlightenment that you’re providing.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  87. @Truth Vigilante

    Such a tidy, simple world Libertarians live in. Any problem in society = “SOCIALISM DID IT!”

    Must be nice (and easy)…

    P.S. You do realize it’s nonsensical to apply the term “flyover state” to 19th century America, right?

  88. @Old Brown Fool

    You say: “Gold is so costly, day to day transactions would need subsidiary currencies. The present value of gold is kept artificially low through many stratagems, but even at this price, it is beyond the reach of a common man for his daily living.”

    Today, it takes about one pound of gold to buy an average new car, ten pounds to buy an average house. Mean net worth in the USA is a little under five pounds of gold. Even if the price of gold rose substantially I don’t see how this would place gold “out of reach.” Yes, obviously smaller-ticket items will always be bought in subsidiary currencies, like silver, nickel, and copper. So what? The international gold standard prevented the kind of imperial larceny we see today. Why not return to it? The only good anti-gold argument I’ve heard is that gold mining is environmentally destructive. Maybe so. But imperial plunder and hyper-usury are even more destructive.

  89. @moron

    You wrote:

    All libertoonians and conservatoons are the same 8th grade social studies try hards that never grew up. It’s an infantile, juvenile fantasy fixated on cartoons.

    So then, should we be taking the advice of a ‘moron’ instead ? (seeing as that’s who you are – by your own admission).

    • Replies: @moron
  90. Mefobills says:
    @Kali

    Partly right, but given that what we call “money” today began its cultural existance as the “tally stick”, and, as such, can be regognised as mear convention, then the question becomes why not just drop that convention all together.

    I see this thread has degenerated into Lolbertarian fest, where provably false concepts are being bandied about.

    Hudson has already thoroughly debunked libertarianism as junk economics, and that is why I think all the butt-hurting is going on here.

    Money did not begin its cultural existence as a Talley stick.

    Marschack, Hudson and the Harvard colloquium have traced the first money, and it was barley by weight.

    A talley stick is evidence of a debt relation, where you can pay the debt back with similar goods. It initially was a two way relation between individuals. Money is a pay to the bearer upon demand instrument and it is more than two-way, and requires a high level of law to exist.

    The original money in the ancient near east temple cults had an advanced legal system, as administered by both the temple priests and the god kings.

    The only time Talley sticks became money (to my understanding) is when King Edward kicked out the Jews, and they were allowed to take their gold and silver with them. The King’s talley sticks then became the money, as it was good for taxes and was paid out for corvee labor.

    In this case, the Talley stick was evidence of debt, but it was the populations debt relative to the king, and hence it was not two way private debts.

    LoL’s derail the conversation with their inanity, and should be banned.

    • Replies: @Kali
    , @anon
  91. Mefobills says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    The Mofo has copped a succession of shellackings as one after another, all of his authoritarian Big Government tried-and-failed policies of the Stalinist era have been eviscerated.

    I suspect he’s locked himself away, sulking and in a state of depression.

    You are breaking your elbow patting yourself on your back. Sociopaths cannot help but reveal themselves. You are making my case, that you should be banned.

    Feel better now that you have elevated yourself?

    You are so shiny!

  92. @Truth Vigilante

    It would be levied as someone travelled from one county to the next.

    You didn’t say the roads would be built by the entire county. You said they would be built by:

    Those who most needed said road in your locality (business persons and retailers whose manufactured products need to get to market…

    Counties can be quite large. I live in a major American West Coast city which is divided into only 5 counties.

    You’ve simply replaced ‘paying for roads to a large municipality’ with ‘paying to several slightly smaller municipalities.’

    And why should those who live in a county be exempt from paying its toll? That’s where they’re likely to do most of their driving. Why shouldn’t they contribute to upkeep, building of new roads?

    … said counties would get together and pool their resources and decide on what toll should be charged for passage through each particular county.

    This assumes an awful lot of cooperation among various interests.

    In reality, such a scenario would involve factions and consortiums machinating in their own self-interest rather than what’s best for facilitating commerce and travel.

    extortionate tolls of say (for example), twenty times the going rate.

    Factionalism wouldn’t manifest itself as anything that dramatic. It would be more like behind-closed-doors, scratch-my-back-an-I’ll-scratch-yours type stuff that would gradually squeeze the bemused citizenry (so, not all that different from what we have now!)

    would immediately sack their local representatives who were asking for the extortionate tolls (assuming they didn’t lynch them),

    Because history teaches us that citizens always respond immediately and violently to elite malfeasance. 😋

  93. Mefobills says:
    @Biff

    A pathology from internal jealousy of others who are doing better, or even possibly getting rich inside a system they hate, or most likely don’t even understand.

    ______________________________________

    Well they certainly don’t understand the fabric of reality. They live in an alternate universe, or as Michael says – flea bag hotel.

    I’m now of the opinion that sociopaths are attracted to the ideology. The first Lol’s were Utilitarian Benthamites, and of course Jeremy Bentham couched his language in moral righteousness, while simultaneously writing a screed glorifying Usury. Then he had his body preserved in alcohol, so the future could look upon his magnificence. He was SHINY! We must quake when the beams from his magnificence radiate upon us.

    One of the big laughers about Lolbertarianism is that man is a rational economic actor. If we only get rid of government controls, then that rationality will express itself in a free market. Of course there is no such thing as a free market.

    Thorstein thoroughly debunked this ‘man is a rational economic actor” gibberish that LOL’s cling to.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_the_Leisure_Class

    In free market theology there is no such thing as excrescences, as everything balances out magickally, especially if you use gold.

    Veblen discusses how the pursuit and the possession of wealth affects human behavior, that the contemporary lords of the manor, the businessmen who own the means of production, have employed themselves in the economically unproductive practices of conspicuous consumption and conspicuous leisure, which are useless activities that contribute neither to the economy nor to the material production of the useful goods and services required for the functioning of society. That it is the middle class and working class who are usefully employed in the industrialized, productive occupations that support the whole of society.

    Useless activities, conspicuous consumption, rents, unearned income, sordid gain, usury – none of these concepts are used in LoL LoL land to describe the world, which is why it is junk economics and junk ideology.

    • Agree: Punch Brother Punch
    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Truth Vigilante
  94. JM says:
    @Herr K

    True of Hudson and some others, but most of the Left support the Great Transformation. The reason probably lies in their common origins in the (((Russian))) Revolution, after which the central and developing role of Finance Capital was devalued, substituted by a generalized and disembodied (large moan) C-a-p-i-t-a-l-i-s-m. Today we have a form of Ultra-Imperialism as predicted by the Marxist Kautsky as the inevitable development to hyper-monopoly driven by Finance Capital. It is the latter which focuses power as never before and allows the process you call the “Great Transformation” to happen and contrary to Kautsky’s pacifist conclusions, it is loaded with violent and repressive agendas of unprecedented scope – like that which is developing under the smokescreen of the “Covid” hoax.

    As you say, these people aren’t “Leftists” because they support this development and the associated agendas. One finds far more resistance to it from the so-called political “right”.

  95. @Mefobills

    The Mofo writes:

    Personally, I would ban them [the Libertarians].

    Of course, that statement above comes as no surprise to any of us.

    Whether it’s debating the Covid Psyop, the Anthropogenic Global Warming Fraud, the Holohoax or whatever, Mofo and his ilk ALWAYS seek to muzzle their opponents and PREVENT at all costs any public debate on the issue.

    Because, they know that they’ll cop a thrashing like they’ve never encountered, as their flimsy arguments are easily refuted and found to be wanting.

    I’ve repeatedly asked for a debate between Peter Schiff (representing Libertarianism) and Michael Hudson (representing Keynesian-Trotskyism and the Big Government Central Planners) and each time Hudson (or whatever stooge he nominates to represent his movement of TWO – yes, Mofo and Hudson are the ONLY card-carrying members of it that we’ve been able to establish), chickens out.

    They’re nothing but craven cowards – every one of them.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  96. @Kevin Barrett

    Thanks for that comment of yours in defence of the reintroduction of a Gold Standard.

    As you’re probably aware, I agree with you on a hell of a lot (especially most of the bigger issues), but to the extent that we’re not on the same page on some topics, it’s great that we can thrash it out here on a public forum and let others make up their own minds as to the merits of our arguments.

    (As opposed to what Mofo-Bill suggests – in his world we must all stick to the 3″ x 5″ card of allowable opinion as dictated by the authoritarians and central planners that he advocates for).

    Kevin, in relation to an earlier comment of yours that I responded to in this thread, the thrust of what I wanted to say is encapsulated by this great quote from George F. Smith in a recent article he wrote:

    The free market, centred as it is around consumer preferences, open competition, and private property rights, will keep us honest.

    If there is to be a ruling elite, let them rise to their positions naturally, as entrepreneurs on a free market. Only in such an environment will those on top be on PERMANENT PROBATION, as it were, forever subject to the market’s approval, because the customers who put them there always have the option of removing them when they fail to deliver.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  97. @Kevin Barrett

    The free market, centred as it is around consumer preferences, open competition, and private property rights, will keep us honest.

    If there is to be a ruling elite, let them rise to their positions naturally, as entrepreneurs on a free market. Only in such an environment will those on top be on PERMANENT PROBATION, as it were, forever subject to the market’s approval, because the customers who put them there always have the option of removing them when they fail to deliver.

    Kevin, the quote I posted above is extremely important for a number of reasons (of which I’ll quote two):

    1) It will ensure that there will be far fewer oligarchs that come into being as a result of corruption and financial chicanery (as those that rose to the top did so through work effort and commitment to providing the best quality product and and service for their customers).

    2) Most Importantly, success through meritocracy is NOT dependent on one being from a particular subset of society or ethnicity with a particular axe to grind.

    In a level playing field environment, there will be successful entrepreneurs who are Muslims, Christians, Asian, Gentile or otherwise, each with competing political ideologies and worldviews.

    In other words, there will NOT BE the present situation where we have a disproportionate amount of the MEGA-oligarchs coming from one particular conscience-free depraved satanic child ritual abusing cult as we have now, and thus being able to corral society in the manner of their choosing.

  98. Mefobills says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    Whether it’s debating the Covid Psyop, the Anthropogenic Global Warming Fraud, the Holohoax or whatever, Mofo and his ilk ALWAYS seek to muzzle their opponents and PREVENT at all costs any public debate on the issue.

    It’s entertaining provoking a sociopath. Above is a strawman argument, so he can knock it down, thus proving his superiority. I’ve never weighed in on some of those subjects.

    With regards to the debate with Schiff, Hudson already answered that he doesn’t want to get fleas. You have to spend too much time in circular arguments. Planet LoL Lol (or flea bag motel) is full of crazies.

    My history with Truth Vigilante proves this to be the case, circular arguments ad-infinitum.

    Here is the inevitable ad-hominem, as predicted:

    They’re nothing but craven cowards – every one of them.

    There is nothing craven or cowardly about Hudson. It takes an extreme amount of bravery to take on entrenched interests. That he doesn’t want to debate a LoL because it is an exercise in frustration is just being pragmatic. Why waste the time?

    Sociopaths are tone deaf, and they are legends in their own minds.

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  99. Dude, you’re so pollyannish. There will never be a world of perfect meritocracy. We live in a world that is complex, messy, cruel, unfair, corrupt, absurd and ultimately (at best) ironic.

    The most human beings can do is to develop and implement (imperfect) systems and policies to try to ameliorate their condition.

    Magical rainbow-and-unicorn free-market entrepreneurs devoted to “providing the best quality product and and service for their customers” sound nice but you fail to take into account the true nature of the business world or of consumer behavior. These are much more complicated and irrational than your ideology leads you to believe.

    (This reality would not be changed if Jews were out of the picture)

  100. HbutnotG says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    An excellent paraphrase of my SIXTY YEARS BACK understanding of Capitalism.

    The term has (like so many other terms) been bastardized.

    Capitalism allowed those hapless C- average HS grads to live just fine. For decades. Dime stores disappeared 55 years ago because K Mart took up the space, competing successfully by selling in volume, wiping out inefficient small stores Now we have dinky Dollar Stores and a half size Aldi. Back to the early 1950’s! You think I haven’t noticed?

    Well, that old K Mart shopper bunch now works shoving baskcarts into the Wal Mart or wiping asses in a nursing home (yes, the post-Clinton era definition of “industry.”) Their disposable cash is limited. They’ll own their home when their parents “check out.” Not before.

  101. Right now, eight percent of America’s GDP goes for health insurance and health care. That’s higher than any other country, and the health care is much worse because it’s all done for profit and done as cheaply as possible, and it’s been financialized.”

    U.S. national health expenditure as percent of GDP from 1960 to 2020 states in 2020, the national health expenditure was 18% of GDP.

  102. Anon[926] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mefobills

    Big government etc enables Useless activities, conspicuous consumption, rents, unearned income, sordid gain, usury?

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  103. lydia says:

    How is neo-liberalism different from the neo-cons???

    A year later, Trump’s bizarre 4th of July speech makes sense
    It was a declaration of war against other Americans. His presidency is done, but the conflict still rages.

    ……

    https://www.readthepresentage.com/p/donald-trump-july-4

    Mainstream media’s failures embolden Republicans in their quest to dehumanize Democrats.
    Republicans have only gotten as extreme as they are through years of media coddling them and holding them to lower standards. The rising threat of fascism from the right will only get worse as long as media outlets continue to gloss over the monsters they’ve created through unending capitulation. So long as they get invited to appear on Sunday news shows, so long as they get treated like a normal political party, the extreme right will continue its radicalization.

    Twitter avatar for @MattNegrin
    Matt Negrin, HOST OF HARDBALL AT 7PM ON MSNBC
    @MattNegrin
    Rick Scott voted to overturn the election after the Jan. 6 insurrection he incited. He lied and said Trump won

    Today @ThisWeekABC invited Rick Scott on and deliberately ignored his role in spreading the Big Lie, not mentioning it once

    @ABC is helping Republicans erase history
    Image
    April 25th 2021

    2,405 Retweets5,793 Likes
    The press has a job that it simply hasn’t been doing.

  104. Mefobills says:
    @Anon

    Big government etc enables Useless activities, conspicuous consumption, rents, unearned income, sordid gain, usury?

    You have cause and effect reversed. LoL’s are useless, as they invert reality.

    Perenti discusses class and conspiracy. This is how things really work. Class and conspiracy work together to create narrative making said class seem as if it is a baby to be nurtured. They are quite happy for you to point fingers at the government instead of them, where “them” is an Oligarchy or class, sometimes called the .01%.

    Hudson also has worked this class and conspiracy angle in “Killing the Host” where there is a parasite/host relation.

  105. Mefobills says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    Sociopathy of a LOL on display:

    As you’re probably aware, I agree with you on a hell of a lot (especially most of the bigger issues), but to the extent that we’re not on the same page on some topics

    Why would Kevin be aware of you? This is you self inflating your ego, as if you are a great mind and to be slavishly adored. Does he need your approval and agreement on anything?

    As opposed to what Mofo-Bill suggests – in his world we must all stick to the 3″ x 5″ card of allowable opinion as dictated by the authoritarians and central planners that he advocates for)

    This is you building up yet another strawman, as if the totality of my comments can be reduced to a 3 by 5 card. Hudson has written many books, and perhaps you think also that he can be reduced to a triviality. By comparison you are a mental giant, right?

    Hudson makes the assertion that civilizational planning will be done by somebody, and if it is left to the “free market” then the FIRE and private banking sector will do it. Wall Street calls the shots for civilization in a financialized economy. Of course, in LOL LOL land there is no concept for financialization, as it is bed time story hour for the kiddies.

    The free market, centred as it is around consumer preferences, open competition, and private property rights, will keep us honest.

    There is no such thing as a free market, no matter how many times you religiously repeat the mantra. There are only three types of markets; elastic, inelastic and mixed. But, to accept that there is no free market, then the entire house of cards that is Lolbertarianism comes crashing down.

    If there is to be a ruling elite, let them rise to their positions naturally, as entrepreneurs on a free market.

    That doesn’t happen, and has never happened in history. Instead it is a ruling CLASS, who use various schemes to maintain their position. All class based civilizations in history have repeated the same pattern. See the Parenti Video I posted above. But, to accept that, your house of cards falls down.

    subject to the market’s approval,

    This is you building up a god. It is some sort of metaphysical gibberish. Markets are man-made creations, and they have rules and laws which govern them.

    Metaphysical gibberish, sociopathy, and cultish behavior all on display in one comment.

    Also your buttering up Kevin, and then on the same thread demeaning Hudson is the epitome of sociopath tone-deafness.

    They worked together on this article, as if I need to point it out.

  106. @Mefobills

    Mofo-Bill writes:

    One of the big laughers about Lolbertarianism is that man is a rational economic actor. If we only get rid of government controls, then that rationality will express itself in a free market.

    Of course, what was I thinking ?

    As the Mofo rightly (heavy sarcasm) points out, what we need is a special ‘Politburo’ appointed, of selected wise overlords to decide things for us – because we rubes are too stupid [and irrational] to make any decisions on our own.

    Meanwhile, the Gubmint never makes irrational decisions.

    Mofo, your (and Michael Hudson’s) Stalinist era 5 year plan policy prescriptions have all been tried – and failed miserably, leaving abject poverty, famine and mass death in their wake.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  107. @Mefobills

    The Mofo writes:

    It’s entertaining provoking a sociopath. Above is a strawman argument, so he can knock it down, thus proving his superiority. I’ve never weighed in on some of those subjects.

    Au contraire, you HAVE weighed in – by saying I should be banned from making comments (hence the direct link to the perpetrators of the Covid psyop, the Holohoax and the Global Warming fraud).

    You see, the cabal behind all these misery inducing schemes uses the exact same Modus operandi as that which you advocate Mofo. ie: to SHUT DOWN DEBATE.

    On ALL of those other issues, once the other side is allowed to put forward their case and furnish all the facts, the scams of the cabal will quickly unravel.

    What you have to offer will not stand up to scrutiny in a debate – just like the other frauds perpetrated by the Zio cabal.
    In relation to the subject of economics, you’ve been acting in the capacity of a useful idiot by aiding and abetting the grand plan of the Zionist Usury Cartel of Bankers.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  108. @onebornfree

    Your Welcome.

    Nothing ends all the dumbshit quicker than quotes from H.L., Von Mises, and Robert LeFevre. Regardless of what topic is being discussed on this site, I rarely ever read comments past the ones you partake in. Once you remind them of the truth, their is no need for any further discussion.

    “Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.” Robert LeFevre

    Nuff said.

    regards brother

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  109. Kali says:
    @Mefobills

    I see this thread has degenerated into Lolbertarian fest, where provably false concepts are being bandied about.

    You “see” what you choose to see, mefobills. Case in point, I’m not a libetarian. I don’t “believe” in “free-market capitalism”, which I find to be an oximoron, as he who holds the most capital controls the market and all are open to corruption.

    I am, however, free.
    Through my own life experience (10 years living as far outsude “the system” as it’s possible to get) I have discovered for myself that money is a replacement for trust, and for faith. I have examined its function as it impacts all of our daily lives, and regognise that ultimately it is a theives tool used to remove the working man/woman of their rightful inherritance, as all “profit” from his work is syphoned off by an avaricious, physically week “ruling class” which also takes control/”ownership” of our common inherritance.

    Take a look at the link I shared in my first comment (hidden by … Kevin? … behind a “more” tag) and you may understand why right now, right this very minute, WE need to be doing all we can to ensure our own survival and freedom. No economist, no theory, no free-market advocacy is going to do that for us. But by engaging in GIVING FREELY… giving all we can, whilst taking only what we need… we can develope dynamic local economies which serve our immediate, near-term, medium tem and even long term needs, AS LONG as we keep the magicians of the “economy-stupid” OUT of the equasion.

    Either WE, the people, wake up right NOW and free ourselves from the psudo-reality of “conventional economics”, and begin suring up the means of our own survival, then we will remain at the mercy of our financial, corporate and political overlords, who right this very minute are commiting the greatest theft ever imagined (the theft of the global commons) alongside, and undercover of, the biggest psyop ever undertaken and, as is beciming increasingly clear, the concommerant genocide of huge numbers if “usekess eaters”.

    As for the rest of your comment, mefobills, you spend all of it obfuscating my CENTRAL point, that MONEY IS NOTHING BUT CONVENTION and a replacement for trust. Who cares if barley came first, or salt, or the tally stick or whatever. The fact remains that we use money today as a means of exchange, not because money has a real or natural existance, but because somehow the money changers have convinced us that we can’t live without it. Which is utter bollox!

    Soon though, those same money-changes, following their ongoing heist of the global commons, will do away with money all together in favour of electronic “credids”, which they will use to entirely control every man, woman and child on earth through their belief in/dependants upon the “economy-stupid” and barley.. I mean “money.

    All the best,
    Kali.

    • Thanks: Truth Vigilante
    • Replies: @Mefobills
    , @Kurt Knispel
  110. Mefobills says:
    @Kali

    MONEY IS NOTHING BUT CONVENTION and a replacement for trust.

    Moneys true nature is law, and it is not convention. That is you making stuff up, the same as a LOL.

    You may not claim yourself as one, but “birds of a feather.”

    It wasn’t money changers that invented money, it was Temple Priests. They wanted to sell goods and wares long distances to then support their welfare class. Widows and Children who lost their fathers would work for the Temples making blankets and other things to trade long distance.

    Local economies would often not have the things they needed, maybe TIN or something they didn’t have in their own lands.

    Gold was cut-off of rods, and weighed against barley on a balance beam.

    People were paid in barely weights, and gold as weight substituted as barley (notational money) for long distance trade.

    The LEDGER was required before money could come into being, and some sort of legal authority was required to enforce the contracts. This authority was the King and Temple.

    The money changers came later, as a Merchant Class was given the legal power to take some profit on the long distance exchange, and they came to view gold by weight as their money.

    Trust is a component of human relations, and when a creditor and debtor try to settle their differences money may enter into the relation. If it cannot be settled, then a THIRD PARTY – the law is invoked.

    Money is general demand, pay to the bearer, and is good for settling debts. It is a legal instrument backed up by force.

    Making stuff up, and making pretend about reality is why this thread is a massive butt-hurting party, where LOL’s are attacking with inanity.

    In general, people don’t like their shibboleths to be punctured. If you are walking around with gibberish in your brain space, then it is not my problem that you get butt-hurt. You should not be allowed to spread nonsense though.

    In polite societies, the crazies are shown the door.

    When my comments are long, it turns into a MORE tag. It is probably automatic, not a conspiracy against you.

    • Replies: @Kali
  111. Mefobills says:
    @coolhand850

    “Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.” Robert LeFevre

    Government is Fire. “George Washington.”

    LOLbertarian gibberish is a dialectic, where they want to freeze out an enemy. MY TEAM, YOUR TEAM.

    It is for soft-heads, and the doctrine was mostly dreamed up by Jews. The merchant wants to hide in plain site, and then pick your pockets.

    The doctrine wrapped themselves in the flag and made up some gibberish about individualism, when the founding of the country was a collective effort, and was funded by Continentals.

    Of course the JewLOL’s go crazy about the Continentals, but without “George Washington’s Money” the revolutionary war would not have been won.

    LOL’s go crazy about continentals or anything not gold, because their (((masters))) have told them how to think.

    The question is always, “How do you codify your hierarchy?” There will always be hierarchy and hence government. If you allow your government to be staffed by sociopaths and psychos, then all bets are off, the fire becomes uncontained.

    I’m also making the case, that the LOL’s that infest this board would be the worst types of people to staff a hierarchy, as the milk of human kindness does not flow through their veins, they are sociopaths. I’m using their own comments.

    Nuff said and brother? The fleas have come on over from flea-bag motel and are angrily buzzing around together as a team.

    Yet another Hudson article derailed by the LOL nutburgers.

  112. Mefobills says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    What you have to offer will not stand up to scrutiny in a debate – just like the other frauds perpetrated by the Zio cabal.
    In relation to the subject of economics, you’ve been acting in the capacity of a useful idiot by aiding and abetting the grand plan of the Zionist Usury Cartel of Bankers.

    You are actually crazy, which is why you should be banned.

    In the old days, when we collectively discussed things in the ale-house, you would get a sharp elbow to the ribs and shown the door.

    But, in the internet age, you get a megaphone, as if your ideas have merit.

    My handle is MEFOBILL, which was a German financial instrument used to bypass the international usurer, the Zionist Cabal as it were.

    That is why I call your type LOL’s, because one has to laugh out loud at your gibberish.

    Even when I mention over and over again, that I am sympathetic to NSDAP, or that I am a NAZI, somehow that makes me a Zionist or as you say “Bolshevik” in your twisted mind. You want to freeze me out, and make an enemy in a dialectic. I’m not on your team, therefore I’m on the other team.

    You are actually aiding and abetting the Zionist Cabal. You are a useful idiot, who has been duped.

    I don’t know what the answer is to allowing forums to getting hijacked by nut-cases.

    Both Michael and Kevin made a lot of interesting points that should have been discussed, but the thread (as usual) devolved to LOLbertarain talking points, all of which have already been thoroughly debunked by Hudson and others.

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  113. anon[190] • Disclaimer says:

    While NPR NYT and WaPo , and WSJ and politicians of certain kinds, and opportunistic Trump revivalism are getting on the bandwagon of economic concerns of -inflation killing America- are also cheering for wars all over from Ukraine to Taiwan and from Mali to Iran .

    This is their solution or this is their refashioned remeasured renamed ` deal which at one time was offered and suggested how to save the presidency to Obama by great strategists on Fox otherwise known as pure thug .But he was focussed like the praying mantis is on its prey on Iran.

  114. Mefobills says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    You are at it again, passing hypnosis as if it were facts.

    This is a fact of reality:

    Hudson makes the assertion that civilizational planning will be done by somebody, and if it is left to the “free market” then the FIRE and private banking sector will do it. Wall Street calls the shots for civilization in a financialized economy. Of course, in LOL LOL land there is no concept for financialization, as it is bed time story hour for the kiddies

    ________________________________

    As the Mofo rightly (heavy sarcasm) points out, what we need is a special ‘Politburo’ appointed, of selected wise overlords to decide things for us – because we rubes are too stupid [and irrational] to make any decisions on our own.

    Meanwhile, the Gubmint never makes irrational decisions.

    _____________________

    Above is you with more simple minded dialectic: MY TEAM YOUR TEAM. The Gubmit is not on your team, ergo they are the enemy.

    Life is not like that, it is grey, with many players. The players coalesce into in-groups and special interests. This is often class consciousness at work, where they work instinctively to push their class interests. Lolbertarianism was created so this class can operate without hindrance.

    The Devil hides in plain site, and you do his bidding as a dupe.

    Michael and Kevin were trying to explain to normal people, how to view the world, how to understand the various forces at work.

    The GUBMIT ejected Jews some 109 times in history. In all cases it was some sort of hierarchy that was looking out for the “general welfare.” It took organized power to confront organized power.

    Your lolbertarian gibberish does not recognize that organized power emerges from your “free market.”

    If you were interested in disabusing yourself of false doctrine, you would notice that non of these expulsions were done by a country ruled by anarchy or free markets.

    http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/expelled.htm

    [1] On December 17, 1862, General Ulysses Grant wrote to the Assistant Adjutant General of the US Army:

    “I have long since believed that in spite of all the vigilance that can be infused into post commanders, the specie regulations of the Treasury Department have been violated, and that mostly by the Jews and other unprincipled traders. So well satisfied have I been of this that I instructed the commanding officer at Columbus to refuse all permits to Jews to come South, and I have frequently had them expelled from the department. But they come in with their carpet-sacks in spite of all that can be done to prevent it. The Jews seem to be a privileged class that can travel anywhere. They will land at any woodyard on the river and make their way through the country. If not permitted to buy cotton themselves, they will act as agents for someone else, who will be at a military post with a Treasury permit to receive cotton and pay for it in Treasury notes which the Jew will buy at an agreed rate, paying gold.”

    Also, on December 17, 1862, General Ulysses S. Grant issued General Orders No. 11. This order banished all Jews from Tennessee’s western military.

    Hudson’s analysis requires one to see the excrescences, the taking of sordid gain. Grant above is discussing sordid gain taking.

    Your LOL analysis is a blinding one, where you poke people in the eye to blind them. This then gives free reign for organized power (in-groups such as Zionists) to rape and pillage.

    Lol’s are not harmless, they have malice, and many of them are sociopaths. Others are just low IQ types with simple minds.

  115. RogerL says:
    @Jim Christian

    Thanks for the details – I agree, those people are insanely irresponsible.

    This brings up some things that have been in the back of my mind about this interview.

    Its all very well to talk about predatory banks and debt serfs. Why aren’t Micheal and his peers talking about the epidemic of people living beyond their means?

    The reasoning seems to be, when people sign the debt agreement, that if everything goes as planned, then they will be able to make the payments – this is a self-defeating rationalization.

    Plans never turn out exactly as expected, and something always goes wrong. People with mostly successful plans factor in enough resources in reserve that they can successfully deal with unexpected issues as they arrive.

    In the long run, some kind of unexpected issues always come up – that is the issues are unexpected in the short-term, and should be expected in the long-term:
    – Eventually major appliances always fail, and always must to be replaced.
    – Often, within a few months after the warranty period for a new vehicle expires, they need a major repair.
    – Very few people die of old age, without having had some major, expensive health issues during their life.

    [MORE]

    Failing to save up the money needed, for successfully dealing with these major expenses, is living beyond your means. Why aren’t economists hammering on this issue?

    ~
    A major factor, in the extent that people are living beyond their means, is they have been brainwashed by advertising into steadily increasing their norm for an acceptable standard of living.

    What people “can’t live without” today is far more expensive than the norms of 40 years ago.

    Yes, even some low paying jobs require expensive grooming. When not traveling to and from these jobs, inexpensive, long-lasting clothing can be worn. I live in a poor neighborhood, and even the children wear expensive, stylish clothing and hair styles.

    Worse yet, are the chronic expenses, like expensive running shoes, which have a very short life cycle, and must frequently be replaced. I’m wearing leather walking shoes, which can be resoled, with 3 layers of inserts in the shoes. They are as comfortable as running shoes. I’ve been wearing them for over 10 years now. They look pretty beat, but still work fine, and their prorated cost is far less than frequently buying really cheap (bad for your feet, but stylish) running shoes.

    A hundred years ago some people focused on healthy food, fresh air, and exercise, and avoided substance abuse like nicotine and alcohol habits. Many of these people lived a long time, even without expensive medical intervention. However, whenever they died, generally they accepted it – they didn’t fight death.

    What is a better investment in the future, spending \$200,000 to live a year longer, or giving a young person a good education and a debt free start in their life?

    Why did people stop talking about how to live well, while living frugally and investing in the future?

    ~
    If there were slave gangs in the west, who kidnapped people, slapped chains on them, and sold them into slavery, then there would be a huge, violent response to this.

    Yet every day people walk into debt slavery, where the billionaires suck them dry, and leave them nothing but misery for the rest of their shortened lives. It is bizarre that people act like this practice is normal and acceptable.

    This norm is insane – why isn’t there an uprising against this evil, horrible practice?

    ~
    There is a category of “journalist” who make a living from exposing government corruption. Unfortunately this group of writers make a good living by exposing the small corruptions, and carefully avoiding the big corruptions, like the major false flag events created by the US, and the rate the US deep state assassinates people inside and outside the US.

    I’m starting to think the economists on Unz.com are just like those journalists – they are protecting their affluent living by avoiding the most painful economic issues.

    I searched Wikipedia and found this author
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Cruze
    She advocates for dealing with the issues I describe above, and does this by encouraging people to vote with their feet and dollars.

    She looks and sounds like another mainstream self-help author. However, if everybody became debt free, it would overthrow the dominance of banks in the US. She is very popular, and the local library system has many copies of 5 of her books. I put a hold on “Love Your Life Not Theirs: 7 Money Habits for Living the Life You Want” to find out just how much of a revolutionary she is.

    If there was a common norm in society, of doing whatever it took to avoid debt, then it wouldn’t matter how predatory the banks were.

    Financialization and the FIRE economy (finance, insurance, and real estate) wouldn’t dominate the US if people refused to be sucked into it.

    Real change happens from the bottom up. Real change would happen if large numbers of people started walking away from the rentier economy.

    Why doesn’t Unz.com have people advocating the overthrow of the FIRE economy by changing their personal life so they can walk away from from the system that increases the wealth gap between the top and bottom of society?

  116. League Of Legends (i.e. legends like heroes?) :
    Need ordinary things like money be complicated?
    Why complicate simple things?
    The color spectrum is simple too.
    All shades of grey can be measured and sorted…
    Has everyone the right to state his shit or must consternate to death?

    [MORE]

    Here is my Lol for the day (if you like, if not, leave it alone – do not shit on it; go to the toilet!):

    Keep it simple?!
    Is truth usually not simple? (no or yes; zero or one)
    Simple minds are less cunning…

    Economics simple: economics instead of Jewnomics;

    Economicing, trading, exchanging, moneticing is simple when honest instead of „outmanouvered“:
    The subject is part of The Science when cheats’ reign, when the believe in „representative“ government, staate & mercenaries prevails. FED – Foreign Entities Dominance.

    A racist people must rule itself per codetermination, per swarm intelligence, per commons, never via „representatives“. Getting informed, enlightend, is a fetching debt every loyal has (to make informed decisions) without royals & royalties; at least every head of a family.

    A racist people works, creates and has natural growth, growth within own nature. It is untaxable. The commons’ works are paid through growth, in moneticing the natural growth only (ex. inflating).
    (Inflation = money growth > economic growth).

    If the people works result in more (wealth) creation, the commons can monetize the surplus (only) and such pay for more common goods and services resulting in less disparities or discrepancies between family & tribal wealth, without taxation.
    Another problem to be solved is “working for the man” – the worst case is working for the “global stakeholder”.

    The truth is codetermination instead of federalization with uncontrollable foreign interests steering astray. Stealing! Murdering & more stealing… FED – Foreign Entities Dominance.

    Discriminate, be racist
    Produce locally
    Avoid tax (IR is treason…)
    Get local & more (local)
    Delete MAGA & all globalists (products)
    Avoid FEDs (esp. JewS-Army)

    Bismarck: Iron & blood change things.
    Gandhi: when a choice between cowardice or violence I would choose violence.
    Putin: Iron & blood change things.

    It is pretty simple (for simple minds) and complicite minds want to make it complicated.
    The specials, the “global stakeholders” and their tribe keep it at the end of the day very simple for themselves: “If you are dangerous to our interests we will kill you”; says Natteryahoo.

    Academics are trained to produce words endlessly. Engineers like solutions to problems. Works (or not)! Yes or no. Truth or lie. Gentle or cheat. Gentiles or Jews.

  117. @Kevin Barrett

    Technology is deflationary; one ounce of gold buys more food today than it did a millennium ago; the cost of all goods come down due to development in technology and production methods. Now, a Gold Standard complicates the matter of debt in such a universe – lets say one gram of gold bought ten kilos of iron in 1950, and buys 15 kg of iron now in 2021; even without interest, a person who makes iron has to make more iron to repay the debt he contracted; this will deter the borrower; so, the debt size has to be cut to match the advances in technology, and that will deter the lender. This is one complication. Add interest, the picture gets very complicated. Who must pay whom depends on the economic growth! If the growth is too less, the borrower must add interest, when it is too much, the lender must cut the principal amount; only then the amounts lent and borrowed would be equal.

    As technology develops, we need smaller and smaller units of currency. Lets take the plastic use-and-throw cups; they are so cheap that we may be forced to buy them in hundreds as minimum quantity if we use the 1911 cent. As I said earlier, technology makes things cheaper, and this needs smaller units of currency; instead of carving out smaller units, currency is inflated.

    All the evils of fiat currency were present in the gold standard too – stealing through inflation, creating money without gold backup, usury, etc. The full classical Gold Standard hardly worked for half a century – 1860 – 1910; before that, India and China – 40% of the world population – were on a Silver Standard; in 1860s USA got out of Gold Standard and issued unbacked Greenbacks, and got back onto the wagon only in 1879; and as Britain repeatedly demonstrated, governments, when squeezed hard for gold, simply started issuing unbacked paper money – UK during the Napoleonic wars and France’s Assignats are good example. The only reason Gold Standard worked well for those fifty years was that the whole world was under the Whites, and Whites of those days had certain scruples about debasing money, mainly stemming from reading the history of the Roman empire.

    Gold Standard was not always there; the Romans preferred silver currency; so did the Arabs; England was officially on a silver standard when Isaac Newton intentionally overvalued gold Guinea to silver Pound; immediately Gresham’s Law came into action, and gold poured into England and silver was sucked out, establishing a de-facto Gold Standard, but it was legalized only after another hundred years. Had there not been Spanish looting of the American gold, the Californian and Australian gold rushes, there would not have been adequate gold to support the expanding economy of Europe and America in the 19th Century.

    As I see it, gold will have a major role in international trade in future, but a return to the classical Gold Standard is not possible; governments and banksters have tasted the power of whipping “money” out of thin air, and the process is being mastered (MMT!); and it is impossible to wean governments away from a bad habit.

    As I see it, abolishing compound interest and stopping banks from creating new money are more important than going back to a pure classical Gold Standard. Luckily, now Internet offers a very good way to governments to prevent banks from creating new money without control.

  118. anon[167] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mefobills

    Money began as IOUs. Grain is just another commodity to close any one IOU and before metals it was obviously the best, cheapest and most liquid, or instead of a commodity they tallied up with other IOUs and cancelled each other off. Wealth is labour performed either into services or goods. Wealth is money. Any Neolithic village did not need money, it needed people to work. Money was IOU, villagers performed odd jobs for each other usually dependent on what skills they have; or gave each other cheese or grain in exchange for IOU, “I owe you one Grug”. At the end of an annual term, usually after the grain has been harvested the villagers would tally up their IOUs, most of them they were cancelled off completely with no real final exchange of goods or services because they had already been fulfilled and all that had to be done was to recall all the jobs, favours and goods given to each other. If there were delinquent villagers that ended up in debt and never pulled their weight they were usually shunned and then eventually expelled. This is how cities started off from.

    • Thanks: Kali
    • Replies: @Mefobills
  119. @Kevin Barrett

    You wrote:

    At some point, will humanity awaken and recognize that UNEARNED rents and compound interest need to be abolished?

    Now Kevin, I’m addressing this to you but it’s even more applicable to Michael Hudson because in his iteration of Centralised Control through Trotskyism (like that fool Steve Keen), he constantly bangs on about ‘unearned rents’.

    Firstly some background info for context:

    Let’s assume Joe and Josephine Average, who are very much working class, recognise that the best way to ensure security for their progeny after paying off the humble home, is to scrimp and scrape a few extra dollars away each week and save up the deposit to buy a very modest investment property in a less than middle class neighbourhood.

    They forego many of life’s luxuries over many decades, live humbly, buy a base model vehicle every 12-15 years or so (in a one car household), and save up the deposit for said house.
    They then pay it off after 20 years (the mortgage repayments are made possible by the rental income – even though mortgage interest rates went as high as 17% in Australia where Mr & Mrs Average are from), and then have something tangible to leave their children.

    Well Mr & Mrs Average were my mum and dad and I likewise have followed their example.
    There are countless working class families of similarly humble means that I’m personally aware of that have also done this – not to mention the millions that I’m anecdotelly also aware of.

    [MORE]

    My question to you Kevin/Michael Hudson/all those peddling this ‘rentier’ nonsense:

    Seeing as Mr and Mrs Average payed off said home through HONEST TOIL, how the fuck is rental income from said property (WHICH THEY MADE UNTOLD SACRIFICES TO ACQUIRE), how is this ‘UNEARNED INCOME’ ?????

    Now, undoubtedly there is a subset in society, that acquired a substantial property portfolio through theft, deceit, financial chicanery and all manner of criminal activity.

    Like for example those sacks-of-shit the Sackler family dynasty, of Purdue Pharma infamy, that peddled their opioids and killed hundreds of thousands.

    Well, I have no qualms in defining income from their property portfolio as ‘unearned rent’ and, in a just world where the judiciary wasn’t owned by the Zio cabal, perhaps their ill-gotten gains would be confiscated and they’d be incarcerated.

    Bottom Line: Some people invest in the stock and bond markets, and some are not financially savvy and prefer tangible assets like a home and land.

    At the end of the day, WHAT DIFFERENCE does it make whether you invest in a stock for your retirement fund/401K like Apple Corporation and receive a 4% dividend in perpetuity or you purchase an investment property that returns a similar 4% yield ??

    OR, for that matter, what if you’d invested in precious metals or numismatics and earned 4% p.a or better.

    The fact is, YOU toiled honestly to save that money for said income generating investment, so you have well and truly EARNED this rent/dividend/capital appreciation.

    So Kevin, please, PLEASE stop with this B.S about the rentier who’s allegedly holding us all to ransom.

    If property prices have appreciated to such an extent that you’ve been priced out of that swanky part of town that you believe your have AN ENTITLEMENT to live in, get the hell out and find a an affordable town to live in.
    (Alternatively, just wait a few years until the mother-of-all-financial-meltdowns comes our way – ie: the 2008/09 GFC but multiplied by ten – and buy the real estate you want at 40-60% markdown prices).

  120. @Mefobills

    Mofo-Bill writes:

    Of course the JewLOL’s go crazy about the Continentals, but without “George Washington’s Money” the revolutionary war would not have been won.

    As usual, the Mofo massively exaggerates the role of the Continental. The fact is, the decisive factor in the defeat of the British in the Revolutionary War was the contribution of the French – something that a great many ungrateful Americans have not appreciated over the years.

    You also wrote:

    My handle is MEFOBILL

    I had been misspelling your name in the past and my apologies for that.
    Then, one of the other commenters in UR assured me you were a Mofo called Bill and I immediately corrected it.
    (After witnessing the obfuscation and nonsense you’ve been peddling here on UR, it is evident that you are indeed a Mofo).

    You also said:

    Even when I mention over and over again, that I am sympathetic to NSDAP, or that I am a NAZI …

    At the end of the day, you can SAY what you like, it’s what you DO that counts.

    And Michael Hudson’s voodoo economic theories, which you wholeheartedly endorse, is proof positive that he’s aiding and abetting the Zionist agenda.

    (F.F.S, he says in his own words: ‘That’s what Steve Keen and myself and the MMT people at University of Missouri at Kansas City, who have now all been dispersed—Stephanie Kelton, Randy Ray ….’).
    And, seeing as he advocates MMT (there’s nothing ‘Modern’ about it, it’s been tried countless times in history and ALWAYS results in uncontrolled inflation, the destruction of the middle class and further indebtedness to the Zionist Usury Cartel of Bankers), it is evident what Hudson is up to.

    Another of your comments:

    The thread devolved to Libertarian talking points, all of which have already been thoroughly debunked by Hudson and others.

    As the UR readers will have duly noted, you and Hudson live in an alternate Orwellian reality.

    The two of you have debunked NOTHING. With each comment you make Mofo, you further REINFORCE our preconceptions that you’e unhinged.

    You’re gasping for air, hyperventilating and having an anxiety attack wondering why, despite all your Herculean efforts, there are only two card-carrying members of your movement -while the Libertarian movement numbers in the tens of millions worldwide and is growing fast.
    (Yes, Hudson and his groupie Mofo are the only ones to have sworn an oath of allegiance to the legacy of Lev Bronstein – not even able to convince their spouses to join this wretched rabble of disinformers).

    You are a sorry sod indeed.

  121. @Emerging Majority

    Right on!

    Thank you for your knowledgeable addendums.
    The more details the more nightmarish it appears.

    How the Jew got money appart from the FED is a most important subject of truth too.
    (Without truth everything is nothing.)

    [MORE]

    The gnarly dollar is morbid by conception because the Gentile have to be productive for it und the Jew is and does not. That is the biggest discord. It enriches a few and impoverishes the majority; „Emerging Majority”.
    Example:
    When the Jew ganged up on German housing, young Israelis came in and got packets of flats (in the hundreds and thousands) financed to 100 % without any owner’s savings; no collateral whatsoever. Nada. Even the buyer’s fees got financed out of Switzerland. That is facism. Judaism is Facism.
    If you are a hometown Nazi 50 % owner’s capital are often not enough for the banks to lend.

    The Talmud is a mafia codex. Their biggest heist is the FED.

    I truly, deeply despise Jews and worse: Shabad Goys. Any Jew will do for my hatred. My soul shall rest when all 4 abrahamitc religions are destroyed and their imposters in eternal hell.

    Apropos Nazi:
    Jesus was anything but a Jew.
    The Jews called and still call him „Nazi“.
    Nazi was the expletive curse of the Jew against Nazarians, against people from Nazareth
    Nazarians from Nazareth were Aryans. (I have personally seen the Aryan trail along the Danube with Bulgaria and within Greece).

    The bastard Jew envies and despises nothing more than purebloods; the true light(s).
    Differentiating between Jews is another looser. Let me leave it at that, since it does not seem appropriate or desired under this pseudo-economic column; I leave it.
    „Pseudo-economic“ because to talk lofty or „intelligently“ without first and every time laying down the basics, i.e. the currency problem and foremost the JewS-Dollar problem appears vaine to me.

    Even enlightened Americans appear still too identified and too indoctrinated with the false and deadly constructs of Dollar, Army etc.

    „The most dangerous superstition“, the believe in the fake statehood with a criminal currency paying mercenaries (mostly culturally trashed white men) to subdue and enslave anyone not part of the mafia.
    The Anglo-American world is the gangster’s world and has netted the whole world with evil. Evidence: „Covid“, “democratic” elections etc.

  122. Kali says:
    @Mefobills

    Well, thanks for the utterly pointless and irrelevant history lesson, which demonstrates in very clear terms that…

    “you are walking around with gibberish [= pointless and irrelevant noise] in your brain space”.

    Tell, mefo’, what exactly have you done personally to ensure your own and your families freedom and survival over the ensuing “great transformation” and beyond? – Because unless you are producing/generating your own energy, cutting your own firewood, growing your own food and and sourcing your own supply of pottable water (as myself, hubbie and assorted friends do) then you’re basically over a barrel labelled “it’s the economy stupid”.

    How’s that for gibberish?

    It’s obvious reading your comments that you have lost all connection with actual reality, have no longer any idea what “trust”, “faith”, “freedom” or even”convention” mean. – You think money has a “true nature” which is somehow “law”, not even “natural law” and offer nothing at all to support such an invertion of reality. The “economy stupid” indeed! Take your “law” with you as you hurtle over the cliff of totalitarian globalist economics.

    Sure, birds of a feather flock together and I do have much more in common, idealogically, with my libitarian friends than I do with anyone pushing for state/government control of anything at all. But neither capitalism nor socialism of any brand are solutions for the imminent catastrophy we face.

    Only self-reliance together with developed community support networks, base upon giving what we can whilst taking only what we need, can ensure our survival and freedom from tyranny. Should I need slate for roofing or lime for rendering or veternery care for my animals or anything else that I can’t provide for myself directly, I can source these things in my wider community with no need for monetary exchange because every surplus resource that I do have along with my own skills and labour are freely given to that wider community, and as if by “magic” (ie. common sence) all of our needs are met. And that, even before delving into the more esoteric aspects of life, faith and trust.

    It strikes me that you have substituted, as is entirely conventional, your own common sence for a complicated and entirely needless belief in the psudoscience of stupid economics which you feel makes you appear clever because of its many levels of complication, aka bullshit.

    You have brought nothing to this conversation but ad homen and trolling of those you disagree with in place of any actual reasoned argument in favour of your own possition.

    May I suggest that you get outside and get some food in the ground rather than wasting your time and energy demonstrating your lack of common sence. The world will be a moderately better place with a moderately better chance of a brighter future if you do.

    Best wishes,
    Kali.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  123. @Kali

    Kali, I love you.
    (Just let me say it.)

    Included I see your contributions here as the contributions of a practical, that is a real woman.
    I assume you are a mother.
    In your last paragraph you point out what it boils down to.
    In my eyes you try “to earth” the subject?!
    That is all “economcis” should be.
    The KK University awards you with a “Bachelor of Applied Economics”,
    which you will probably use to light up the stove.

    Economic theory migrated to America, perverted and is now part of “The Science”.
    Harvard has become part of the problem.

    • Replies: @Kali
    , @Mefobills
  124. Christ, looking over this comment thread I see a neverending, always-another-bottom-opening abyss of libertarian stupidity.

    Now the Preppers are getting involved.

    I’m sorry I kicked this proverbial Hornet’s Nest by bringing up “roads.”

    • Agree: Mefobills
  125. Kali says:
    @Kurt Knispel

    Thank you for your comment, vote of confidence and love Kurt. Your comment is the very first thing I’ve read today following my morning coffee, so my day gets off to a lovely start. 🙂

    Through no choice of my own I have no children. I am, however, defacto mother to an ever-growing clan of assorted people and animals.

    I wish you a wonderful day and all the very best as our collective consciousness raises to meet the challenges of our time. I left my degree certificate behind when I removed myself from the system (a worthless piece of paper) but accept your honorary bachalor award with deep gratitude.

    Fond regards,
    (Eternal mother) Kali.

  126. @Muralidhar Rao

    Not our problemo, buyers still need to self-regulate. Credit cards, 2nd and 3rd mortgage loans, it all fits. Doesn’t change the game, that IS the game, wives driving them into debt.

  127. @Neutral Observer

    Healthcare costs in the US have one of the worst cost/outcome ratios in the world. It is extremely over priced.

  128. Mefobills says:
    @anon

    Money began as IOUs. Grain is just another commodity to close any one IOU and before metals it was obviously the best, cheapest and most liquid, or instead of a commodity they tallied up with other IOUs and cancelled each other off.

    No it didn’t.

    We are going to need special schools or something.

    In small villages of less than 200 people, they simply remember who owed who what. They kept a tally of credits and debts in their head.

    Later if they couldn’t remember, they marked it down, sometimes on sticks using notches. This would be a personal two way debt relation between two parties.

    The commodity aspect of Barley is when humans stopped hunting gathering and the villages became more than 200 people.

    Barley was important for becoming agrarian, because people wanted to get drunk and screw. It wasn’t natural stop hunting gathering. People actually became less nourished, and shrank in stature. There was less good food when farming started, but the getting drunk on barley was more fun.

    It takes a high level of civilization and enough people for money, which is unconditional demand, to pop into being.

    Hudson and others have written books on this subject. Lol’s are brainwashed.

  129. Mefobills says:
    @Kurt Knispel

    Economic theory migrated to America, perverted and is now part of “The Science”.
    Harvard has become part of the problem.

    The colonies put economic theory on fast forward. That Colonials did not accept “migrated” economic theory, as they had to survive.

    The Colonials invented all kinds of things, especially including Industrial Capitalism, and ‘The American System of Economy.”

    The English System, is finance capitalism, and in turn is a Jewish system, was always at war with the American System.

    The “migration” of finance capitalism was always a war against the Colonials (hence Revolutionary War, and war of 1812) and hence against the American System of Economy.

    The Migration of Finance Capitalism happened in stages, and took over by 1911.

    Lolberatianism has nothing at all to do with the Colonial Experience. Lolbertarianism is a mind screw, it is part of a dialectic of finance capitalism.

    Harvard has been usurped by Jewish thought as well, as it was the “Harvard Boys” who punked Russia in the 90’s.

    https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/the-harvard-boys-do-russia/

    The Harvard Boyeez were mostly Jewish, as were the “Oligarchs” in Russia. It was the “transfer” of international credit which bought up the commanding heights of the Russian economy. This then dispossessed the Russian people of their birthright.

    To make clown world, requires hypnosis.

  130. Mefobills says:
    @Kali

    Sociopathy on evidence again:

    Tell, mefo’, what exactly have you done personally to ensure your own and your families freedom and survival over the ensuing “great transformation” and beyond?

    This is an attempt by you to create an enemy, to paint the other with your imaginary brush.

    What I have done personally is none of your business, and is you on a fishing expedition.

    You have brought nothing to this conversation but ad homen and trolling

    I’m using the exact words of the commentators, to show that they are personality defectives, often sociopaths. This is not an ad-hominin. Ad-hominins are different, it is where you try to change the subject by painting the other, usually with a claim that is made up from nothing.

    It strikes me that you have substituted, as is entirely conventional, your own common sence for a complicated and entirely needless belief in the psudoscience of stupid economics

    This very article is both Hudson and Barrett trying to bring clarity to economics. When Keynes was alive, he would call your type a “crank.” You already have a personal belief system, where economics is pseudoscience.

    May I suggest that you get outside and get some food in the ground rather than wasting your time and energy demonstrating your lack of common sence.

    What a load of horseshit. The above is you giving up. An industrial economy can produce more than enough food for the people. With enough energy inputs you can grow enough food in a skyscraper type operation to feed massive amounts of people, even cities full of people.

    The “oligarchy” of elites have done a number on people’s heads, as they polarize land and wealth into their hands. This then creates a two tiered civilization, a new feudalism.

    If you use gibberish economics as the basis of your understanding, then you cannot understand the polarization. At least try to eject the brainwashing that is between your ears.

    Hudson pretty much is above the target, and is taking flak.

    • Replies: @Kali
  131. Kali says:
    @Mefobills

    Someone who cannot distinguish rhetoric from a fishing expedition really has no business commenting.

    No offence, but you debate like a 12 year old.

    If you imagine that self-reliance is a symptom of “giving up” it may be that you are a lost cause. I’ll leave it at that.

    Best wishes (your gonna need ’em),
    Kali.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  132. Mefobills says:
    @Kali

    Your comments are why the moderator needs to start censoring.

    Here it is again:

    Tell, mefo’, what exactly have you done personally to ensure your own and your families freedom and survival over the ensuing “great transformation” and beyond?

    Above is you virtue signaling. Your behavior is set apart and above, ergo all others are below you.

    No offence, but you debate like a 12 year old.

    This is a form of strawman, where you paint your opponent with a characteristic, so you can knock it down.

    Best wishes (your gonna need ’em),

    You don’t have best wishes, nor do you really care. Sociopaths cloak themselves with pseudo virtue.

    Hudson is creating language and understanding so that “some people” can begin to unravel clown world.

    The LOL’s, Anarchists, Preppers, and other fleas that are flying madly about are part and parcel of any Hudson article.

    Hudson draws them out. It is rude to behave this way toward the author.

    People like Punch Brother above has noticed it too:

    Christ, looking over this comment thread I see a neverending, always-another-bottom-opening abyss of libertarian stupidity.

    Now the Preppers are getting involved.

    I’m sorry I kicked this proverbial Hornet’s Nest by bringing up “roads.”

    • Replies: @moron
  133. moron says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    Ok, Truth Vigilante. I’ll change my name to Captain Strong Brave, and then you can “take advice” on the internet from a comment thread

  134. moron says:
    @Mefobills

    Never bring up roads to a libertarian, it’s like a cassette tape went off

    Ask a libertarian to define “easement” and watch the meltdown

  135. @Agent76

    Ring around the rosey and hush–we all fall down—–Mother Goose and Grimm’s Fairy tales -coming soon.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Kevin Barrett Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Becker update V1.3.2
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World