The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewMichael Hudson Archive
Destiny of Civilization, Interview by Ben Norton
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
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

Economist Michael Hudson on decline of dollar, sanctions war, imperialism, financial parasitism

Economist Michael Hudson discusses the decline of the US dollar, the sanctions war on Russia, his concept of “free-trade imperialism,” and financial parasitism.

In this interview with Multipolarista editor Benjamin Norton, economist Michael Hudson discusses the decline of the US dollar, the sanctions war on Russia, his concept of “free-trade imperialism,” and financial parasitism.

We talk about these concepts explored in his new book “The Destiny of Civilization: Finance Capitalism, Industrial Capitalism or Socialism.”

In this interview with Multipolarista editor Benjamin Norton, economist Michael Hudson discusses the decline of the US dollar, the sanctions war on Russia, his concept of “free-trade imperialism,” and financial parasitism.

We talk about these concepts explored in his new book “The Destiny of Civilization: Finance Capitalism, Industrial Capitalism or Socialism.”

BENJAMIN NORTON: Hey, everyone. I’m Ben Norton, and this is the Multipolarista podcast. And I have the great pleasure of being joined today by one of my favorite guests, one of I think the most important economists in the world today. I’m speaking with Professor Michael Hudson.

If you’ve seen any of the interviews I’ve done with Professor Hudson over the past few years, you probably know that he’s a brilliant analyst. He always has, I think, the best analysis to understand what’s going on economically and also politically, geopolitically, in the world today.

And right now is, I think, a very important moment to have Professor Hudson on today. We’re going to talk about the economic war on Russia and the process of economic decoupling between Russia and China and the West, which is something that Professor Hudson has talked about for many years. And that really has accelerated with the Western sanctions on Russia over Ukraine.

We’re also going to talk about the decline in U.S. dollar hegemony. A recent report from the International Monetary Fund, which is dominated by the U.S., acknowledged that the use of the dollar in foreign bank reserves is gradually declining.

Now, it’s not going to disappear overnight. But even the IMF is acknowledging that dollar hegemony is eroding. And, of course, the IMF acknowledged that the Western sanctions on Russia are going to further erode the hegemony of the U.S. dollar.

We now see Russia doing business with China in the Chinese yuan. Russia is also doing business with India with the Indian rupee. And of course Russia has been telling Europe that if it wants to buy Russian energy, it has to do so with Russian rubles.

So there’s so much to talk about today, Professor Hudson, but I want to begin in the first half of this interview today talking about a new book that you’re just about to publish.

Today is Monday, May 9th. You said on Wednesday, May 11th, the book comes out. And it’s called “The Destiny of Civilization: Finance Capitalism, Industrial Capitalism or Socialism.”

And everything that I just prefaced this interview with, discussing the economic war in Russia and sanctions and decoupling, this is all deeply related to what you talk about in this book. And I had the pleasure of getting an early copy and reading through it. It’s a really important book, I think.

And you talk about this fundamental divide internationally – and this is a divide that actually goes back historically as well – between these three models for different economic systems you discuss: finance capitalism, industrial capitalism, and socialism.

And your argument is that the U.S. empire has been a force for imposing neoliberalism, which is a particular form of finance capitalism, which is nonproductive, in which finance capital destroys productive industries in pursuit of rent-seeking, and what you call the rentier class.

So instead of producing, as the classical bourgeois economists had said capitalism would be a productive system instead, finance capitalism is fundamentally a system of destruction and debt.

And your argument is that this is deeply rooted in U.S. foreign policy. This is the U.S. foreign policy strategy for expanding its economic power, is imposing this finance capitalist model on the world.

So can you expand further on your argument about the fight between finance capitalism, industrial capitalism, and socialism, and why you decided to publish this book now?

MICHAEL HUDSON: Well the book came out of a series of 10 lectures that I did for my Chinese audience. I’ve been a professor at Peking University for a number of years in economics, and have professorships at other universities, Wuhan and Hong Kong.

And I have a fairly large audience of about 65,000 people per lecture there. And I was asked to give my general overview, sort of a history of economic development in the West, for the Chinese.

And in order to understand today’s finance capitalism, you have to understand what industrial capitalism was, as it was described in the 19th century.

And it’s often forgotten, or played down, that industrial capitalism was revolutionary. What it was trying to do – from the physiocrats in France in the late 18th century to Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Marx, and the whole late-19th century flowering of socialism – the ideal of classical value theory and rent theory, was to say what is the actual value, the cost value of producing goods and services?

And what is earned by the capitalist, when he employs labor to make a profit, and what is unearned? And what is unearned was the landlord class. That was the hereditary warrior class that conquered all of the European kingdoms in the Middle Ages.

And the attempt by England’s industrialists was saying, look, we cannot become the workshop of the world; we cannot undersell foreign countries if we have a landlord class ripping off all of the money in land rent.

And if we have predatory banking, or the wealthy people just lend really for buying property, or making distressed loans or predatory loans that have nothing to do with financing actual capital formation.


Well, what made this capitalism revolutionary was the British industrialists and advocates of industry, even the bankers in Ricardo’s time, said, well, in order to overthrow the landlord class, which controls the House of Lords and all of the upper chambers of government in Europe, we have to have democratic reform.

If we have democratic reform and give voting to the people, they’re going to vote against the landlord class, and then we can have an efficient economy where our prices of our exports and our goods and services reflect the actual cost of production, not the rake off for the rentiers class, not the rake off of what landlords take, not the rake off of what predatory bankers take.

And the whole long 19th century leading up to World War One was this revolutionary value theory that depicted land rent and monopoly rent and financial returns as being unearned income and wanting to strip it away.

And all of this seemed to be moving toward socialism. The industrialists were all in favor of government public utilities, of government enterprise, because they said, if the government doesn’t provide health care, then individuals are going to have to pay it, and it’ll cost a lot of money, like it does in the United States.

And so you had the conservative prime minister of England, Benjamin Disraeli, saying, health, all is health, we’ve got to provide public health for the people.

And it was the conservative Bismarck in Germany that said, we’ve got to provide pensions. If labor has to save up for the pensions, then it’s not going to have enough money to buy the goods and services that we Germans are producing. We have got to make pensions public.

So all of this move towards socialism was not only in favor of increasing living standards, which soared in the 19th century, but also in freeing the economy from the rentier class, from the landlords, from the bankers.

And for the classical economists, a free market was a market free from landlords, free from bankers, free from monopolists.

Well, needless to say, the rentiers fought back. And by after World War Two, we’ve seen a continual anti-classical theory replacing the classical idea of free markets with a value of free theory, saying, well, everybody earns whatever they they have. All wealth is earned, not unearned. And if Goldman Sachs partners are paid more than anyone else, that’s because they’re so productive.

So you had a move rejecting classical economics, a junk economics, and a kind of artificial economics that doesn’t really talk about how finance capitalism has worked.

And as it turns out, the business plan of finance capitalism was so predatory that it was anti-industrial.

That’s why President Clinton in the United States moved to invite China into the International Labor Organization, saying, well, we can fight wage rises in America by a race to the bottom. We can we can hire Asians to do work, and that will cause unemployment here. And that’s wonderful for the industrialists. It will basically cut wages and keep American wages down.

Well, that basically is the strategy of finance capitalism, and the aim of finance capitalism is not to invest in factories, and plant equipment, and research and development, but to live in the short term, but to make money by financial engineering, not industrial engineering.

And it becomes predatory, and so you have the whole ideological attack on public enterprise. You have Frederick Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom,” where you say, if government provides public healthcare, that’s “the road to serfdom,” where actually it’s finance capitalism that is the road to debt peonage and serfdom.

And you have now a whole disparagement of government. And all of this is a counter-revolution to the revolutionary impetus of industrial capitalism in its early stages.

And it’s true that corporations now are just as right-wing as the the banks and the hedge funds. But that’s because corporate industry has been taken over by the financial sector, and the heads of almost every industrial corporation are rewarded the how high they can push the stock price, to exercise the stock options they’re paid in.

And you increase the stock price not by investing more, not by hiring more labor or increasing productivity or increasing sales, but simply by using whatever income you have to buy back your stocks. And by buying back your stocks, this forces up their price.

And, most of all, by giving political contributions in this country to the Democrats and Republicans alike, who appoint Federal Reserve heads that have spent $7-9 trillion buying up stocks and bonds to increase the price of buying a retirement income, to increase Wall Street prices, to increase housing prices, and make America even less competitive industrially.

So finance capitalism is what has essentially de-industrialized the United States and turned the Midwest into a Rust Belt.

Well, the alternative, obviously, are the societies that have not followed this neoliberal finance capitalist plan. And the most successful economy, obviously, has been China, which is why it has been spending so much time there.

And China has done exactly what 19th-century United States, Germany, England, and France did. It has kept basic utilities, basic needs, housing, and above all, finance and banking, in the public domain, as public utilities.

Instead of having an independent financial sector operating on its own self-interest, the Bank of China creates the money. And the Bank of China lends money by deciding, where do we need to have investment in real estate to provide housing for the population at as low a price as we can make it? How do we build up the industry? How do we provide an educational system with training? How do we provide health?

And the fact is that the central planning in an efficient socialist style, not the Stalinist planning that everybody refers to of Russia, but a mixed economy as you have in China, which is truly a mixed economy, with guidance, like the French planification.


Well, that is obviously the way in which you survive and you avoid the kind of overloading the economy with debt service, with high rents, with high payments to the health-care monopoly in the United States, by avoiding all of this payment to a rentier class that has what the classical economists call unearned income, predatory income.

And instead of unseating them, we’ve put them in charge, and made the banks and Wall Street, and the city of London, and the Paris Bourse, the central planners.

So we do have central planning much more centralized than anything that was dreamed by the socialists. But the planning, the centralized planning is done by the financial sector.

And financial planning is short-termism; it’s short-term planning; it’s take your money and run. And that’s what is stripping and impoverishing the global economy today.

BENJAMIN NORTON: Absolutely. And, in your book, you write about the important distinction between the classical economic idea of a so-called free market, and how, you argue that, neoliberals turn that idea on its head.

So this is what you write in your book. And this is, again, Michael Hudson’s new book, “The Destiny of Civilization,” which is out this week. You write:

“The neoliberal ideology inverts the classical idea of a free market from one that is free from economic rent to one that is free for the rentier classes” – that is the rent-extracting classes – “to extract rent and gain dominance.”

So they they completely flip the idea of what it means to have a free market.

And then you note that, “in contrast to classical political economy, this neoliberal ideology promotes tax favoritism for rentiers, privatization, financialization, and deregulation.” And you discuss all of that.

That is, of course, what we could call the Washington consensus.

And then you argue that “U.S. foreign policy seeks to extend this neoliberal rentier program throughout the world.”

And you have a very interesting section of your book where you discuss this concept as “free-trade imperialism.”

So can you talk about what your idea of “free-trade imperialism” is and how it relates to U.S. foreign policy?

MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, the Nobel Prize is given basically for junk economics. And probably the worst junk economist of the century was Paul Samuelson.

He made the absurd claim that he proved mathematically that, if you have free trade then, and don’t have tariffs, and don’t have any government protection, then everyone will become more equal. At least the proportions between labor and capital will be more equal. Well, the reality is just the opposite.

And the term “free-trade imperialism” was actually created by a British historian of trade theory who pointed out that, wait a minute, when England went for free trade, the idea was, if we have free trade, we can stifle other countries from being able to industrialize, because if we have free trade, then we can tell America, we will open our doors to your markets – meaning the markets of the slave South, that Britain supported – and in exchange, you will open your markets to our industrial goods.

And America followed that until the Civil War, which was fought not only over slavery, but by the Republican Party after 1853 that said very explicitly, if we’re going to win the election – the Whigs never could win – if we, the new party, are going to win the election and industrialize America, we’ve got to integrate ourselves with the anti-slavery issue, with emancipation, but for us, the economic war of America is a war of, either we’re going to have protective tariffs in the North, or we’re going to end up as a non-industrial, raw materials-producing society, as the South wants.

And that was the debate from 1815, when the Napoleonic wars ended and world trade began again, until really the Civil War.

And America became strong in the way that Germany became strong too, by having protective tariffs, in order to have prices large enough to nurture what was called infant industry, to nurture American manufacturing.

And I wrote a long book about this, published some years ago based on my PhD dissertation, “America’s Protectionist Takeoff.”

Well, the English tried to fight against other countries protecting their economy, saying that if you just have free trade, you’ll get rich. Whereas the reality is, if we have free trade, you’ll get poor, if you’re not already able to have industrial and labor productivity and agricultural productivity on par with the most advanced countries.

Free trade was an attempt to prevent other countries from investing government money and building up their agriculture, and building up their industry, and building up their productivity, and creating a school system, to raise wages, to make wages more productive.

And the American protectionists said, well, we’re going to have a high-wage economy because high-wage labor undersells pauper labor. And skilled, well-fed, well-rested American labor can produce much more than the pauper labor of other countries that have free trade.

Well, what the leading American protectionist economist, Erasmus Peshine Smith, went to Japan and helped industrial help Japan break away from British free trade, helped Japan industrialize.

And other American economists, other foreign economists, all picked up the ideas of the American protectionist, like Friedrich List went to Germany promoting protectionism.

And Peshine Smith’s book, “The Manual of Political Economy,” was translated into all the foreign languages – Japanese, Italian, French, German.

And you had Europe realizing that free trade polarizes economies. Well, it was this that after World War One, and especially World War Two, when you had orthodox economics turning into basically propaganda.

That’s where you and Samuelson and others try to convince other countries, governments are bad, leave everything to the wealthy people, to the finance people, trickle-down economies, it’s all going to trickle down, don’t worry, just give more money to the rich, and don’t have any government interference with markets.

Whereas America had got rich by interfering with markets, to shape them in the years leading up to World War One.


But after World War One, America had already achieved its industrial dominance. And it was after World War One that America said, ok, now our protective tariffs have enabled us to outproduce all the other countries, and our protectionist agriculture especially – the most protected sector in America, has always been agriculture, since the 1930s.

Basically it said, well, now we can outproduce other countries, we can undersell them, now we can tell them to go for free trade.

And after World War Two, the Americans created the World Bank for economic impoverishment, and the International Monetary Austerity Fund.

And the World Bank’s leading objective was to prevent other countries from investing in their own food production.

The guiding line of the World Bank was, we’ve got to provide infrastructure for building up plantation agriculture in Latin America, and Africa, and other countries, so that they will grow tropical export crops, but they cannot be permitted to grow grain or wheat to feed themselves; they must be dependent on the United States.

And so the function of free trade, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund has been to finance dependency, backed up by the American support of dictatorships throughout Latin America who agree to have client oligarchies supporting pro-American trade patterns and avoiding any kind of self-reliance, so that the United States can do what it has recently done to Russia and other countries, impose sanctions – say, well, now that you depended on us for your grain, we can now impose sanctions, and you can’t feed yourself if you don’t follow the policies we want.

That was the policy that America tried to use against China after Mao’s revolution. And fortunately for China, Canada broke that monopoly, and said, well, we’re going to sell grain to China. And China was always very friendly to Canada in those earlier decades.

So basically, free trade means no government, no socialism. It means central planning essentially by Wall Street – countries should let American firms come in, buy control of their raw materials, resources, control of their oil and gas, and mineral rights, and forests and plantations, and basically let other countries send their whole economic surplus to the United States, where it will be duly financialized to buy out other countries’ raw materials and rent yielding resources.

BENJAMIN NORTON: Yeah, and in your book, you have a very funny passage that I think really encapsulates this ideology that you’re talking about here.

You referred to Charles Wilson, who was the secretary of defense under Eisenhower in the U.S., and he was also the former CEO of General Motors.

And he famously said, “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country.” And that idea has morphed into the idea that, “What’s good for Wall Street is good for America.”

And then you note that “this merged with evangelistic U.S. foreign policy that says ‘What’s good for America is good for the world.’ And therefore the logical syllogism is clear: ‘What’s good for Wall Street is good for the world.’”

And you describe this, you link it to the new cold war, this idea that what’s good for the U.S. is good for the world and what’s good for Wall Street is good for the U.S., therefore, what’s good for Wall Street is good for the world.

You argue, “We must recognize how finance capitalism has gained power over industrial economies, above all in the United States, from which it seeks to project itself globally, led by the financialized U.S. economy. Today’s new Cold War is a fight to impose rentier-based finance capitalism on the entire world.”

And this is such an important analysis. Because among those very few people of us who talk about this idea of the new cold war and how dangerous it is, there are very few people who frame it in economic terms.

Usually we frame it in political terms, right, the geopolitical interests between the US and the EU on one side, and China and Russia on the other.

And going back to Brzezinski and The Grand Chessboard, his 1997 book, where he talks about the importance of preventing near strategic competitors from emerging in Eurasia. That’s of course a geopolitical discussion and economics is part of it, but it’s often not at the forefront.

But your analysis I think is even more important, and more accurate, because your argument is not only is it geopolitical, but the geopolitical struggle is rooted in economics. And this is an economic struggle between systems.

So talk talk more about the new cold war and how you see it.

MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, as we’re seeing now, the world is dividing into two parts. We can see that in the fight against Russia, which is also a fight against China, and against India, as you noted. And it seems Indonesia and other countries as well.

The United States is pushing a world that can be controlled by American investors. The ideal of the American neoliberal plan is to do to other countries what it did to Russia after 1991: take all of your public domain, your oil companies, your nickel mines, your electric utilities, give them all to the wealthy oligarchy, that can only make money once it’s taken control of these companies, by selling the stocks to the West.

The West will buy out oil, just like Mikhail Khodorkovsky tried to sell Yukos oil to Standard Oil in the West. And we’ve got to put an oligarchy that will sell all of the national domain, all of the patrimony and natural resources, and all the companies, to American investors on the cheap.

The Russian stock market led all the stock markets in the world from 1994 up to about 1998. This was a huge rip off. The United States wants to be able to do that to the rest of the world.

And it was furious when Russia said, we’ve lost more population as a result of neoliberalism than we did in all of World War Two fighting against Nazism. We’ve got to stop.

And Russia began to say, we’ve got to use Russia’s population, and industry, and natural resources for Russia’s benefit, not for the United States’ benefit.

Well, the United States was absolutely furious with this. And the fury has erupted in the NATO war against Russia in the last few months, and what’s ongoing now.

And the United States says, U.S. State Department officials have said, what we want to do is carve up Russia into maybe four different countries: Siberia, western Russia, southern Russia or Central Asia, maybe northern Russia.


And once we’ve done that, we cut Russia off from China, then we go into China. We finance, we send ISIS and al-Qaeda into the Uyghur areas, the Muslim areas, and we start a color revolution there. And then we break up China, into a northern part, a southern part, a central part.

And once we break them up, we can more or less control them. And we can then come in, buy up their resources, and take over their industry, their labor, and their government, and get richer to obtain from China, Russia, India, Indonesia, and Iran the wealth that we’re no longer producing in the United States, now that we de-industrialized.

So the world is dividing into two parts. And it’s not simply the United States and its European satellites on the one hand versus the non-white population on the other hand; it’s finance capitalism versus the rest of the world, which is protecting itself by socialism, which in many ways fulfills what was the ideal of industrial capitalism during the 19th century, when industrial capitalism was actually progressive.

And it was progressive. That’s part of the whole theme of my book. It was revolutionary. It tried to free economies from the legacy of feudalism, from the legacy of hereditary landlords.

And now the financial class is no longer the landlord class, but the landlord class pays most of its rent to the financial class in the form of mortgage interest, as it borrows money to buy property and housing and commercial sites on credit.

And you have the kind of financialization that has increased housing prices in the United States to over 40% of income, that is officially guaranteed for mortgages. That has priced American labor out of the market.

Privatized health care, 18% of GDP, that is pricing America out of the world market. Debt, auto debt, student debt, which in other countries education is free; that’s pricing America out of the market.

So you have a basically un-competitive economy that’s committing financial suicide, following the same dynamic that destroyed the Roman empire, where a predatory oligarchy took over and maintained power by an assassination policy of its critics, just very similar to what America has been doing in Latin America and other countries.

So you’re having history repeat itself with this same kind of world split. And this split couldn’t have occurred back in the 1970s, with the Bandung Conference in Indonesia. There were other attempts by the Non-Aligned nations to break free of American imperialism, but they didn’t have a critical mass.

So right now, for the first time, you have a critical mass. And you have the ability of China, Iran, Russia, India, other countries together to be self-sufficient. They don’t need relations with the United States.

They can handle their own; they can create their own monetary system outside of the International Monetary Fund, which is basically an arm of the Defense Department. They can give loans to build up the infrastructure of countries outside of the World Bank, which is basically an arm of the Defense Department, the deep state.

So you have the American economy – essentially a merger between the military-industrial complex and the Wall Street FIRE sector, finance, insurance, and real estate – really cannot develop any more than the Roman Empire could develop, by trying to obtain militarily what it could not produce at home anymore.

Well, China and other countries, now that they have their industrial base, the raw materials, the food, the ability to feed themselves, the agriculture, and the technology, they can go their own way.

And so we’re seeing in the last few months the beginning of a war that is going to go on for, I think, 20 years, maybe 30 or 40 years. The world is splitting away.

And it won’t be a pretty sight, because the United States and its European satellites are trying to fight to prevent an inevitable break away they cannot prevent, any more than Europe’s landlord class could prevent industrial capitalism from developing in the 19th century.

BENJAMIN NORTON: Yeah, and this is a good segue to what I wanted to ask you about, Professor Hudson, which is the economic war on Russia.

And I should say, of course, that today is May 9th. Today is Victory Day in Russia, celebrating the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazi Germany in World War Two. Not the US and British victory over Nazi Germany, the Soviet victory, in which 27 million Soviets died.

And actually I should say that, here on YouTube, in the comment section, there are some Russians who are your fans, Professor Hudson, saying they’re thanking you for your cogent analysis of Russia.

But on the subject of Russia, Professor Hudson, we now have seen that since Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine on February 24th, we saw really what could be referred to as financial shock-and-awe. That’s a term that’s been used.

Just as when the U.S. invaded Iraq, it waged a military shock-and-awe campaign on Iraq. Well, now it is waging economic or financial shock-and-awe on Russia.

And Russia has been referred to as the most heavily sanctioned country in history. Which I think is probably accurate, although maybe the DPRK, maybe North Korea, is more sanctioned. But I mean we’re talking about levels of sanctions not seen against a country of this size ever.

And you can also refer to it as the contemporary equivalent of medieval siege warfare against Russia.

Joe Biden, in a speech in Poland, made it clear what Washington’s goal is: it’s regime change. The U.S. wants to overthrow the Russian government, as it did in the Soviet Union in 1991, and clearly install a a pliant alcoholic neoliberal puppet like Boris Yeltsin.

So can you talk about, from an economic perspective, what do you see as the effects of this economic war on Russia?

And specifically in terms of the concept of decoupling, which you have talked about for years, and you have said that the Western sanctions on Russia and China were accelerating that process of decoupling. And this was before the financial shock-and-awe we’ve seen.

So you talked about a move away from this neoliberal globalization where everything is interconnected, or at least capital is interconnected globally, to the creation of a kind of, what you could say is kind of an economic iron curtain.

But how do you see that also in terms of integrating the Eurasian economies more deeply?


And also what is the effect on the European economies, which my impression is that Europe is going to become what you call an economic dead zone, more and more reliant on the U.S., whereas Russia, China, and Iran, and even potentially India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia – we’re seeing much more economic integration of Asia, which is, of course, where the majority of humanity lives.

MICHAEL HUDSON: Well you have used the words shock-and-awe, picking it up from the U.S. statements of shock-and-awe. There hasn’t been any shock-and-awe; there’s been a self-defeating piffle, and laughter.

That’s not all. There was an attempt to grab $300 billion of Russia’s foreign reserves, saying, well, any country that leaves their reserves in American banks or in the American Monetary Fund to stabilize their currency, we can grab if we don’t like their policy.

So the idea was, now Russia is going to go broke. It can’t afford to buy anything without U.S. dollars. And the people are going to get so angry, they’re going to vote against Putin. And then we can pour in our money to twerps like Navalny and other right-wingers who have promised to be the new Yeltsins.

Well, it didn’t work that way. They did grab the $300 billion of Russia’s reserves. Russia immediately said, ok, we have our own money. We now, fortunately, have enough oil and gas that we don’t have to sell to Europe and Germany. If they want to freeze in the dark and let their pipes burst when the weather gets cold, that’s their problem. We’ll sell to India, and China, and other countries.

And there was, for a few days, the ruble plunged, by saying, uh oh, what is Russia going to do? So all the foreign exchange traders thought, you can trust Biden to have a really brilliant policies.

I think Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize winner, said Biden is the greatest American president since Roosevelt, or since Truman, that he was so smart. Well, that’s why Krugman got the Nobel Prize, for making statements like that.

So immediately Russia said, well, obviously we can’t get paid in dollars anymore, or in euros, because, you’ll just grab them, so you’ll have to buy oil and gas in rubles. We’re going to price it in our own currency. Just like China had talked about pricing its exports in yuan.

And so what has happened is that immediately the ruble not only recovered, but is now selling at a higher rate than it was before the American sanctions. So there was no shock at all. The Americans felt shock.

The Americans are shocked. The Americans are awed. The Russians are laughing and everything is going their way.

So it’s almost as if – I would not accuse Biden of being on the pay of Russia, and I would not say that the leaders of Congress are the Russian agents, but if they were Russian agents, if they were paid by Russia, they could not have done a better job of helping Russia catalyzing its protectionism that it wouldn’t do itself.

The fact is that President Putin and many of the people around him still were neoliberals. I mean, they began as neoliberals, in the ’90s.

They began by hoping that they could make an arrangement with Germany and Europe, that Europe would develop their industry and make Russia as efficient an economy as Germany or the United States. Well, obviously that hasn’t happened.

All the same, they didn’t think of imposing protective tariffs as the United States did. They didn’t protect their agriculture. They bought grain, and cheese, and other agricultural products from the Baltics, and from other countries.

Well, now that, once the Americans put on the sanctions, beginning already under the Trump administration, all of a sudden Russia had to produce its own food.

And it did. It made the investment. It is now the largest agricultural exporter in the world, not a food-deficit country. It’s not importing any more cheese from Lithuania and the Baltics. It has its own cheese segment.

And the sanctions are forcing Russia to do exactly what the United States, Germany, and other protectionist countries did in the 19th century, developing their own industry by isolating it from low-priced foreign imports that would be priced so low that the Russians otherwise could not afford to make the investment in factories, plants, equipment, research, and development.

So what the United States has done is actually catalyze Russia moving together.

And also, for three or four years, I have been talking with Russians, and with the Chinese, and other countries about the need to de-dollarize. If you want to develop your own economy, you have to develop your economy in your own interest with public spending and planning, independent from the United States.

Well, now everybody thought that, well, in a few years it may take a decade for China, Russia, Iran, all these countries to break away from the U.S. But America said, we’re going to help you, we’re going to speed up the breakaway process. We’re going to isolate you. So you’ve got to band together against us.

So that’s exactly what it has done. You can just imagine how the Russians are crying all the way to the bank about this.

And how China is watching what the Americans are doing to Russia, and listening to President Biden saying, you know, Russia is not our real enemy, our real enemy of China. And when we’re finished with Russia, then we’re going to go against China and do the same thing to it.

Well you can imagine what this is leading the Chinese government to try to plan to be sufficiently independent from the United States, so that similar type sanctions will not hurt it.

And President Xi in the last few weeks has said we’ve got to make China as independent as possible. We’ve got to make our own computer chips. We’ve got to not depend on the United States for anything, except maybe Walt Disney movies. That’s basically about it.


So it’s as if – you know, I had mentioned earlier that finance lives in the short term. American policy, being financial policy, lives in the short term. And it’s looking at if it can make a quick, a quick victory, and forget about what’s going to happen next.

I’m told that, years ago, already from the war with Iran, and then Iraq and Syria, in the State Department, if there were Arab specialists who spoke Arabic, they were all fired. Because they said, well, if you can speak Arabic, you must’ve learned Arabic because you’re sympathetic with them. You’re fired. We won’t have anyone who can read Arabic here.

Well, now in the last decade or so, they fired all the Russia specialists from the the State Department and CIA, saying, well, if you can read Russian, why would you want to learn Russian? You must like something in Russia. You wanted to learn it. You’re fired.

So they have people who have no idea of what’s happening in Russia, no idea what’s happening in these other countries. And they’re blinded by their ideology.

And if anyone would say, wait a minute now, public planning and making education a public utility is actually making them more competitive, well, that’s against the ideology. That’s not the corporate type.

And they’re taught, well, we really can’t trust people, maybe they’re tending toward socialism, and they’re out the door.

So you’re having American policy pretty much run by the blind, and the Europeans are simply taking orders, and money in little white envelopes from the United States, to just show their loyalty, and basically are willing to spend three to seven times as much for their energy, for their liquefied natural gas and oil, by buying from the United States, than they are by a long-term contract with Russia.

Europe is willing to spend now $5 trillion on putting together ports that can handle shipping tankers for liquefied natural gas instead of relying on the Russian pipeline, the Nord Stream Two, that’s already there.

So Europe is making an enormous sacrifice. If it doesn’t have Russian gas, and it refuses to pay rubles, it says, if you don’t give us our gas and oil for free, you’re attacking us, because we’ve been getting all of your oil and gas for free, because all the dollars, all the money we pay, you’ve recycled to the United States in your foreign reserves. Thank heavens, the U.S. can grab it all. If you don’t continue to give it to us for free, then you’re attacking us.

To the United States, other countries protecting their economy, other countries trying to raise their living standards, and especially other countries undertaking land reform, are viewed as enemies of the United States, because they’re an enemy of the neoliberal American financial system.

And the idea of the unipolar world where the United States gets all of the profits, and rents, and interests of the world economy, just as ancient Rome stripped its provinces by getting all of their wealth and income for themselves, not producing it at home, while impoverishing their own domestic population. It’s just an exact parallel.

So Europe is willing to say, well, ok, if we don’t have a Russian gas, well, that means that our chemical companies cannot buy the gas to make the fertilizer to make our crops grow, and our agricultural productivity is going to fall by about 50%.

We’re also going to spend a lot more money on America’s military, NATO arms to support NATO. So higher food, higher military spending, higher energy costs.

This ends Europe as an industrial rival to Asia, and Eurasia, I should say, because now the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative and other spending investment, capital investment, throughout Western Asia is creating a new productive plant that is not only self-sufficient, but is leaving the United States and Europe without any industrial competitive power. They’ve priced themselves out of the world market. They’re no longer competitive.

So the world is developing. And I’m sure the only way that the NATO countries can fight against it is militarily, by threatening to bomb. But they can’t fight economically. They can’t fight financially. They tried by disconnecting Russia from the SWIFT system. It put it in its own system very quickly.

It really is left without a strategy, except that it’s done a wonderful job of controlling the public relations dimension of this war, making it appear as if somehow other countries are the aggressors, in not letting America exploit them, and making it appear as if Russia is the aggressor in Ukraine, instead of NATO prodding and prodding Russia to say, we’re going to capture your port at Crimea, and we’re going to attack the Russian-speakers if you don’t fight back, and we’re going to keep bombing them year after year, from 2014 on, we’re going to keep bombing them until you protect them.

So all of this is treated as if America is purely defending itself. Well, this is what the Nazis said in World War Two. Hitler and Goebbels said, we can always mobilize a population to support our war by saying it’s a war to defend ourselves.

And that’s how the United States in Europe are doing it. Not only are they pulling a strategy out of Goebbels’ Nazi book, but a few weeks ago, Germany went to the museums, the military museums, where they had the old Panzer tanks from World War Two, and they sent the Panzer tanks, the Nazi tanks from World War II, to Ukraine, saying this is symbolic, now we can fight Russia with the same German Nazi tanks run by the neo-Nazi groups, that Zelensky is supporting, the same Nazi fight against Russia. We can reenact World War Two with the same tanks, even symbolically, to show that this is a fight of Naziism, and neoliberalism, against Eurasia.

BENJAMIN NORTON: We’ve also seen Germany not only re-militarizing, but also boosting its relations with Japan. There are some terrifying echoes of of World War Two.


But you mentioned something that I want to analyze a little bit more, which is the strength of the Russian ruble. I talked about the concept of financial shock-and-awe that was waged on Russia. And President Biden said, “the Russian ruble has become rubble,” he joked. He said the Russian ruble has become rubble.

Well, that’s actually not at all what happened. This is the value of the dollar to Russian rubles, right now [showing a graph]. Russian rubles are at 69 to the dollar. A few days ago, it was at 64, or 65 to the dollar, which is actually better than it was even before the Russian war in Ukraine, which began in February 24th.

And it did spike, and there was a peak here, at which it was devalued to 139 to the dollar, about half the value it has now. But in the months leading up to the Russian military intervention, in November and December, it was around 75 to the dollar.

So the ruble has actually strengthened despite these sanctions. And here’s a report from Reuters from five days ago, that was May 4th: the “Rouble leaps to over 2-year high vs dollar, euro as EU ups sanctions.” So the ruble is doing quite well.

And you talked about the Russian mechanism to force Europe to buy energy exports from Russia in the Russian ruble. And this graphic here, for people watching, it’s in Russian, but really it just shows this mechanism in which a European firm that wants to buy gas from Russia’s state owned gas giant Gazprom, it has to send the money in euros to the Gazprombank, which is the obviously the bank that works with Gazprom, and then it puts it in a special account in euros, and then that is sold in the Moscow exchange for Russian rubles.

And then those rubles are put in another special account, called a K account, that belongs to that European firm. It has two accounts, two special accounts with Gazprombank, one in euros, one in rubles. And then this special ruble account sends that money to Gazprom. And then once the money reaches Gazprom, that’s when Russia considers that the payment officially went through.

So this is the mechanism by which Russia is getting paid in rubles. And much of Europe claimed at first that they would not do so, but eventually they gave in. So that’s an incredible development.

And related to that, what I wanted to ask you about, is I think another reason that the Russian ruble has strengthened and stabilized is not only because Russia continues to maintain constant exports of energy to Europe and other parts of the world.

You can talk about the central bank policies. But one of the policies is that the Russian central bank has basically put the ruble on gold, which I think is a very interesting and historic development.

And we saw that from the beginning of April until the end of June, the Bank of Russia says that it’s going to buy gold at a fixed price of 5000 rubles per gram of gold. And then the question is whether or not in July, when this policy ends, if it’s going to continue, and if the ruble will basically become fixed, it become pegged to gold like the U.S. dollar was up until 1971.

So you don’t think it will be? So talk about this policy. Do you think that that the gold standard is going to come back? Or apparently you don’t think so.

MICHAEL HUDSON: No, Russia is not going on on the gold standard. What it is doing is investing, its foreign exchange in the only way that is not grabbable. It’s investing it in gold; it’s putting gold in its reserves.

It is not setting its exchange rate according to the price of gold, but it is buying gold with what it has been getting.

I want to go back to your talk about rubble. You talked about, “from ruble to rubble,” what President Biden said.

There have been a lot of pictures of rubble in the news for the last few days. For instance, there are talks of, here’s a Ukrainian picture, and look at this picture of a Russian tank, we shot it down, it’s rubble. Turns out it’s a Ukrainian tank, that they just say it was the Russian tank we shot down.

So basically, they’re taking their own destruction, and they’re saying that, while they’re being destroyed, they’re saying, no, this is a picture of Russia being destroyed, Russian assets, not Ukrainian assets being destroyed.

Well, the similar thing is with the Russian ruble. America says, look, we’ve isolated the the ruble. Well, what has happened? If you isolate the ruble and you say we’re not going to export anything more to Russia, so it’s not going to be able to spend any of its rubles on buying American or European products.

Well, meanwhile, Russia can continue to earn rubles from Germany and Europe, and it can continue to earn foreign exchange from other countries that it’s selling its agriculture to at rising prices, its oil and gas at rising prices, too. So obviously, the balance of payments is going way up.

And they believe that what is in store is a new monetary system that is an alternative to the dollar IMF system.

And in this system other countries will hold their reserves in each other’s currencies. In other words, Russia will hold Indian rupees and Chinese yuan. China will hold rupees and Russian rubles.

There will be the equivalent of what Keynes thought of as something like artificial special drawing rights that the banks will be able to create to help fund governments to undertake capital investment.

But for settlements settling balance of payments deficits among countries, once they don’t have enough foreign exchange to make a swap, they will use gold as the means of settlement, because gold is a pure asset. It’s not a liability.

Any foreign currency basically is held in a foreign country that has the power to do what America did to Russia and just grab it all, and say, we’re just wiping it all out.


It’s as if you have a bank account, and the bank says, we’ve just emptied out your account to give it to one of our friends, and you don’t have it anymore. You can’t do that if gold is held in your own country.

Venezuela made the problem of keeping its gold in England, trusting England, saying that, even if there is war, they’ll never interrupt gold and finance. And England just grabbed Venezuela’s gold.

So, obviously, countries are not going to leave their gold in other countries. Even little Germany has asked America to begin sending back the gold that it has in the Federal Reserve Bank of America because it’s worried that what if it ever buys Russian gas again? America will grab all of Germany’s gold, grab all the German money, and it’ll be like World War One all over again.

So this act that America did of grabbing Russian money, Afghanistan’s foreign reserves it grabbed, this is telling all the other countries, pull all your money out of dollars. What are they going to put it in? There’s not that much they can put it in that it is absolutely safe.

So gold is a flight to safety today, because it’s one of the things that all of the world realizes as having an international value for settling balance of payments deficits, that is independent of world politics.

So that’s the explanation. Russia is not going on gold. It’s going on an independent standard from the United States with gold as an element of its foreign reserve, just as it’s holding Chinese yuan and Indian rupees.

It’s not going on the rupee standard. It’s not going on the yuan standard. And it’s not going on the gold standard. But these are elements of its foreign reserves.

BENJAMIN NORTON: I have a question for you. It’s kind of a more technical question that I’ve always wondered. And I’ve tried to do research on this, because there’s not much information.

So we know that that the U.S. and European Union have frozen over $300 billion from Russia’s central bank foreign exchange reserves. And of course they did this after doing the same to Iran, to Venezuela, to Afghanistan, which is now threatening a famine in Afghanistan that could kill more people than died in the 20-year NATO-U.S. military occupation of Afghanistan, which is another topic that really needs to get more coverage.

And I should add, by the way, that the US and the EU, they’ve frozen nearly half of Russia’s central bank’s foreign exchange reserves, and are now saying they’re not going to give it back. So they stole it. I mean, they stole half of its reserves.

My question is, what is the mechanism by which they effectively freeze and steal those reserves?

Because my understanding is that there is of course a physical element of those reserves, which you’re talking about, which is gold. But not all of the $640 billion in Russia’s central bank reserves is physical currency, right? A lot of it is just computerized? It’s number in computers and bank accounts.

So when when the U.S. and the EU steal this money from central banks like in Russia or Afghanistan – obviously in the case of Venezuela, as you mentioned, they physically stole the gold. But if it’s not gold, is it physical cash stored in Moscow, like physical dollars and euros? Or it’s mostly just numbers in a computer, which is why they can steal it?

MICHAEL HUDSON: Every country needs to manage its exchange rates, and there’s always like an up-and-down and a zigzag in the flow of payments for imports and exports, investment, capital movements, debt service, all of that.

So countries want to stabilize their exchange rate. How do they do that? Well, most of the big exchange markets are in New York and in London.

So countries would leave their money in correspondent banks. Like when Iran, at the time under the shah, kept that foreign reserve in the Chase Manhattan Bank. So when Iran, after the revolution and Khomeini came in, and Iran wanted to pay interest on the foreign debt that the shah had run up, they told Chase, please, here’s our bondholders, please pay them.

Well Chase was told by the Treasury, don’t pay them, just take the money and hold it. So Chase said, we put a freeze on your account. And so Iran defaulted, and then Chase and the State Department said, oh, Iran defaulted, it missed the payment. Now, all the money that it’s due for foreign debt has to be paid all at once. And Chase paid all of the bondholders off. No more money in the account. It was all emptied out.

Suppose you had an account in Chase Manhattan. And they said, ok, now you’ve done something really bad, you put Michael Hudson on the show. We’re going to grab your account. We’re going to give it to Mr. Guaidó, because he needs the money in Venezuela because the people still are not voting for him. So all of a sudden, you won’t have money in your account. It’ll go to Mr. Guaidó’s account.

Well, that’s what happened with Russia. They took the money. They grabbed the money from Russia’s account. And they said, half the money we’re going to give to, I think, to the 9/11 people, because we all know that it was Russia that bombed the World Trade Center on 9/11.

And we’re going to give it to all sorts of other people who suffered all over the world. It’s all Russia’s fault.

BENJAMIN NORTON: But Professor Hudson, when you say that they seized Russia’s assets, you mean the assets held by the Russian central bank in foreign bank accounts?


BENJAMIN NORTON: And these are not physical assets, these are numbers in a computer, right?

MICHAEL HUDSON: In Venezuela’s case, Venezuela had used some of its oil company earnings to buy oil stations and refining companies and the United States actually grabbed the ownership of the gas stations and the refineries and distribution system that Venezuela had in America.

BENJAMIN NORTON: It’s called Citgo.

MICHAEL HUDSON: Citgo, yeah. Russia doesn’t really have any capital investments in the United States. It did have bank accounts, and that was all that the United States could grab.


BENJAMIN NORTON: So when you say that, when Russia, at least for now, the central bank is allowing convertibility of rubles at a set rate into gold, that’s a temporary policy to make sure that they have a physical asset that their central bank can hold on to, because if they have dollars or euros in their reserves, my understanding is that’s not physical cash, it’s actually just numbers in a computer, so they don’t have it physically in their bank reserves, so it’s easy to steal that money.

Obviously, if they had billions of dollars worth of cash, of paper cash, it would be much harder to steal it, but if it’s just on a bank account, if it’s numbers in a computer, then they can just freeze it.

So I think this is also a reflection of a point that you’ve also made about the financialization of the economy, is it’s also just a lot of this capital is not even physical capital.

MICHAEL HUDSON: Yes. Savings take the form – one person’s savings is another person’s debt. So these are Russia’s deposits in American banks that it used to buy or sell rubles, or to buy goods from America, or to receive payments in, if Russia exports something such as oil. Americans buyers of Russian oil would put the money into the Russian bank account.

They never dreamed that this would be grabbed. But now Russia says, ok, you’ve grabbed our money, now that means that we get to grab all of your assets in Russia. This is great! All of your stock holdings in nickel, and Yukos, and all these other companies, ok, you’ve got the money, we have the assets, look at us as just buying the assets on the cheap.

And the Western investors in Russia have all been selling their Russian assets to show that they’re good American citizens in NATO, and the Russians are buying up these European and American assets on the cheap, largely by borrowing money from the banks, that get the money from the central bank, now that they’re so wealthy, and all of the foreign exchange reserves is a result of the American shock-and-awe statement, that’s sort of shock-and-awe in reverse.

So Russia is coming through just fine. And you can imagine how the American strategists are gnashing the teeth. They don’t understand how Russia was able to avoid being bankrupted by this.

They really are not economists. They’re not really financiers. They’re foreign-policy strategists. They’re ideologues that are not very well educated in how to think about the future and how to recognize the fact that the world can actually change from what it is today into something else. And sometimes that change is not in America’s interests. That is sort of not a permitted thought over here.

So essentially, Americans and Europe are operating in the blind, and Russia and China, and Iran, and India, are all looking at how are we going to restructure the world so that we come out of it more prosperous than we were before, not more impoverished. That’s really what the world is dividing into.

BENJAMIN NORTON: Professor Hudson, I don’t know if this is directly related, but it’s it’s something that’s always been a very curious question in my mind.

Germany, back in 2016 and 2017, it moved, physically moved, its central bank’s gold reserves, which had been stored in New York, London, and Paris, and it physically moved those reserves, those gold reserves, to Frankfurt.

Now this was before the U.S. and Britain stole Venezuela’s gold reserves and other reserves. But do you know anything about what motivated Germany’s central bank to move the physical location of its gold reserves into Germany itself?

MICHAEL HUDSON: I don’t think it’s all moved yet. It’s still going on. Gold is very heavy, as heavy has lead, basically. And America said, well, we can only do a little bit, trickle by trickle. So America has been returning the gold very slowly.

So I think Germany, with all of its history of hyper inflation, I think just realizes that, now that gold is not used to settle balance of payments deficits anymore – the gold that Germany had in America was all of the exports that it made to the United States during the Vietnam War. This is Vietnam War gold.

You remember that President de Gaulle would every month cash in, the dollars that America spent in Vietnam would all be spent from Vietnam to Paris, the dollars would end up there, the central bank of Paris would essentially buy gold on the London exchange and keep the gold either in New York or in London.

Well, Germany, because America defeated Germany, and it wasn’t going to keep its gold in Russia, that defeated it even more, it said, well, ok, we’re cashing in our surplus dollars for gold, but we’re going to hold the gold in America.

But now it says, well, America is never going to settle its balance of payments deficits and its foreign debt in gold again, because it doesn’t have any balance of payments surplus, any ability to do that.

It’s going to spend its export surplus and its investment surplus on war. So it’s never going to be able to pay. That’s obvious. Let’s get the gold back.

That was the calculation that every country was making already a decade ago. They realized that America can never repay its foreign debt, unlike other countries.

When other countries can’t pay their foreign debt, they have to go to the International Monetary Fund, that tells them, well, we’ll make you a loan, but you have to sell off your natural resource reserves to the Americans, or we won’t lend you the money.

Well, basically, that’s not going to happen anymore. They realized that America is just going to say, haha, we’re just not going to pay.

Well, now other countries are saying, wait a minute, if America’s never going to repay its foreign debt, why do the Global South countries have to pay their debt to the IMF and the World Bank, all this dollar debt to dollar bondholders?

If America won’t pay, we don’t have to pay. Let’s have a clean slate. Let’s start from the beginning. And we’re only going to have debt and credit relations with friendly countries, not countries that want to go to war with us like America did in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and now Russia.

So that’s basically what’s happening.

BENJAMIN NORTON: Great. And just to wrap up here, I have another question. And I know your time is limited, so I really appreciate you being here.

I have a quick question about the decline in U.S. dollar hegemony. We were talking about the strength of the ruble, the economic war on Russia; we talked about the bilateral trade that’s growing between Russia and China using the Chinese yuan, between Russia and India using the Indian rupee. And Iran also is talking about doing business with a basket of currencies.

I want to point to a report that was recently published by economists who work with the IMF. And I published an article about this over at, “IMF admits US dollar hegemony declining due to rise of Chinese yuan and sanctions on Russia.”

And there is this report that was published by the IMF, by these economists, and I cite you, Professor Hudson, in this report. It’s a working paper from the IMF, published in March, titled “The Stealth Erosion of Dollar Dominance.”

And here’s a graph, for people watching, here’s a graph from the report. And it shows not a large, but a noticeable and consistent decline in the use of the holding of the U.S. dollar in the foreign exchange reserves of central banks around the world. So this is around the world.

And it has declined in the past years from about 70% of central bank exchange reserves to about 60%. So a 10% decline. That’s not massive, but it’s steady and I think it’s going to accelerate.

And at the same time they’ve also found an increase in the use of what they call “non-traditional currencies” in the foreign exchange reserves of central banks around the world.

And here you can see this graph. I mean it looks like a significant influence because if you look at the y-axis it’s only from 90 to 100. But there is a significant increase in the use of other currencies in foreign exchange reserves, aside from the U.S. dollar, the euro, the Japanese yen, and the British pound. And the currency that is increasingly popular is the Chinese yuan.

So that’s one half of my question. The other half is about this interesting report that was published in the Financial Times, and it’s titled “Russia Sanctions Threaten to Erode Dominance of Dollar, says IMF.”

And the FT interviewed the IMF’s first deputy managing director, Gita Gopinath, who acknowledged that the sanctions imposed on Russia over its military intervention in Ukraine could lead to what she says “fragmentation at a smaller level.”

And she did say that the dollar is eroding influence, but “would remain the major global currency.”

So, that’s a two part question. I’m wondering if you could talk about the decline in U.S. dollar hegemony and how the sanctions will potentially erode that. And then the other half of the question is, can you comment on the declining use of dollars in foreign exchange reserves?

MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, this is what my book “Super Imperialism” was all about. When I first published it in 1972, I could see how the whole thing was unfolding for the next 50 years. And we just published last year a third edition of it, bringing it up to date.

Dollar hegemony means America’s entire balance of payments deficit in the ’50s, ’60s, and ’70s was military. So the dollars that were being pumped into the world economy were the result of military spending.

But the dollars would end up in foreign central banks, especially from Asia to France, Germany, others. What were they going to do with it? Well after 1971 they could not buy gold anymore, so all they could do was buy U.S. Treasury securities. IOUs.

And so they re-lent to the Treasury all the money that America was spending militarily. And the more money America spent in waging its cold war militarily against the world, the more money central banks would lend to the U.S. government to finance the U.S. deficit that was spent largely on the military-industrial complex and foreign military operations.

So dollar hegemony was a free lunch financing America’s almost 800 military bases across the world, to fight against communism, defined as any country that doesn’t let American industry and finance buy control of its raw materials, agriculture, resources.

And this has now come to an end. Right now America has grabbed Afghanistan’s, and Russia’s gold. All of a sudden it’s obvious that, this summer, there’s going to be an enormous squeeze on Third World countries, on the Global South.

Their energy prices are going to go way up, and that’s going to hurt them just like the oil shock of 1974 and 1975 did.

They’re going to have to pay higher food costs, because of food prices are going to go way up now that the Ukraine war is erupting.

And a lot of their foreign debt, dollarized debt service, is coming due. And they’re facing a choice: if they pay the foreign debt, they can’t afford to buy the oil and energy that they need to run their factories and heat their homes. They can’t afford to buy the food to feed their people. Whose interests are they going to put first?

Well of course their leaders are going to put America’s interests first, and their own interests second, because their leaders, if they’re a client oligarchy, are put in power by the U.S. military, as sort of miniature Pinochets, throughout Latin America and other countries.

So suppose other countries decide, well, we’re going to feed ourselves and we’re not going to wreck our economy just to pay foreign bondholders. We’re a sovereign country. We’re going to put our national interests first.

Well, then the United States can say, aha, we’re going to grab all of your foreign assets in the United States.


Well, other countries can say, oh, they’re going to do to us just what they did to Afghanistan and Russia. Let’s move our money out of the United States quickly. If we don’t have dollars, well, it’s true, we can’t pay our dollar bondholders, but at least we can, in international markets, we can buy the food and the energy we need.

And so the tensions, the disruption of world prices, and inflation, and trade that is a result of the NATO attack on Russia, now threatens to drive all of the southern hemisphere countries into an alliance with Russia, China, India, and all the rest.

So America basically is creating a new Berlin Wall, but the wall is isolating itself from other countries, and driving other countries all together into what I hope will be a happy, self-sufficient, non-U.S. globalized economy.

BENJAMIN NORTON: Well, I want to thank you, Professor Michael Hudson. It’s always a real pleasure having you. I know you’re very busy, so thank you for giving us so much of your time.

I’ll say that the comment section here on YouTube has been very vibrant, with some interesting conversation. And what’s nice is there are people from all over the world, from the U.S., Latin America, Europe, and from Russia. So it’s good to see a mix of people.

And for anyone who wants to listen to this, you can check out the podcast version if you look up Multipolarista on Spotify, and iTunes, and all the other podcast platforms.

And I’ll just say, while I wrap up here, that today we were talking about, at the beginning of this discussion, a new book that Michael Hudson is publishing this week. It is called “The Destiny of Civilization: Finance Capitalism, Industrial Capitalism, or Socialism.”

It’s a very good book. I had the privilege of getting a review copy early. So definitely check out that book.

You can also find all of Professor Hudson’s writings at

Thanks, Professor Hudson.

MICHAEL HUDSON: It’s really good to be here. It was a good discussion.

• Category: Economics, Foreign Policy • Tags: China, Dollar, Russia, Ukraine 
Hide 107 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. SafeNow says:

    I am about to buy some small-denomination gold mini-coins or bars, as a precaution against two possible catastrophes: Financial collapse and the related chaos, and nuclear war. Some will say, Oh that’s SafeNow talking – – look at his handle – – he’s too much into safety measures. They will have a point, but still, I think the time has come.

  2. Hudson always has an interesting take on economics. Though I don’t favor socialism, democratic or otherwise, I share his contempt for predatory finance capitalism. Which is why i say that America needs its own version of Putin.

  3. Flambeau says:
    @Fidelios Automata

    Though I don’t favor socialism, democratic or otherwise, I share his contempt for predatory finance capitalism. Which is why i say that America needs its own version of Putin.

    Solidarism and distributism are two alternatives. They are based on Catholic social teaching.

    As German Solidarist economist and Jesuit priest Fr. Heinrich Pesch, SJ put it, socialism is the pus that develops when the body gets sick from capitalism.

    Heinrich Pesch & the Economics of Solidarism

    • Thanks: Z-man
    • Replies: @HdC
    , @Mefobills
  4. Jim H says:

    ‘The Bank of China lends money by deciding, where do we need to have investment in real estate to provide housing for the population at as low a price as we can make it?’ — Michael Hudson

    Reportedly, China has vast tracts of unoccupied multistory apartments as a result of this policy. Evidently, central planning is not an ideal approach to real estate development.

    Likewise, Nancy Pelosi has whooped through the House a plan to ‘invest’ $40 billion in defending the Ukraine. This expenditure will enrich military contractors. But it represents a deadweight loss for the US economy, even more so than paying Americans here in America $40 billion to dig holes in the ground then fill them up again.

    Government ‘investment’ fails because governments, financed by compulsory subscription and janky currency printing, feel no economic pain. They are insensate.

    One thing we can count on: the more autarkic, self-sufficient world envisioned by Prof Hudson (which he’s probably correct in forecasting) will be a world of far lower living standards than today.

    Its impoverished inhabitants will canonize old Peter Thiel tracts about making billions on startups, much as feudal serfs marveled at the splendid free trade, free travel and glittering coastal cities of the Roman empire, as described by the apostle Paul.

    When the golden age is gone for good, it will look miraculous and strange in the distant, smoky rear view mirror.

  5. MarkU says:

    I don’t think you are too much into safety measures at all, particularly since you have waited this long to do it.

    I doubt that gold will be much use in the event of a nuclear war but better than cryptocurrency for sure. Long term survival after a nuclear war will more probably depend on your location than any other factor, stores won’t last forever and it is long odds against anyone ever coming to help, they will be much more likely to rob you or eat you. Unless you live somewhere unusual or are prepared to relocate, I would concentrate your precautions on the financial collapse scenario.

  6. RobinG says:
    @Jim H

    …..paying Americans here in America $40 billion to dig holes in the ground then fill them up again.

    But that is what they’re doing. They’re paying Americans to build weapons that are blown up on a railroad siding or in a storage depot in Ukraine. MIC gets the cash, zero problemo. What, you have no friends who work “at the Defense plant?”

    • Replies: @Decoy
  7. IronForge says:

    We’re witnessing what happens when the Plutarchy of a Plunder-Happy Rentier-Capitalist Hegemon Abysmally Manage Dealings with Foreign Polar Powers as well as their Complex Industrial Societies while Failing to Nurture Competent, Intelligent and Skilled Professionals to Operate Them.

    Yet the Plutarchy continue to Hoard Financially Controllable Assets for themselves, their Offspring, and Vassals down the “Food Chain”.

    Case and Point: NATO/EU Sanctions vs RUS. Over the course of past several days, Zelenskyy shut down 1/3rd of the RUS NatGas bound for the Rest of Europe and RUS Stopped Pumping NatGas through POL. I understand that the Weather is much warmer now than in March, so Europeans have Spring/Summer/Autumn accommodate to living within the Sanctions of their Making.

  8. Anymike says:

    This all fits in with one of my pithy little dictums: All welfare is corporate welfare. Working and middle class people pay taxes. And they pay at the pump too, with some share of that money going to foreign producer who the money to buy U.S. government debt. In other words, part of the price of motor fuel and other petroleum products is a disguised tax apart from the known motor fuels taxes and sales tax.

    When this money goes to fund transfer payments (aka “welfare”) going to unemployable individuals and dependent mothers it ends up being captured by corporations. Rent payments goes to the landlord’s mortgage interest. Food purchase money goes to corporate farmers, grocery chains and the agricultural conglomerates. The student aid system is only small part of the picture but that money is corporate welfare too. The strongest lobbying group in favor student aid is American Association of University Professors. Their jobs are at stake, but the institutions as corporation want that money too. The management just doesn’t dirty its hand quite as much pleading for it.

    I call the system we have leveraged capitalism. There are only two side to the teeter-totter. If you are on the plus however minimally, you live. If you are on minus side but barely and mentally stable, or you are clever and self-possessed, you survive. If you are not one of these two things, you die. You don’t just die metaphorically. Sometimes, you die literally.

    Examples of people who can leverage minimally might be the working person who can afford a mortgage and who trades up in the housing market over time or the single female administrative worker who rents all her life but buys stocks. The more solidly middle class types and the upper middle class types practice the same thing on a larger scale, both trading up real estate and investing. Then there are those who play the game on a grand scale.

    It’s not a nice picture, but it’s the world we have.

    • Replies: @RobinG
  9. skrik says:
    @Jim H

    One thing we can count on: the more autarkic, self-sufficient world envisioned by Prof Hudson (which he’s probably correct in forecasting) will be a world of far lower living standards than today

    Care to specify how/why you can count on “more autarkic … far lower living standards?” Note that under Putin, Russia climbed out of the grave dug by Yeltsin’s life-length lowering ‘Chicago-boy predators,’ and China is credited with promoting squillions of their own people up and out of poverty… while the great bulk of ‘neoliberal paradise’ ZUSA’s population is hardly living high on the hog [OK; they’ve got their TVs and Big Macs = obese ignoramuses, and some still live in a house/flat – too bad for the ‘rough sleepers;’ aka life in ZUSA has long been on the skids]. rgds

    • Agree: Badger Down
    • Replies: @mulga mumblebrain
  10. If M. Hudson keeps picturing international capitalism into a frame of nation states, then most of the action and rules are historical evidence, but sadly no match to a solution. There cannot be a solution within the systemics of either nation states, nor within any definition of existing monetary systems.

    The books are cooked, money needs as counterpart an inventory of resources, balanced against derivatives (essentially pollution), population counts, and a brake against overshoot. These factors impose thinking of a solution outside historical propositions, and a context that includes a planetary context. All diplomatic, political, military, mind-play (Covid and derivatives (vaxxing), surplus populations herding), are just clutter to the possible solutions.

    This seems too far fetched? Then how difficult it is to reduce a simple problem into a clean inert solution on the scale of a Ukraine? Human nature at play, the sum of all interaction is simply inadequate, and frankly counter effective (including for the elites, the ones that engineer “solutions” with their own well-being as sole driver, regardless of the meat-ball population).

    • Agree: peterAUS
    • Thanks: Kali
  11. JWalters says:

    There is one way to avoid the long economic catastrophe foreseen by Mr. Hudson. That is to recognize the cabal of bankster mafia that is driving this catastrophe and root them out of the system.

    Empires are driven by a predatory super-investor group who control governments and their militaries, and use these to plunder other countries’ resoucses. This was explained by John Hobson in his classic Empire: A Study.

    The so-called “American Empire” is actually a Bankster Empire headquartered in the City of London, Wall Street, and Paris (as Hudson acknowledges). Further, this Bankster Empire is at its core a Zionist Empire.
    War Profiteers and Israel’s Bank

    Its loyalty is to the Nation of Israel (broadly understood), and this is why it is so willing to sacrifice the lives and livelihoods of (non-Jewish) Americans and Europeans. Historically, these Jewish supremacist banksters profit when the general Western populations suffer. Hence they engineer these economic catastrophes for that purpose. These catastrophic episodes also help them increase their political control over their vassal states, thus helping maintain their empire.

    But they have no independent military except for that of Israel. If Western politicians grew some spine, they could stop obeying these predatory criminals. They could confiscate their assets, arrest them, and put them on trial.

    They could start by investigating the disappearing 14 billion just blown on Ukraine. They could look into the 40 billion more lined up for Ukraine, undoubtedly destined for various oligarchs and their bankster overlords. This discussion at The Duran gets into this.
    Ukraine, Russia and Poland w/Gonzalo Lira

    They could investigate the Covid scam and its vast “relief” payments to Wall Street. And look into the vast 2008 “relief” payments to Wall Street as well. “Record profits” for the financiers while regular Americans are bankrupted.

    By the way, here’s a summary of Vladimir Putin’s PhD thesis in economics. It may be that the Zionist Empire overlords fear his thinking as much as they want to grab Russia’s vast natural resources.
    Mineral and Raw Materials Resources
    and the Development Strategy for the Russian Economy

    • Agree: MarkU
    • LOL: Sarah
    • Replies: @frankie p
  12. @Jim H

    When the golden age is gone for good, it will look miraculous and strange in the distant, smoky rear view mirror.

    Deconstruction first, beginning with the “movers and shakers” that are now entrenched. Before any clean-up can even start. China and Russia, as the West bring nothing new to the table. Inventiveness, creativity, critical insight, experiments, are not defined by how much (money thrown at it) and how many (pay level grade dead-beats pushing data analysis with an agenda).

    Two main blobs need to be punctured. As a first the population counts of humans over all of the surface of our planet. Secondly the cost and overhead of our “elites”, @Moskou, @London, @Anywhere… who account by their levels of mischief for physical damage “billions” of times as much per capita as compared to the average meat-ball individual.

    Any other “solution”? Nature taking charge and humanity reduced to local agency. Of which we see now some samples (multi-polar versus global, conflictive stances, bickering over resources, dominance, control as in ill defined and short term, further territorially confined hick-ups). War, even in the combined info, diplomatic, physical, proxy, one names it definitions, is obsolete as a “solution”, and has no return for it’s “cost of labor” to any-one, including our self-serving elite pot-heads.

    If agency is ambitioned, humanity must make a U-turn.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  13. slorter says:
    @Fidelios Automata

    Socialism is an integral part of any capitalist system as many of the constructive reforms were born out of an effective social environment ! I do however appreciate your comment!!

  14. slorter says:

    Hudson really has his finger always on the pulse ! Neocons and Neoliberals need to be corralled !!

  15. …Michael Hudson’s new book, “The Destiny of Civilization,” which is out this week.

    Since the repeated references to the “rentier class” plays such a central role in Hudson’s analysis and criticism of finance capitalism, I am wondering if his new book actually goes beyond simply invoking this generic term and the associated motivations of those who fall within this domain, as if they were all the same, as a source of economic problems of skewed financial resource allocation.

    For instance, does he offer any reasonable or practical policy proposals or tax incentives to support a transition from the current system to a much improved mechanism or does he prefer basically abstract terminology? I had alluded to this issue more than two years ago, in which I differentiated between five different cohorts falling within this central appellation, and focused on one group in particular.

    Many people distrust the government, are afraid of not getting by later in life on a meager pension, do not spend their surplus earnings frivolously, are concerned about inflationary effects or stock market crashes, yet still believe in the concept of ownership and its expected benefits; they will likely take out a mortgage to buy real estate, from which they may eventually be able to derive a modest income – “unearned”, as Hudson describes it – after taxes and maintenance costs.

    My brief comment back then elicited no response, so I am repeating it in its entirety below:

    May 4, 2020 at 12:04 pm GMT • 2.1 years ago

    Been_there_done_that says:

    …landlord class…

    Hudson likes to use this term in a generic way, but one really needs to differentiate between, say, aristocratic land owners who inherited their wealth, billionaire property owners of primarily commercial real estate, urban slumlords who own multiple dwelling units, real estate investment trust market investors, and those individuals who sacrificed decades of consumption to pay off mortgages with interest, and paying taxes, in anticipation of being able to derive a modest future income stream from renting an apartment or flat, as a safety buffer for retirement, or a possible government collapse.

    Obviously, these different cases cannot all be lumped into one single rentier class and treated the same way. A fair solution to deal with inequity should handle these respective cases differently in the tax code. From a practical perspective, abrupt changes to regulations would likely be resisted, so new rules would have to be announced years prior to their adoption.

    • Agree: MarkU
    • Replies: @Mefobills
  16. Daemon says:
    @Fidelios Automata

    Wrong. America needs its own version of Pol Pot.

    • LOL: antitermite
    • Replies: @frankie p
  17. Safebet says:

    Been thinking along the same lines myself.

    But first stock a few months worth of long lasting food some that can be eaten without cooking ( Tins are fine and cheap don’t go for the expensive survival rubbish if you need them you won’t care about an expiry date and they last a lot longer than the expiry date. If you don’t need them you can throw them away they don’t cost all that much. you can’t eat gold )

    Have some way of storing / purifying water ( filters, tablets )
    Think of paying off debts if you have any, inflation is about to rise quite high
    and an affordable debt now can be unaffordable with high interest.

    Consider buying a wind turbine or solar panel or some other way of generating power
    when the gas plants have no more gas there will be blackouts or the price will be unaffordable (solar garden lights if your finances are stretched leave them out during the day take them in at night to give light )

    Good sturdy clothing ( boots, coats ) and small tent, sleeping bag
    Good first aid kit
    Have some cash at home ( at least a months wages )
    as banks may crash or restrict withdrawals to prevent a crash

    Some home defense items (gun if your country allows them) body armor, shield and a big stick if your country doesn’t allow weapons.
    Some excess trade items ( alcohol, toilet paper, shower gel, toothpaste, deodorant )

    Only then spend money on gold / silver as these things will be worth more than some coins

    • Thanks: SafeNow
    • Replies: @Kali
  18. frankie p says:

    Hitler, not Pol Pot.

    America needs a Hitler.

    But keep in mind that Hitler was not a Hitler, at least not the ridiculous caricature that the (((media))) and (((academia))) has created.

    • Replies: @Daemon
  19. Anon[338] • Disclaimer says:

    “…Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.”
    ~Ovadia Yosef, Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel

    Jewish Politician and Slave Owner Who Was the Brains of the Confederacy

    The problem is that the whole American system is geared to serving a deeply ungrateful and undeserving few. Intel describes itself as an Israeli company now. Intel was an egalitarian company, so quite frankly I am glad the Chinese want to make their own chips.
    Blackrock demands diversity in among executives, but they do not obey their own commandment as the top is all Jewish. The Jews do this because any concept not made by Jews is not worth of obedience such as the rule of law. It is only their words and their laws that they hear or obey. The Torah means the Law. You cannot have a nation that has a common set of laws and a group that is living by their own and doing everything to undermine or ignore the common law.

    The other problem in a multi-polar world is that you must maintain balance. Balance requires trust and respect. Going to be a really tough road to earn trust right now. Whoever politician they send to be diplomatic now, I would bet Putin is already passing notes to Lavrov saying, “I don’t like the American.” And Lavrov writing back saying, “Me neither.”

    The last problem is the fact that the world is openly trying to move to digital currency which would put the entire world under one currency, so all of this speculating may not even matter. Once the world digital currency is established the states and governments may fall in line as politics is downstream from money.

  20. Daemon says:
    @frankie p

    I dont think America needs another outspoken do-nothing demagogue but someone who recognizes the ills for what they are and is willing to get his hands dirty and bloodied in taking out the (((human))) trash. You are correct, Hitler was not a hitler and that is the problem.

    • Replies: @HdC
  21. Decoy says:

    What I find most interesting about the $40 billion package is that these funds will be expended by September so we (taxpayers) can expect ongoing packages to fund Ukraine. Ukraine was a financial basket case before the war. At this point it is flat, dead broke. Either Zelinsky is a great salesman or we Americans are easy marks. No one in Washington D. C. knows how much of the $40 B is going to be used for its stated purpose and no one seems to care. Actually, the packages stated purpose should be listed as trying to prolong the war as long as possible to weaken Russia and result in regime change in Russia. High stakes indeed.

    • Replies: @CelestiaQuesta
  22. There’s a seeming inevitability to the Death of the West.
    The current provocation in Ukraine an apparent “Moment of Truth”, a step too far, for the judeo-masonic-satanist-queer/pedo forces of Darkness.

    Unlikely that “leaders” (lol) will change.
    Populations too brainwashed, stupid, cowed, slothful or side with evil.

    Thank you, Professor Hudson for stating the economic case such that all may be enlightened and Ben Norton for asking the right questions.

    There will be the Pilpul merchants and those invoking emotion, but this scenario reminds me of the saying first heard in Asia —
    “The Dogs May Bark, but the Caravan Rolls On.”

    Taking out the head of the snake (we all know who) will considerably shorten Prof Hudson’s timeline and save millions of lives.
    Maybe even save the West after all.

  23. Sean says:

    Germany went to the museums, the military museums, where they had the old Panzer tanks from World War Two, and they sent the Panzer tanks, the Nazi tanks from World War II, to Ukraine, saying this is symbolic, now we can fight Russia with the same German Nazi tanks run by the neo-Nazi groups, that Zelensky is supporting, the same Nazi fight against Russia

    Hudson goes over the top.

  24. They will not stop these endless wars of divide and conquer until they have reached the stars and have full control over galaxies, perhaps the entire universe. What do you think private space programs are about?
    If we don’t stop them now, we will be enslaved and most of us exterminated as if we were bug infestations.
    Russia should send a few Satan-2 Hypersonics to a few of their neighbors (Germany, UK, Poland, Kiev) to show they mean business.
    Enough tit for tat bs.
    This is a civilization war, we either win it or go extinct like dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

    P.S. Until Soros and his tribe are dealt a major blow (add cartoon balloons here – POW, BOOM), nothing will change.

    • Replies: @Kali
  25. @Decoy

    GlobalHomoZioBIGsRxMIC3BLM PIGs in AnalTown DC blow 800 billion each year for a military budget and all they get are POC generals and fat CRT Certified white wiggers bobbing around with rainbow ribbons commemorating imaginary heroism.

    US Military Battle Songs –
    Cue Village People –
    In The Navy
    Macho Man

  26. @Fidelios Automata

    I like to point out that america was founded on free Enterprise, what the author identifies as industrial capitalism. Capitalism as we know it is a Jewish philosophy.

    Capitalism is a system created by religious Zionist Jews to seize the economic output of Europeans.

    Communism is a system created by atheist Bolshevik Jews to seize the economic output of Europeans.

    Quite the kosher sandwhich we find ourselves in.

    • Agree: Towey
    • Replies: @Uncle Walter
  27. Globalist says:

    It is such an honor to be able to listen to Professor Hudson. I am looking forward to reading his book coming out soon.

  28. Russia has more powerful weapon than oil or gas shipments. All of NATO east is still on the old Soviet electric grid that Russia can shut down anytime.

    This includes Finland. Russian electric power is how all the green zero carbon fakes in EU can pretend in their little fantasy bubble.

    This electricity situation in Europe is similar to the reality of the US and NATO being totally reliant on Chinese manufacturing. Which begs the question, why do China and Russia allow the West to pretend to be more powerful than they actually are? Pretend by a lot. Not a little bit pretend. A lot pretend.

    • Replies: @A B Coreopsis
  29. You are a smart man. Given. Drop the use of apostrophe. It is this:
    An indication that you are too lethargic to take the time to write legitimate English.
    An indication that you are not for those who do not understand the English language, but may be interested in learning its potential. This action is insulting.
    I am sick and tired of “which” ex: Which president
    WRONG: What president.
    How about the use of gerunds. Are you aware of this technique?
    Your minds are anxious, but you will never accede to a respectable plateau of intellectual reverence, by ignoring, and adhering to the parlance of English.

    • Replies: @Badger Down
  30. @Swaytonious

    I am curious about the documented basis of your statements. Maybe you can expound upon your statement by reference to some supporting material.
    Thank you.

  31. Agent76 says:

    May 12, 2022 BREAKING: Rand Paul Blocks $40B Ukraine Bill, Explains Why

    In remarks on the Senate floor Thursday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) spoke about why he was blocking a $40 billion Ukraine bill.

    • Thanks: Badger Down
  32. RobinG says:

    I call the system we have leveraged capitalism.


  33. @SafeNow

    Along with a p metal stash, some cash, food, water, self defense as well as developing skills like weapons handling, gardening, mechanical abilities etc etc….. you get the picture…and having no debts and living in a community of like minded people would not hurt either…

    • Agree: Kali
  34. HdC says:

    Socialism is civilization that extends a helping hand to the downtrodden neighbour.
    Note I did not say “unconditional hand-outs”.

    • Thanks: Here Be Dragon
  35. HdC says:

    If you believe that Hitler was an “…outspoken do-nothing demagogue…”, you know nothing.

  36. Kali says:

    Good comment. 🙂

    A basic solar system – panel(s), charge controller (mptt is better) battery(ies) (our 6v truck batteries (wired in paralel = 12v) are still going quite well after 9 years use) and battery moniter – can be as cheep or expensive as your budget allows, and can be improved/ built-up/modified over time.

    The one thing you didn’t mention was seeds and maybe fruit/nut trees. Plus a few basic gardening tools. Even if you don’t have a garden there is a lot you can grow in containers.

    I’ll spare readers my usual lecture on local cooperatives, garden-share schemes, etc (it’s all there in my comoent history for anyone interested) out of kindness/boredom of repitition.

    Even though growing food is about to become the most important thing any of us can do, and may make the difference between survival or thrival (when done collectively/cooperatively) and death or slavery to a totalitarian despotic “elite”.

    P.S. To Safenow, I like your handle. I’m always very pleased to read it.

    With love,

    • Replies: @Badger Down
  37. peterAUS says:

    ….Deconstruction first….

    That’s easy part.
    Everybody is doing it.
    “Fishing in that inlet isn’t good”

    Harder is putting together a vision. A goal. How the world will look like if “our” vision gets realized.
    “Fishing at that island is great. Look at the size of this fish.”.

    Then, much harder, a plan as to how to move to do it.
    “We need to rent a boat. Sail to the island. Spend most of a day there. Get back before 8 P.M.” Etc.

    And, the hardest part.
    How to organize the trip. Keyword “organize”.
    “We’ll go to port with three cars, yours, yours an mine”. “Why mine”. “Well, it’s suitable”. “Nahh…I think HIS car would be better.” “Why mine? He said, and I agree, yours is better”. “Nah….not good. Why we don’t all pack in your two cars?”.
    Which, obviously, brings the second key word: “discipline”.

    And those two keywords open a BARREL of worms nobody, really, want to see.

    Which, almost certainly, will bring some dystopia sooner than we think. For us, of course. For “1%” and highest levels of managerial class it’ll be O.K.
    Or M.A.D.

    My take, anyway.

    • Replies: @PetrOldSack
  38. Kali says:

    I agree with you on what needs to happen, CelestiaQuesta.

    The problem is that Putin seems to lack the will to take decisive action. – Unless he has a master-plan he’s playing out.

    But those ((elites)) at Davos, the Fed, the BIS, et al … All of them have servants to cook for and wait on them. All of them have some sort of security detail, drivers, etc.

    I often wonder how come they’re still walking given so many vulnerabilities. Certainly I know what I would do if I worked for any of them.

    Fond regards,

    • Thanks: CelestiaQuesta
    • Replies: @annamaria
    , @RobinG
  39. jluker says:

    Mr. Hudson’s anti-Southern bigotry is as usual pregnant with hatred and invective but unsurprisingly short on facts. Clearly he is practiced in the sublime art of Yankee hypocrisy.

    He states, “…we will open our doors to your markets – meaning the markets of the slave South, that Britain supported – and in exchange, you will open your markets to our industrial goods.”

    Mr. Hudson would do well to research the profits made from the Northern slave trade which continues to this day. It is ironic that Mr. Hudson brags about teaching in China where nearly 4 million Uygur slaves make Apple iphones.


    Perhaps and education is in order for Mr. Hudson regarding the Yankee slave trade. Excerpted from


    Melish’s perceptive book, “Disowning Slavery,” argues that the North didn’t simply forget that it ever had slaves. She makes a forceful case for a deliberate re-writing of the region’s past, in the early 1800s. By the 1850s, Melish writes, “New England had become a region whose history had been re-visioned by whites as a triumphant narrative of free, white labor.” And she adds that this “narrative of a historically free, white New England also advanced antebellum New England nationalism by supporting the region’s claims to a superior moral identity that could be contrasted effectively with the ‘Jacobinism’ of a slave-holding, ‘negroized’ South.” The demonizing adjective is one she borrows from Daniel Webster, who used it in the Webster-Hayne debate of 1830.

    The effects of the New England slave trade were momentous. It was one of the foundations of New England’s economic structure; it created a wealthy class of slave-trading merchants, while the profits derived from this commerce stimulated cultural development and philanthropy. –Lorenzo Johnston Greene, “The Negro in Colonial New England, 1620-1776,” p.319.

    Rhode Islanders had begun including slaves among their cargo in a small way as far back as 1709. But the trade began in earnest there in the 1730s. Despite a late start, Rhode Island soon surpassed Massachusetts as the chief colonial carrier. After the Revolution, Rhode Island merchants had no serious American competitors. They controlled between 60 and 90 percent of the U.S. trade in African slaves. Rhode Island had excellent harbors, poor soil, and it lacked easy access to the Newfoundland fisheries. In slave trading, it found its natural calling. William Ellery, prominent Newport merchant, wrote in 1791, “An Ethiopian could as soon change his skin as a Newport merchant could be induced to change so lucrative a trade as that in slaves for the slow profits of any manufactory.”[1]

    Boston and Newport were the chief slave ports, but nearly all the New England towns — Salem, Providence, Middletown, New London — had a hand in it. In 1740, slaving interests in Newport owned or managed 150 vessels engaged in all manner of trading. In Rhode Island colony, as much as two-thirds of the merchant fleet and a similar fraction of sailors were engaged in slave traffic. The colonial governments of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania all, at various times, derived money from the slave trade by levying duties on black imports. Tariffs on slave import in Rhode Island in 1717 and 1729 were used to repair roads and bridges.

    The 1750 revocation of the Assiento dramatically changed the slave trade yet again. The system that had been set up to stock Spanish America with thousands of Africans now needed another market. Slave ships began to steer northward. From 1750 to 1770, African slaves flooded the Northern docks. Merchants from Philadelphia, New York, and Perth Amboy began to ship large lots (100 or more) in a single trip. As a result, wholesale prices of slaves in New York fell 50% in six years.

    On the eve of the Revolution, the slave trade “formed the very basis of the economic life of New England.”[2] It wove itself into the entire regional economy of New England. The Massachusetts slave trade gave work to coopers, tanners, sailmakers, and ropemakers. Countless agents, insurers, lawyers, clerks, and scriveners handled the paperwork for slave merchants. Upper New England loggers, Grand Banks fishermen, and livestock farmers provided the raw materials shipped to the West Indies on that leg of the slave trade. Colonial newspapers drew much of their income from advertisements of slaves for sale or hire. New England-made rum, trinkets, and bar iron were exchanged for slaves. When the British in 1763 proposed a tax on sugar and molasses, Massachusetts merchants pointed out that these were staples of the slave trade, and the loss of that would throw 5,000 seamen out of work in the colony and idle almost 700 ships.

    The connection between molasses and the slave trade was rum. Millions of gallons of cheap rum, manufactured in New England, went to Africa and bought black people. Tiny Rhode Island had more than 30 distilleries, 22 of them in Newport. In Massachusetts, 63 distilleries produced 2.7 million gallons of rum in 1774. Some was for local use: rum was ubiquitous in lumber camps and on fishing ships. “But primarily rum was linked with the Negro trade, and immense quantities of the raw liquor were sent to Africa and exchanged for slaves. So important was rum on the Guinea Coast that by 1723 it had surpassed French and Holland brandy, English gin, trinkets and dry goods as a medium of barter.”[3] Slaves costing the equivalent of £4 or £5 in rum or bar iron in West Africa were sold in the West Indies in 1746 for £30 to £80. New England thrift made the rum cheaply — production cost was as low as 5½ pence a gallon — and the same spirit of Yankee thrift discovered that the slave ships were most economical with only 3 feet 3 inches of vertical space to a deck and 13 inches of surface area per slave, the human cargo laid in carefully like spoons in a silverware case.

    A list of the leading slave merchants is almost identical with a list of the region’s prominent families: the Fanueils, Royalls, and Cabots of Massachusetts; the Wantons, Browns, and Champlins of Rhode Island; the Whipples of New Hampshire; the Eastons of Connecticut; Willing & Morris of Philadelphia. To this day, it’s difficult to find an old North institution of any antiquity that isn’t tainted by slavery. Ezra Stiles imported slaves while president of Yale. Six slave merchants served as mayor of Philadelphia. Even a liberal bastion like Brown University has the shameful blot on its escutcheon. It is named for the Brown brothers, Nicholas, John, Joseph, and Moses, manufacturers and traders who shipped salt, lumber, meat — and slaves. And like many business families of the time, the Browns had indirect connections to slavery via rum distilling. John Brown, who paid half the cost of the college’s first library, became the first Rhode Islander prosecuted under the federal Slave Trade Act of 1794 and had to forfeit his slave ship. Historical evidence also indicates that slaves were used at the family’s candle factory in Providence, its ironworks in Scituate, and to build Brown’s University Hall.[4]

    Even after slavery was outlawed in the North, ships out of New England continued to carry thousands of Africans to the American South. Some 156,000 slaves were brought to the United States in the period 1801-08, almost all of them on ships that sailed from New England ports that had recently outlawed slavery. Rhode Island slavers alone imported an average of 6,400 Africans annually into the U.S. in the years 1805 and 1806. The financial base of New England’s antebellum manufacturing boom was money it had made in shipping. And that shipping money was largely acquired directly or indirectly from slavery, whether by importing Africans to the Americas, transporting slave-grown cotton to England, or hauling Pennsylvania wheat and Rhode Island rum to the slave-labor colonies of the Caribbean.

    Northerners profited from slavery in many ways, right up to the eve of the Civil War. The decline of slavery in the upper South is well documented, as is the sale of slaves from Virginia and Maryland to the cotton plantations of the Deep South. But someone had to get them there, and the U.S. coastal trade was firmly in Northern hands. William Lloyd Garrison made his first mark as an anti-slavery man by printing attacks on New England merchants who shipped slaves from Baltimore to New Orleans.

    Long after the U.S. slave trade officially ended, the more extensive movement of Africans to Brazil and Cuba continued. The U.S. Navy never was assiduous in hunting down slave traders. The much larger British Navy was more aggressive, and it attempted a blockade of the slave coast of Africa, but the U.S. was one of the few nations that did not permit British patrols to search its vessels, so slave traders continuing to bring human cargo to Brazil and Cuba generally did so under the U.S. flag. They also did so in ships built for the purpose by Northern shipyards, in ventures financed by Northern manufacturers.

    In a notorious case, the famous schooner-yacht Wanderer, pride of the New York Yacht Club, put in to Port Jefferson Harbor in April 1858 to be fitted out for the slave trade. Everyone looked the other way — which suggests this kind of thing was not unusual — except the surveyor of the port, who reported his suspicions to the federal officials. The ship was seized and towed to New York, but her captain talked (and possibly bought) his way out and was allowed to sail for Charleston, S.C.
    Fitting out was completed there, the Wanderer was cleared by Customs, and she sailed to Africa where she took aboard some 600 blacks. On Nov. 28, 1858, she reached Jekyll Island, Georgia, where she illegally unloaded the 465 survivors of what is generally called the last shipment of slaves to arrive in the United States.

    1. Hugh Thomas, The Slave Trade, N.Y.: Simon & Schuster, 1997, p.519.
    2. Lorenzo Johnston Greene, The Negro in Colonial New England, 1620-1776, N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 1942, p.68-69.
    3. ibid., p.26.
    4. “Brown University committee examines historical ties to slavery,” Associated Press, The Boston Globe, March 5, 2004

    -excerpts from Harvard and the Legacy of Slavery. Presidential Committee on Harvard & the Legacy of Slavery. last updated on April 25, 2022.

    “In fact, slavery thrived in New England from its beginnings, and was a vital element of the colonial economy. Colonists first enslaved and sold Indigenous people, and they dispossessed and massacred Native peoples through war. They also enslaved Africans and played a key role in the Atlantic slave trade, building a thriving economy based on “an economic alliance with the sugar islands of the West Indies. “This trade involved the provision of food, fuel, and lumber produced in New England to plantations of the Caribbean, where those goods were exchanged for tobacco, coffee, and sugar produced by enslaved Africans—or for enslaved people themselves. “This effectively made Boston a slave society,” according to a leading historian of the region, “but one where most of the enslaved toiled elsewhere, sustaining the illusion of Boston in New England as an inclusive republic devoted to the common good.” By 1700, New Englanders had made at least 19 voyages to Africa and then to the West Indies, the chief route of the slave trade, as well as many more voyages between Massachusetts Bay and the Caribbean.

    “The wealth that Abbott Lawrence amassed through textile manufacturing and trade—like the fortunes of other Northern industrialists of the era—is inextricably tied to enslaved labor. Lawrence’s mills were staffed by free Northern workers, but they depended upon cotton produced by enslaved people laboring on southern plantations.”


    Governor Buchanan of Liberia reported in 1839: “The chief obstacle to the success of the
    very active measures pursued by the British government for the suppression of the slave-trade on the coast, is the American flag.

    Even American officers report that the English are doing all they can, but that the American flag protects the trade.

    Increase of the Slave-Trade from 1850 to 1860. The long and open agitation for the reopening of the slave-trade, together with the fact that the South had been more or less familiar with violations of the laws since 1808, led to such a remarkable increase of illicit traffic and actual importations in the decade 1850-1860, that the movement may almost be termed a reopening of the slave-trade.
    The fitting out of slavers became a flourishing business in the United States and centered at New York City. ”

    The city of New York has been until of late [1862] the principal port of the world for this
    infamous commerce, although the cities of Portland and Boston are only second to her in that distinction.

    Slave dealers added largely to the wealth of our commercial metropoliss; they contributed liberally to the treasuries of political organizations, and their bank accounts were largely depleted to carry elections in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut.”

    During eighteen months of the years 1 859-1 860 eighty-five slavers are reported to have been fitted out in New York harbor, and these alone transported from 30,000 to 60,000
    slaves annually.

    And what about some existing corporations that were involved in “slavery.” They certainly haven’t had their homes burned or invaded in order to “free slaves.” Indeed they have only prospered.

    Lehman Brothers, whose business empire started in the slave trade, recently admitted their part in the business of slavery.

    According to the Sun Times, the now-defunct financial services firm acknowledged that its founding partners owned not one, but several enslaved Africans during the Civil War era and that, “in all likelihood,” it “profited significantly” from slavery.

    “This is a sad part of our heritage …We’re deeply apologetic … It was a terrible thing … There’s no one sitting in the United States in the year 2005, hopefully, who would ever, in a million years, defend the practice,” said Joe Polizzotto, general counsel of Lehman Brothers.
    JPMorgan Chase admitted their company’s links to slavery.

    “Today, we are reporting that this research found that, between 1831 and 1865, two of our predecessor banks — Citizens Bank and Canal Bank in Louisiana — accepted approximately 13,000 enslaved individuals as collateral on loans and took ownership of approximately 1,250 of them when the plantation owners defaulted on the loans,” the company wrote in a statement.

    New York Life Insurance Company is the largest mutual life insurance company in the United States. They also took part in slavery by selling insurance policies on enslaved Africans.

    According to USA Today, evidence of 10 more New York Life slave policies comes from an 1847 account book kept by the company’s Natchez, Miss., agent, W.A. Britton. The book, part of a collection at Louisiana State University, contains Britton’s notes on slave policies he wrote for amounts ranging from $375 to $600. A 1906 history of New York Life says 339 of the company’s first 1,00USA Today reported that Wachovia Corporation (now owned by Wells Fargo) has apologized for its ties to slavery after disclosing that two of its historical predecessors owned enslaved Africans and accepted them as payment.

    “On behalf of Wachovia Corporation, I apologize to all Americans, and especially to African-Americans and people of African descent,” said Ken Thompson, Wachovia chairman and chief executive officer, in the statement. “We are deeply saddened by these findings.” A 1906 history of New York Life says 339 of the company’s first 1,000 policies were written on the lives of slaves.
    N M Rothschild & Sons Bank in London was linked to slavery. The company that was one of the biggest names in the City of London had previously undisclosed links to slavery in the British colonies. Documents seen by the Financial Times have revealed that Nathan Mayer Rothschild, the banking family’s 19th-century patriarch, made personal gains by using enslaved Africans as collateral in dealings with a slave owner.

    According to reports, FleetBoston evolved from an earlier financial institution, Providence Bank, founded by a John Brown, who was a slave trader and owned ships used to transport enslaved Africans.

    The bank financed Brown’s slave voyages and profited from them. Brown even reportedly helped charter what became Brown University.

    CSX used slave labor to construct portions of some U.S. rail lines under the political and legal system that was in place more than a century ago.

    Two enslaved Africans whom the company rented were identified as John Henry and Reuben. The record states, “they were to be returned clothed when they arrived to work for the company.”
    Individual enslaved Africans cost up to $200 — the equivalent of $3,800 today — to rent for a season and CSX took full advantage.

    And the list of Northern slave trading companies still existing today is far more extensive.

    In order to aid in Mr. Hudson’s education below is an extensive but not comprehensive bibliography of the Yankee slave trade past and present.

    -Cooley, Henry S., A Study of Slavery in New Jersey. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1896.
    -Curtin, Philip D., The Atlantic Slave Trade: A Census. Madison, Wis.: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1969.
    -David, Paul A.; Herbert G. Gutman; Richard Sutch; Peter Temin; and Gavin Wright, Reckoning With Slavery. New York: Oxford University Press, 1976.
    Drescher, Seymour and Stanley L. Engerman, A Historical Guide to World Slavery. New York: -Oxford University Press, 1998.
    -Eltis, David, The Rise of African Slavery in the Americas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
    -Engerman, Stanley L. (ed.), The Reinterpretation of American Economic History. New York: Harper & Row, 1972.
    -Essah, Patience, A House Divided: Slavery and Emancipation in Delaware, 1638-1865. Charlottesville, Va.: University Press of Virginia, 1996.
    -Fogel, Robert W., Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery. New York: W.W. Norton, 1989.
    -, “Philanthropy at Bargain Prices: Notes on the Economics of Gradual Emancipation,” Journal of Legal Studies, III, 1974, pp.380-1.
    -Fogel, Robert W., and Stanley L. Engerman, Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1974.
    -Galenson, David W., White Servitude in Colonial America. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
    -, “The Settlement and Growth of the Colonies,” in Stanley L. Engerman and Robert E. Gallman (eds.), The Cambridge Economic History of the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
    -Genovese, Eugene, Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made. New York: Pantheon Books, 1974.
    -Greene, Lorenzo Johnston, The Negro in Colonial New England, 1620-1776. N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 1942.
    -Hancock, Harold B., Delaware During the Civil War: A Political History. Wilmington: Historical Society of Delaware, 1961.
    -Harper, Douglas R., “If Thee Must Fight:” A Civil War History of Chester County, Pa. West Chester, Pa.: Chester County Historical Society, 1990.
    -, West Chester to 1865: That Elegant & Notorious Place. West Chester, Pa.: Chester County Historical Society, 1999.
    -Hodges, Graham Russell, Slavery and Freedom in the Rural North: African Americans in Monmouth County, New Jersey, 1665-1865. Madison, Wis: Madsion House Publications, 1997.
    -Klein, Herbert S., The Atlantic Slave Trade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
    -Litwack, Leon F., North of Slavery. The Negro in the Free States, 1790-1860. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.
    -McManus, Edgar J., Black Bondage in the North. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1973.
    -, A History of Negro Slavery in New York. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1966.
    -Melish, Joanne Pope, Disowning Slavery: Gradual Emancipation and ‘Race’ in New England 1780-1860. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1998.
    -Menard, Russell R. “From Servants to Slaves: The Transformation of the Chesapeake Labor System,” Southern Studies 16 (Winter 1977): 355-90.
    -Nash, Gary B., Race and Revolution. Madison, Wis.: Madison House, 1990.
    -, and Jean R. Soderlund, Freedom by Degrees: Emancipation in Pennsylvania and Its Aftermath. N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1991.
    -Pritchett, Jonathan B. “Quantitative Estimates of the United States Interregional Slave Trade, 1820-1860,” Journal of Economic History 61 (June 2001): 467-475.
    -Reed, H. Clay, “Lincoln’s Compensated Emancipation Plan,” Delaware Notes 7 (1931).
    -Steiner, Bernard, The History of Slavery in Connecticut. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1893.
    -Tucker, St. George, On the State of Slavery in Virginia, in View of the Constitution of the United States, With Selected Writings. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1999.
    -Turner, Edward Raymond, The Negro in Pennsylvania, Slavery-Servitude-Freedom, 1639-1861. Washington, D.C.: American Historical Association, 1911.
    -Weigley, Russell F., ed., Philadelphia: A 300-Year History. N.Y.: W.W. Norton & Co., 1982.
    -Williams, William H., Slavery and Freedom in Delaware, 1639-1865, Wilmington: Scholarly Resources, 1996.
    -Wilson, Clyde N., foreword to View of the Constitution of the United States, With Selected Writings. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1999.
    -Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Ph.D., American Negro Slavery: A survery of the supply, employment and control of negro labor as determined by the plantation regime. D. Appleton and Company New York and London, 1918.

    Mr. Hudson further states, “…or we’re going to end up as a non-industrial, raw materials-producing society, as the South wants.” I challenge Mr. Hudson to produce any evidence the South wanted this condition. As all the resources are in the South this comment is patently absurd and requires no more comment.

  40. annamaria says:

    ‘the will to take decisive action.’
    — You mean, to move closer to midnight? Think for a sec whom he is dealing with in the collective west. China and Russia have been trying to let the rotten colossus of the ZUSA collapse smoothly without a devastating global crisis.
    But Banksters want it all, by any means, for any price for humanity.
    Psychopathy has no cure.

    • Agree: MarkU
  41. @Jim H

    All real wealth is “produced” by one form of “man”power or another; either agricultural, manufacturing or some type of service, be it physical or mental.
    A “product” of REAL value is produced.
    Pieces of paper money, or computer blip currency, SHOULD ONLY BE utilitarian tools “used” to transact the transfer of real value exchange, and not as means of extracting real value from the real value producers, by the parasitical financial class.
    The “money” created by the U.S. Federal Reserve, ideally should belong to All the People of the United States, just like All the People in China have a stake in every Yuan created by “their” Chinese Peoples’ Republic Central Bank.
    I may be a little off base, but the bottom-line is the “fiat-money-printed-from-nothing” should be credited to All the People, and not just a few private oligarchs.

    • Agree: Sarah
  42. Mefobills says:

    Solidarism and distributism are two alternatives. They are based on Catholic social teaching.

    Clifford Hughes Douglas, Social Credit theory (not to be confused with China’s social credit.)

    The Catholics took up Douglas Social Credit because the money system is also a distribution system.

    It is a form of economic socialism, in that Gap theory is understood as reality, meaning there is a gap between what labor can buy with its output, vs the price of goods produced by the industrial system.

    In other words, labor cannot liquidate its own production, there is a gap. Socialism does not necessarily codify this understanding.

    In The Economics of Social Credit and Catholic Social Teaching, Dr. Oliver Heydorn argues that it is high time that all Catholics take seriously and examine closely the economic ideas of Major Clifford Hugh Douglas (1879-1952). By surveying the key principles contained within the Church’s social doctrine in conjunction with Douglas’ Social Credit proposals and their underlying philosophy, the author demonstrates that (in stark contrast to the dead-ends of Austrian economics and the ‘Christian socialism’ of ‘liberation theology’ et al. and the half-way houses of classical distributism and economic personalism) it is Social Credit which most fully merits the support of Catholics as the best alternative to the economic status quo.

  43. Mefobills says:
    @Jim H

    Reportedly, China has vast tracts of unoccupied multistory apartments as a result of this policy. Evidently, central planning is not an ideal approach to real estate development

    Xi must have a new policy, and this was probably a Freudian Slip on Dr. Hudson’s part. The Chinese leadership listen to him.

    Hudson has been critical of the Chinese real-estate bubble, and the Neo-Liberal thinking behind it. Most housing prices in China are due to an intermediate group of private banks who are rehypothecating loans from the big state banks. It is private debts not public debts.

    Recently China has been deflating their real-estate bubble. When they start taxing absentee housing, and site value, we will know they have turned the corner. When they prevent speculative real estate loans that push housing prices we will know they have turned the corner.

    • Replies: @frankie p
    , @antibeast
  44. barr says:

    Fiat currency which is a curse now on western citizen might have its contexts of the orgin in the colonized land. Two fiscal – monetary systems were allowed after the deliberate creation of the paper currency.
    India where the Raj harnessed the power of the segregating the market, inflation as way of taxation and paying debt,and protecting the domestic market by tariff andby the complex one way convertibility between the currencies,and oneway convertibility between the gold-silver and local indian currencies printed by the raj.
    Gold was freely convertible to indian curremcy . Not otherway at all . Importer of Indian products had to go to London to get indian currency using Gold Sterling Rupee – one way street.
    That ruppee printed in London on some Raj’s office in Calcutta- Madras was operable in India and nowhere else for buying Indian products for import and for local consumtion, for paying taxes to Indian Gov ( Raj ‘s treasury ) and for paying the services and wages to Indians employed by Raj.
    It was the oneway conversion systems that allowed the looting of the colonies.
    The other was paying the growers of opium in Rupeees , taking the products to China and its products and sale to domestic Britush market for sterling ( convertible to gold ) or American market for currency that was also covertible to gold . Opium producers would also pay taxes in rupees .
    Opium growers were forced to abandon local edibles or staple diet in favor of cotton and opium.

    Its no wonder that foreigners accumulating dollars thriugh minmal below inflatiin interests

    can only get more dollars and not invest in productive areas .

    Now that mechanism has been employed against the wage earners and salaried middle class at home.

  45. Durruti says:
    @Jim H

    Nancy Pelosi has whooped through the House a plan to ‘invest’ $40 billion in defending the Ukraine. This expenditure will enrich military contractors. But it represents a deadweight loss for the US economy, even more so than paying Americans here in America $40 billion to dig holes in the ground then fill them up again.

    News item:

    🇺🇦⚡Ukraine is very unhappy that Republican Senator Rand Paul blocked a bill on the allocation of additional assistance of $40 billion

    Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba said that Ukraine could “already start using the new US aid package,” but the politician “delayed much-needed support.”

    We have only 1 Senator in our country. Rand Paul has huge courage & resembles his father. We citizens must also display our courage – as we Restore Our Republic (destroyed on 11/22/1963).

  46. Mefobills says:

    Mr. Hudson further states, “…or we’re going to end up as a non-industrial, raw materials-producing society, as the South wants.” I challenge Mr. Hudson to produce any evidence the South wanted this condition. As all the resources are in the South this comment is patently absurd and requires no more comment.

    The South was totally backsliding into the English Colonial System. In order to industrialize the North, the American System was recapitulated. This is the system of the founding, also called industrial capitalism.

    The revolutionary war was against the BOE and London Finance Capital, and London was winning again, and taking over the country, by the time of the Civil war.

    The south was turning into an oligarchy of land owners (aristocrats) who would use their Negroes as farm implements, to then make their land-holdings produce, especially to produce king cotton.

    Cotton and agricultural products sold into the Colonial System would buy goods on the “international markets,” and not from northern producers. Free Trade was cutting out the ability of the north to industrialize, and thus lift up labor value and capability. Also, the north had few negroes.

    The Northern Banks did INDEED create finance instruments at debt to then outfit slave ships. Finance Capitalism is Jewish capital, first invented in Amsterdam, then jumped to London, and then to Wall Street.

    Lincoln very specifically indicated the Northern Banks were also his enemy:

    “I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.

    The civil war was about the Morrill tariffs, where goods from the South were to be tariffed, so that the country could industrialize, rather than become an agrarian extraction economy. Labor going around poking holes in the earth, or using slaves to extract or farm is not a way to become wealthy.

    If the North had not won, Africa would have been depopulated to then repopulate the South, to then become labor to work the land. A few oligarchs would have told their slaves how to vote, and the American experiment would have ended.

    The South didn’t want to pay the Morrilll tariffs, so they made up all kinds of excuses. The North got greedy and did not rebate the tariffs to the south.

    So, the war could have been avoided as its basis was economics. Not rebating the tariffs to the south was a tragic mistake. Greed, Avarice and Hubris were on both sides.

    Also, there is evidence that Lincoln wanted to industrialize the south after the war, using his debt free greenbacks.

    Does anybody think that the northern bankers were happy about debt free treasury greenbacks? There was no profit in them for the bankers, as they were not theirs.

    • Replies: @Maple Curtain
    , @jluker
  47. annamaria says:

    Big-time western criminals: “The information available to the Russian Defense Ministry confirms the implementation of the US offensive military biological program in Ukraine.”

    The information obtained confirms that the United States is implementing an offensive military-biological programme in Ukraine to study the possibility of forming controlled epidemics in specific territories. A special military operation of the RF Armed Forces made it possible to stop criminal experiments on civilians of Ukraine.

    What the US was using its bio-weapons labs in Ukraine for:
    – Infected money and experiments on mental patients;
    – Ukraine is a training ground for the West for the development of biological weapons components and testing of new samples of pharmaceuticals;
    – Counterfeit money distributed in 2020 in the LPR was infected with a strain of tuberculosis resistant to anti-tuberculosis drugs;
    – The collection of biomaterials from Ukrainians by epidemiologists of the Bundeswehr Institute confirms the military focus of research in Ukraine;
    – The leaders of the Democratic Party are the ideologists of the military-biological activities of the United States in Ukraine;
    – Pfizer, Moderna, Merck and other pharmaceutical companies are involved in US military biological activities in Ukraine;
    – US specialists are testing new drugs bypassing international safety standards, reducing the cost of research;
    – Military biological projects on the territory of Ukraine, in addition to the United States, are being implemented by Germany and Poland;
    – Ukrainian government agencies are involved in military biological activities in the country along with Pentagon contractors;
    – At the end of April, ten more UAVs were found in the Kakhovka region, equipped with containers and equipment for spraying biorecipes.
    – The United States tried to hide its participation in biological experiments on patients in a mental hospital in Ukraine;
    – The Russian Defense Ministry has information about the Pentagon’s experiments on Ukrainian citizens in a psychiatric hospital near Kharkov.

    The program was funded by the Pentagon. Who gave the orders?

    “Pfizer, Moderna, Merck, and other pharmaceutical companies are involved in US military biological activities in Ukraine.” Who exactly took the decision to do the illegal biological experiments on the citizens of Ukraine?

    • Thanks: Arthur MacBride
  48. @Uncle Walter

    You talking to me? That’s some sticky parlance you got there.

  49. @Kali

    If you’re in the States, you may be able to find giant (3-lb) cans of pecan nuts, harvested before the radiation.

  50. The “United States” or “America” being a rather disingenuous euphemism for Jewish bankers, of course, Mr. Hudson.

    • Agree: MarkU
  51. @Mefobills

    Slavery, economic historians will tell you, was already dying out by 1861, because it was cheaper to exploit poor Whites.

    Also, the cotton gin being more productive than Negroes, they weren’t about to “de-populate Africa” to bring more Negroes in.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  52. jluker says:

    Your a bit all over the place with your response and I’m not sure what basis of evidence your using to justify your premises. However, the South was not land owing aristocrats as you put it. Indeed 1/3rd of plantation owners in the South were from the North and some foreigners. I would point to the census returns for 1850 as well as a list of political speeches I could provide if you like validating that fact. It was a region of landowners, not a few landowners.

    And the war was not “about,” the Morrill Tariff. Wars are planned, and they have objectives. They aren’t caused or about anything, they are planned. Discussions of a sectional war began in the 1830s and it was publicly discussed. It was not an accident or a secret. The slave trader Lincoln sent an armed fleet into Charleston Harbor to start a conflict. How was that about anything? It was planned.

    And your assertion that Africa would have been ” …depopulated to then repopulate the South…,” has no basis. The North had the carrying trade. They possessed the ships and sailors. You need those things for an international slave trade. The South had no merchant fleet and maybe a handful of sailors. How do you suppose this “depopulation” of Africa was to occur? The North was selling it’s slaves into Cuba and South America. They had a ready market guarded by the U.S. Navy.

    You are certainly correct concerning greenbacks and the bankers. But it was irrelevant as well. by 1866 total U.S. Government debts was $3.6 billion. 1/3rd compounded annually with an average of 7% interests. Interest to be paid in gold. That does not count the $12 billion of claims before the Court of Claims. Those are insolvency numbers. There wasn’t enough gold on the planet to pay that interest, literally. Hence the grants of over 90 millions of Western Lands to RRs including eminent domain, judicial and policing powers. And the RRs were financed by the international bankers.
    -Sec Treasury and Comptroller Generals reports for 1862, 1865 & 1866. See Congressional Globe 1861, 1862 particularly speeches by Senator Trumbull, et al.

    How did the black Republicans do this? The pledged (pawned), the capital stock of the whole country minus the 14 Confederate States. Capital stock is labor + land. The income tax is a lien on the public’s property. Hence the eternal debt of the central government and for many States as well.
    -Congressional Globe 1862. Legal Tender Acts. Internal Revenue Act.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  53. @Fidelios Automata

    America needs its own version of Stalin. And Russia needs Hugo Chávez.

  54. frankie p says:

    Once again my friend Mefobills provides the explanation that I thought of while reading the Jim H’s comment.

    “Most housing prices in China are due to an intermediate group of private banks who are rehypothecating loans from the big state banks. It is private debts not public debts.

    Recently China has been deflating their real-estate bubble. When they start taxing absentee housing, and site value, we will know they have turned the corner. When they prevent speculative real estate loans that push housing prices we will know they have turned the corner.”

    Banking policy is determined at the Central Bank level. In China, the Central Bank is firmly in the hands of the CCP. Policy is communicated to the intermediate and lower level banks, but these private banks are under pressure to produce results, and policies are undermined and rules are bent. The real estate bubbles are a perfect example of this. The Central Bank is unable to monitor lending at the provincial and local levels, mistakes are made, rules are bent and broken, and bubbles form. The important issue is that these problems will become public and the Central Bank will take notice and take remedial action. I guess that they walk a fine line, punishing those who openly flout policy at larger scale (Evergrande). I would guess that both management and investors will pay the price for this company’s problem, but the CCP will try to limit the pain for home buyers. Please note that in financial and housing crises in the US, the FED does the exact opposite. The FED will take action to protect the guilty company and the investors, and the little man, the home buyer, will pay the price.

    The fundamental difference between the US and China in high levels of banking is that the Central Bank of China sets policies and makes decisions with the good of the nation and people the primary objective; the FED, on the other hand, makes decisions to prop up the banks and the rest of the F.I.R.E. industries, non-productive sectors that “create wealth” through artificially driving up asset prices.

    Regarding the property crisis in China, we should note that in 2020, Beijing started cracking down on excessive borrowing by developers in a bid to rein in their high leverage and curb runaway housing prices. But the sector’s problems escalated significantly last fall when Evergrande began warning the markets urgently of liquidity problems. There’s evidence now that the Chinese government is taking a leading role in guiding Evergrande through a restructuring of its debt and sprawling business operations. There will be pain, yes! The government was behind the curve in recognizing and acting to deal with the problem, yes! That said, the government is taking measures to solve the problem with a minimum of fallout. Who is complaining? The company’s international creditors are complaining; they have been losing patience. A group of overseas bondholders threatened in January to take legal action over the “opaque” debt restructuring process. They said they would “seriously consider enforcement actions” after Evergrande failed to engage substantially with them about reorganizing its operations. This is where the rubber hits the road. The international creditors will NOT be prioritized by the CCP, who will use a very Chinese approach to deal with this situation. Things will be “opaque”. Promises will be made. The overseas investors may take legal action, which will gain little or no traction in the Chinese justice system.

    We’ll see what happens.

  55. frankie p says:

    I agree.

    See comment 18.

    “America needs a Hitler.

    But keep in mind that Hitler was not a Hitler, at least not the ridiculous caricature that the (((media))) and (((academia))) has created.”

  56. Mefobills says:
    @Maple Curtain

    Quibbling doesn’t change facts. The South didn’t want to pay the tariffs, and they were obliged to by the constitution.

  57. @Jim H

    And another myth of a past Golden Age will be born.

    The Bronze Age cities were a wonder to marvel. Some had 100,000 population. And they attained some good sophistication too. When they collapsed, stories were told about them; an incredulous primitive grandchildren learnt that humans could live like that, and the myths of Golden Age were born.

    The next round of city building came after 2000 years, and Rome was the splendor that everyone gaped at. When it fell, another round of Golden Age story telling was born.

    Now another round of city building is ending. These cities are ten to twenty times larger than Rome at its peak. After may be another 200 years, when the descendants of Greta Thunberg lord it over the great unwashed , stories will be told about how humans used to fly; there will be incredulous whispers that men even landed on the Moon. This time the stories will be even more incredible, and moralizing will be at its worst.

    • Replies: @mulga mumblebrain
  58. Mefobills says:

    Your a bit all over the place with your response and I’m not sure what basis of evidence your using to justify your premises.

    Follow the links.

    Lincoln said that the South could have all the slavery that it wanted as long as the Southern states paid the tariff. The North would not go to war over slavery, but it would to collect the tariff. Lincoln said that “there needs to be no bloodshed or violence” over collecting the tariff, but that he will use the government’s power “to collect the duties and imposts.” The tariff was important to the North, because it financed Northern industrialization at the economic expense of the South.

    Hudson the truth teller, invariably has people sputtering, because they don’t want to confront what they think they know. PCR explains why:

    Once people become brainwashed, especially if it is by propaganda that serves power, they are more or less lost forever. It is extremely difficult to bring them to truth. Just look at the pain and suffering inflicted on historian David Irving for documenting the truth about the war crimes committed by the allies against the Germans. There is no doubt that he is correct, but the truth is unacceptable.

    The same is the case with the War of Northern Aggression. Lies masquerading as history have been institutionalized for 150 years. An institutionalized lie is highly resistant to truth.

    Education has so deteriorated in the US that many people can no longer tell the difference between an explanation and an excuse or justification. In the US denunciation of an orchestrated hate object is a safer path for a writer than explanation. Truth is the casualty.

    • Replies: @jluker
  59. Mefobills says:

    yet still believe in the concept of ownership and its expected benefits; they will likely take out a mortgage to buy real estate, from which they may eventually be able to derive a modest income – “unearned”, as Hudson describes it – after taxes and maintenance costs.

    You are struggling with the concept of rentier sordid gain, vs legitimate gains.

    Rentier is a concept that comes from rent racking, where the Norman land owning class in England would raise rents everytime there was some sort of industrial improvement in productivity.

    So, they were extracting the wealth and productivity of industry, and raking off for themselves. They were also stealing from the mouth of labor. They made gains in their sleep.

    Taking rents and unearned income can actually be fairly complicated to discern. Landlords should receive some reward for their taking of risk.

    Here is a case of complexity, especially since the Protestant reformation was a looting operation. Judeo Christianity was new (funded by Amsterdam Jewish stock market capital), and concepts like usury were erased from consciousness.

    Little Jack Horner
    Sat in the corner
    Eating his Christmas Pie
    He put in his thumb
    And pulled out a plumb
    And said, ‘What a good boy am I!’

    Jack Horner is a reference to a steward to the abbot of Glastonbury called Thomas Horner. The abbot sent him to London with a Christmas pie to be delivered to King Henry VIII. The title deeds to twelve manor houses were allegedly hidden in the pie as a surprise gift.

    • Replies: @Jon Chance
  60. RobinG says:

    Annamaria is too polite. You and C.Questa, full-on female stupidity hawks, if we’re supposed to take you seriously.

    • Replies: @Kali
  61. jluker says:

    I’m still not getting your point. However to be clear, 7 Southern States had seceded prior to passage of the Morrill tariff. Indeed, the tariff would not have passed without secession. An independent sovereignty does not pay the tariffs of another country. And tariffs are paid by the importer, not the exporter. Cotton was exported. The tariffs are paid at the custom houses in gold for imports. The tariff was highly inflationary and devastating to Northern labor but assuming the South had not seceded and some miracle would have passed that act, the South could have simply increased it’s own manufacturing in response and avoided the tariffs altogether. Russia did that in response to Washington’s high tariffs or sanctions.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  62. I think Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize winner, said Biden is the greatest American president since Roosevelt, or since Truman, that he was so smart. Well, that’s why Krugman got the Nobel Prize, for making statements like that.

    Just a sample of what I consider to be a wonderful essay. This essay has forced me to revaluate a LOT of what I thought I knew about US history.

    Europe is willing to spend now \$5 trillion on putting together ports that can handle shipping tankers for liquefied natural gas instead of relying on the Russian pipeline, the Nord Stream Two, that’s already there.

    This reminded me of something which has been nagging at me lately. LNG is a really dangerous material, and the massive increase we’re going to see will mean ‘speed it up’ shortcuts are going to happen everywhere. Greedy managers plus more inexperienced workers and probably reduced “regulations” are a recipe for disaster. Naturally my link is to a Lawyer’s site, for during a search I found everyone else was writing about the marvelous safety record of the industry.

    One final thought – while reading the part about the world breaking into competing factions, it occured to me this is a final nail in the coffin for any kind of non-disaster resolution of the Global Warming situation. Now I see it as entirely certain something horrible is going to happen, and it’ll either be an event humanity can somehow survive or not. The shock of it all will surely end the faux Industry-Sponsored “Debate”, and sheer luck will determine the outcome from there. So much for us belonging to an “intelligent” species.

    Now to a non-Amazon book site and a search for Mr. Hudson’s latest book.

  63. @SafeNow

    Sir: I can’t think of many things which would be worse than Gold for a nuclear war.
    And I have some serious doubts about its utility for a first-class financial collapse.

    The Survivalists tend to be really loopy in their politics and religion thinking, but some of them have some really great ideas about the things they would need to face the prospect of returning to life as it was 4 to 5 hundred years ago.

    98% is pure BS, but the good stuff is really good.

    I made a couple of contributions to this one before I left the site. An internet search will locate a LOT of similar places.

  64. map says:

    I don’t know…this is very interesting but muddled.

    First, “feudal rentier” is itself unclear. Land has value. It is owned and developed by someone. A person who wants to build a factory has to account for the cost of that land to the landowner, whomever they may be. The factory owner can’t just declare that he wants to be the “world’s workshop” and get land for free just because he points fingers at the guy who won’t give him something for nothing. What’s next? That labor should work for free as well? Property rights and contracts shouldn’t be shunted aside so easily. The same thing goes for anything else, like capital, which costs something as well and should be paid for. Besides, these “feudal families” were granted their lands because they defended the state against invasion or they expanded the empire. It is why you are reading this article in English instead of French or Spanish.

    Second, why is there so much talk about “being competitive?” You get rid of the rentiers charging for your inputs, then you provide healthcare and education, then you protect your industries from the competition…all to be “competitive.” If you have protectionism, however, then why do you have to worry about competition? What do you care about how you perform in world markets? You don’t need to, by definition.

    Third, not everything is IMF machinations. Some nations, like Venezuela, want development now so they borrow and import the expertise they need, while steeply paying for it. Otherwise, they would have to develop all of that on their own.

    So we need to clarify the problem correctly before we can solve it.

    First, the basic problem with finance capitalism is that it does not represent either judicious management of people’s savings deposits or the proper management of proprietary wealth. Banks, at the most basic level, create money out of thin air. They create money at the point of debt. Elaborate loan procedures established by commercial banks as if they are rationing something scarce is only due to the fact that commercial banks cannot create cash. Central banks don’t want loans being made that result in people pulling the proceeds in cash. Otherwise, a bank loan does not represent any real credit to their liabilities on the balance sheet. A bank loaning you $100,000 does not represent any $100,000 reduction in some stockpile the bank has somewhere in the back. This type of “ink money” can be created or destroyed at will.

    There is something very unseemly about this process. The bank generates something basically worthless, but what is attached is the assets and labor of the debtor. The bank’s otherwise worthless “credit” is suddenly imbued in value by “assimilating” the debtor. If anything screams either “pubic utility” in this process or periodic debt jubilees, it is precisely what banks do.

    Even worse is when banks are lenders to something like Blackrock and Vanguard, where the bank loans are generously given to their friends to just buy up assets willy-nilly, which locks people out of purchasing those assets, like housing.

    Second, there should be a basic recognition that free trade between sovereign states does not work. The reason why is because there are these massive entities called “governments” that have an enormous say in what goes into and out of their borders. Governments do not make decisions on economic considerations alone but on political considerations. Consider this very real problem. In the 1920s, the Belgian government borrowed money from US banks and the US government to subsidize the Belgian Cement Company. In doing, the BCC was able to sell cement in the US at a lower price than the cost of producing cement in Michigan and Pennsylvania.

    Michigan and Pennsylvania were the cement belt of the United States.

    Once sovereign states are involved in trade, all ideas of comparative advantage go away, since government subsidies can generate any advantage wanted against a private company of another sovereign state. This fact was obscured by the British Empire, where the efficiencies and productivity of “free trade” were simply an artifact of half of the global trade running under a single sovereign flag. Russia, for example, should not focus on trying to create another reserve currency with China and India. They should focus on internal development and self-sufficiency, with trade only being a necessary stop-gap to that self-sufficiency.

    The formula should then be something simple. Banking, which is basically issuing money, should be handled by government Treasury Departments. Domestic markets within a single sovereign state should be as free market as possible, with low taxes and low regulations. Protectionism should be there to protect that domestic market, and property rights and contracts should be respected. That is the winning formula.

  65. Jon Chance says: • Website

    The closer Russia becomes with the CCP and Communist China, the more corrupt and totalitarian the world becomes:

    If we had legitimate governments in America and Europe, the CCP would never have been recognized as anything other than the Judeo-terrorist organization it’s always been.

    Michael Hudson understands neither politics, history, nor ecoconomics because he’s a socialist.

    The only major governments that have almost avoided the curse of socialism include Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the Swiss Confederation.

    In a fully non-socialist nation, all citizens receive their full National Citizens Dividend. There’s no perceived need for compulsory “education”, government-imposed “healthcare”, government-controlled “housing”, or any wars of aggression.

    Instead of imposing parasitic bureaucratic monopolies and authoritarian “social services”, non-socialist nations prohibit non-natural monopolies and provide their citizens the freedom to choose services offered in a competitive market of independent enterprises. All natural monopolies are publicly owned and shared among citizens. Poverty is abolished, and government spending is limited to less than ten percent (<10%) of GDP:

    In contrast to libertarian nations like Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the Swiss Confederation, most modern regimes — including the US, UK, EU, and Communist China — are effectively National Socialist (Nazi) empires ruled by “The Chosen People”.

    Nazi Germany, created by Jews, was the first major power (other than the UK) to impose nationwide socialism. And it was effective. Today, almost every government on Earth is a socialist tyranny. Very few people are aware of this because the global media monopoly and “public education” have effectively removed from public consciousness any viable alternative to the socialism, corporatism, globalism, and parasitism imposed by Jews and their Left-Right Dialectic.

    Even the “Austrian libertarians” are in reality socialists, corporatists, and globalists — not genuine libertarians.

    Genuine libertarians understand the essential value of nation-states, cultural integrity, national citizenship, and geonomics.

    Genuine libertarianism is distilled to its essence by Thomas Paine (Common Sense), George Mason (Virginia Declaration of Rights), Henry George (Progress and Poverty), and Article Eight of the First US Constitution (Articles of Confederation).

    Do you understand the critical distinctions between socialism and libertarianism?

    Don’t be conned by the Left-Right Dialectic.


  66. Jon Chance says: • Website

    Taking rents and unearned income can actually be fairly complicated to discern. Landlords should receive some reward for their taking of risk.

    Henry George and others have postulated that landlords should probably retain about ten percent of Location Value Rent (LVR); ninety percent of LVR should be collected by public treasuries; and ninety percent or more of the LVR collected by public treasuries should be distributed as our National Citizens Dividend.

    I understand this as the path toward ZERO TAXATION and an optimized libertarian economy.

    Perhaps President Kennedy understood these principles and intended to reestablish a genuine public treasury that would effectively put banksters and other parasites out of business by circulating the nation’s Location Value Rent as our National Citizens Dividend via United States Notes (paper and electronic treasury-issued money).

    What are your thoughts on this matter?

  67. Cris M. says:

    You know, the complication of situations is or could be best separated simply, in just the title of the book mention, ‘the Destiny of Civilization: Finance Capitalism, Industrial Capitalism, or Socialism.’ – In that the ‘or socialism’, is really all of it, the difference being the false life that’s been framed around people by those in world schemes, is socialism of divided interests, theirs versus everyone else in two false systems, but one has more weapons. If there were real equal socialism, and no false ‘money’, and we took over the weapons ourselves, given that they have been obtained by fraud, in false claims of ‘law’ and ‘goverment’ and so on, if people did so, and also took over the food lands that have also been taken by means of multiple frauds, then by force of equalizing people could realize actual self-driven socialism and all the solid things that could be changed by that.

    In other words, in my opinion, to focus on ‘countries’ or supposed ‘markets’ is to exist in a false paradigm of other’s making, others who are not interested in us or what we want, but in vile and destruction.

    Also, over-arching, would argue the destiny of civilization’ s tied to earth, not ‘money’, which if there isn’t a living earth and nature, there isn’t civilization, or anything else. It’s to see the reality without the fake systems of supposed ‘industry’ that is destruction of what made us, and enables us to eat. The word ‘industry’ is a crap word, the same as ‘infrastructure’ and ‘economy’. False and limited framing made and run by vipers.
    Earth. Ocean. That’s the destiny people should focus attention. Ecology is the real economy, of and for our life, and the long destiny, and it’s not well.
    Just some thoughts.

    • Thanks: Kali, PetrOldSack
  68. @Old Brown Fool

    Fool indeed-in 200 years there will be no human descendants of Thunberg or of Fools. The manner in which outright morons, brainwashed Rightwing thugs, and frightened liberal fascists all refuse to open their eyes to our terminal ecological predicament still befuddles the mind. What is the world’s real ‘average’ IQ I wonder?

  69. @skrik

    ‘Living standards’ defined as the consumption of ever more meaningless crap, while destroying the planet’s life-sustaining biospheres at the same time. The Golden Age of the cancer cell.

    • Agree: Punch Brother Punch
  70. @jluker

    The South is the reason we’re in this predicament with blacks today. F the South, the aristocrats and their Jewish enablers.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  71. @Jon Chance

    Henry George should definitely be read today but he was most certainly NOT a Libertarian.

  72. antibeast says:

    Hudson has been critical of the Chinese real-estate bubble, and the Neo-Liberal thinking behind it. Most housing prices in China are due to an intermediate group of private banks who are rehypothecating loans from the big state banks. It is private debts not public debts.

    The property bubble in China was being driven by the private wealth management industry which was selling unsecured high-yield junk bonds from private real-estate developers such as Evergrande to individual and institutional investors. That’s how Evergrande bypassed the State-owned public banking system, by borrowing money from this private shadow banking industry. Those unsecured debts are in addition to its bank loans secured by its property collateral, which are now being sequestered by the State.

    Jack Ma’s ANT Financial was doing the exact thing in the debt-fueled consumer credit fintech industry as Evergrande which was running a debt-fueled pyramid scheme in the property sector. Xi is intentionally deflating both the Chinese property and tech bubbles in order to marginalize the private shadow banking industry which is centered in Shanghai, the base of his political rivals who have close ties to the Financial Capitalists in Wall Street/City of London. Having defrocked his Shanghai-based political rivals, Xi is now going after their private wealth which is heavily dependent upon the over-inflated property and tech bubbles.

    • Agree: A B Coreopsis
    • Thanks: Mefobills
  73. annamaria says:
    @Jon Chance

    “There’s no perceived need for compulsory “education”, government-imposed “healthcare”, government-controlled “housing”, or any wars of aggression.”

    — Are you going to reject your Medicare? Also, as a genuine libertarian, do you reject the idea of state-funded police? If you have children (big IF), do you give them private education exclusively?

    In case you missed it, the Swiss ended their neutrality and entered into NATO/US vassalage:
    As for the alleged freedom of Hong Kong and Taiwan, the interpretation of their ‘independent’ status might differ.

    The Atlantic Council is funded by the US State Dept and foreign powers in line with the US policies. It is a veritable voice of the CIA/MI6/MOSSAD corrupt bosses in service to Banksters and war profiteers. Here is their usual word salad:

  74. annamaria says:

    The smacked Europe begins asking questions: “U.S. benefits the most from Ukraine crisis: European Parliament member”

  75. Mefobills says:
    @Jon Chance

    Henry George was definitely not libertarian.

    I would place his work as a side branch of Classical Economics.

    For example, George was especially animated by how rail road barons got rich off of rail road right of ways. Land site value was how they got rich, not baron labor value. The Barons held a capital position. It was the labor of maids, prostitutes, carpenters, cooks and the like who flocked to the rail road terminals, which made the right-of-ways (land holdings) increase. It was the movement of people/labor, which is fungible. The landed right of ways are not fungible, but their site value was made more valuable. Fungible is a fancy word for movement. People are fungible since they have legs, and land is not fungible.

    This labor was then able to more efficiently gather energy (in the form of transported oil/coal) and to then work the earth. Their fashioned goods from the hinterlands could then find markets in far flung regions, especially industrial zones and large cities.

    So, the barons arbitraged the movement of goods, which in turn was not their (barons) labor. The barons did a rake off on prices of goods.

    Hudson takes some well aimed jabs at Lolbertarians:

    MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, the Nobel Prize is given basically for junk economics. And probably the worst junk economist of the century was Paul Samuelson.

    He made the absurd claim that he proved mathematically that, if you have free trade then, and don’t have tariffs, and don’t have any government protection, then everyone will become more equal. At least the proportions between labor and capital will be more equal. Well, the reality is just the opposite.

    And below Hudson take direct aim at Libertarianism as junk economics. Libertarianism and Neo-Liberalism (Finance Capitalism is neo-liberal) are two branches of Liberal Economics, which worships free markets as if it is god.

    And it becomes predatory, and so you have the whole ideological attack on public enterprise. You have Frederick Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom,” where you say, if government provides public healthcare, that’s “the road to serfdom,” where actually it’s finance capitalism that is the road to debt peonage and serfdom.

    I would think that as a Georgist, you would be attracted to Classical Economics. Hudson has noted that many Georgists get caught up in ideology and become cultists. To not be a cultist you need to think for yourself and synthesize new information, which I think you can do.

    • Thanks: Arthur MacBride
  76. Mefobills says:

    I’m still not getting your point. However to be clear, 7 Southern States had seceded prior to passage of the Morrill tariff. Indeed, the tariff would not have passed without secession.

    Follow the links I gave you. There is lots of reading material which answers your questions.

    This happens quite a lot when Hudson speaks. There are those whose precious shibboleths are punctured, and then those who are punctured lash out.

    For much of American History, the presidential elections had one big issue. How big is the tariff?

    The tariff was the main tax that the Federal Government ran on. Taxing imported goods then raised the price floor so that local goods could be produced, and local economy was supported. The tariff also kept the Federal Government small.

    The growth of the Federal Government into Leviathan occurred after 1912, the point at which Wilson and his (((handlers))) destroyed the country.

    Going back in time, the U.S. made virtually everything it needed. As a continental country tied together with rail links, and with plenty of arable land, and navigable rivers, it became autarkical and had much local economy.

    The secession movement was a smoke screen, now become legend.

    The South was caught up in “free market” theology, and was becoming an extraction economy. This is very similar to what happened to Russia in the 90’s.

    • Thanks: annamaria
  77. Mefobills says:
    @Punch Brother Punch

    The South is the reason we’re in this predicament with blacks today. F the South, the aristocrats and their Jewish enablers

    The “international” finance class rapes the earth to make gains. Since Jews are heavily implicated as part of finance capitalism (they invented it), they create new debts to then funnel credit at schemes they invent.

    Their scheming also includes string pulling politicians and governments to fund war. The funds are created at public debt, in private banks that finance capital owns.

    The Boer war is a case in point, where Boer farmers were to be displaced. South African lands were to be put into international debts (held in London), and the gold and diamonds were to be secured.

    The Boer farmers made the mistake of importing Bantu labor; or rather the Bantu’s were attracted to some sort of life rather than hunting gathering.

    The Southern American land owners also made the mistake of buying negro slaves presented to them in “markets” created for that purpose. The “Atlantic” slave scheme was a business plan hatched by finance capital, to then make gains.. profits.

    I’m sure the Atlantacist usury crowd were busy patting themselves on their collective backs as they paid tribute to their own selfish collective genius, as they were solving a labor problem. The south needed labor to make the land flourish, and negro labor is pliable. Never mind how the future is screwed, and unpriced, as long as gains can be made today. We are living that future now.

    It actually takes some sort of Statesmanlike/King or Tsar System to smash the usury crowd.

    The closest example of a Tsar today, is probably Xi of China. Xi is securing plenty of oil and energy for China’s future. There will be enough fertilizer available to do the plantings, so that Chinese people can have future food security and plentiful life.

    • Agree: Lurker, annamaria
    • Replies: @Punch Brother Punch
  78. Kali says:

    Annamaria is too polite. You and C.Questa, full-on female stupidity hawks, if we’re supposed to take you seriously.

    Hmm, so your fear of “the end is nigh” or whatever, is supposed to silence me and my stupid-woman mind or something, is that it??

    CelestiaQuesta said:
    “If we don’t stop them now, we will be enslaved and most of us exterminated as if we were bug infestations.”

    I agree that this is the ((unipolar)) plan. Do you doubt that they intend to exterminate or enslave us?

    Maybe it’s that you think mass extermination by clot-shot and other bio-weapons, and enslavement for the survivors, is preferable …

    to strategic attacks against our mutual enemies, or warning strikes against NATOstan? I don’t.

    Personally I’d rather live on my feet that die on my knees. And I feel that decicive action by Russia could serve to neutralise the ((threat)) Mankind currently faces. As ugly as things may get in the short-term.

    Every single end I have ever witnessed/experienced has actually been the signal of a new beginning.

    Forgive my blutness, but cowering in fear is a fucking stupid way to approach life. Or do you want your children and grandchildren to be the abject slaves of ((evil)) men?

    I don’t for a second believe that anything called a “doomsday clock” has any merrit whatsoever. It’s nothing but a device to induce fear and paralysis.

    Nor do I believe that the end is niegh. – I could be wrong, but so what if I am? The stars and planets will continue in their orbits. Creation continue to create. God decides the course. No fear.

    So get a grip of yourself and calm tf down.


  79. @frankie p

    Thank you for this which explains so much about international finance as the parasite on humanity exemplifying the perpetual truth of Paul’s statement at 1 Thes 2:15:

    The fundamental difference between the US and China in high levels of banking is that the Central Bank of China sets policies and makes decisions with the good of the nation and people the primary objective; the FED, on the other hand, makes decisions to prop up the banks and the rest of the F.I.R.E. industries, non-productive sectors that “create wealth” through artificially driving up asset prices.

    Privatized central banks are the enemy of the people, as Mefobills so insightfully and consistently explains on here.

    For those who have yet to unplug The Electric Jew, simply listen to which countries are relentlessly vilified – Russia, China, Iran, South Korea, etc. – and you will know which countries do not have a Jew usury central bank.

    Luke 4:16-30 as explained in Michael Hudson’s “…and forgive them their debts…” (2018).

    • Agree: Arthur MacBride
    • Thanks: Sarah
  80. Mefobills says:
    @Jon Chance

    Genuine libertarians understand the essential value of nation-states, cultural integrity, national citizenship, and geonomics.

    Founding fathers like Thomas Payne were not genuine libertarians. They were revolutionary in that they were against the BOE finance capital construct that had come into being in London by 1694. It’s amazing they understood as much as they did.

    The founding fathers were conditioned by the Colonial period. The Colonials invented industrial capitalism. You cannot shoe-horn in the Colonial period into some sort of liberal/libertarian construct. Also, libertarianism as a word is now conflated with Austrianism, which in turn is a brain washing dialectic, emitted by agents of the finance class.

    Specifically, industrial capitalism was invented in Massachusetts bay. There was another break out in France, but in terms of chronology, the Colonials were first and most successful at it.

    As Hudson says in this article, Industrial Capitalism was REVOLUTIONARY.

    In Mass bay, they were sitting around pulling their puds, and were in danger of starving. The usual usurers were about offering their gold as the money, and of course it was offered at exorbitant rates for the privilege of using it.

    The Colonials then created BILLS OF CREDIT, aimed at the first industry, the Iron Works.

    It was probably John Winthrop who created the scheme, and then Cotton Mather wrote about it. It then transmitted later in time to Benjamin Franklin and Payne. Industrial Capitalism got a new name when Henry Clay called it the American System, when really it was the Colonial System.

    Franklin’s protege and fellow printer was Matthew Carey, the father of Henry Carey. Henry Carey and Clay were contemporaries of Lincoln. Henry expanded on the works of his father. Lincoln was recapitulating the system of the founders, essentially a new revolutionary war.

    Industrial capitalism is characterized by State Credit aimed/channeled at industry. Additional credit is aimed at improving the commons, by building out bridges, rail, water works – all those things that make labor value collectively improve. Tariffs are in place so that nascent industry may develop.

    The Bills of Credit could be allowed to stay (by government fiat) in the economy to circulate debt free, or they could be recalled. There was also additional debt free money in the form of Mass. Bills created, to then pay the interest on Bills of Credit. This would be a positive money system, where interest is earned by savers and producers, and said interest is able to be paid as there is debt free money available to pay it. Industrial capitalism an equity system, where labor becomes equity partners in new productivity and industry.

    Finance Capitalism is a debt system, where new debts are used to harvest already in place productivity, not to create new industry.

    After the revolutionary war, the POS self interested Robert Morris prevented the words “To emit Bills of Credit,” from being included in article 1 section 8.

    Jefferson, as his dying wish, wanted a do-over on this very clause. A country is not to borrow its own credit from privateers, it is to emit it.

    • Agree: frankie p
    • Thanks: Towey, Kali, Pheasant
  81. annamaria says:

    Thank you for the excellent elucidation.

    • Agree: Arthur MacBride
    • Thanks: Mefobills
  82. @peterAUS

    In the illusion, i fully understand you. And right you are. The problem is the collective incapacitation on anything but crude basic intuition, out of date instincts, of the middle class population.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  83. Socialism is no better than capitalism. In either case, it’s bureaucrats making decisions for individual citizens who should be allowed to make their own decisions on most matters.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  84. peterAUS says:


    “Our” problems are simple: organization and discipline.

    “We” have nothing there. “They” have plenty.

    “We” are reduced into online blathering; “they” keep implementing their agenda.

    Net result: for time being and until, perhaps, something changes, “our” only option is to work on individual “minimizing the damage”.
    Online chats as part of it; a copium. Beats substance abuse, and worse, I guess.

  85. @SafeNow

    Who cares what people think??? You have to do what you believe is the safest for you. At the end of the day precious metals have held for thousands of years.

  86. @Jim H

    “Reportedly, China has vast tracts of unoccupied multistory apartments as a result of this policy.”

    The problem is with whom the reporting is done… Child builds loads of buildings for it’s continually urbanizing population the same way developers build non stop in Arizona and Florida building gated communities for snow birds and retirees migrating from northern parts of the US.

  87. Mefobills says:
    @phillip sawicki

    Socialism is no better than capitalism

    What kind of socialism? What kind of capitalism?

    This is fourth paragraph of Ben Norton’s interview of Michael Hudson.

    We talk about these concepts explored in his new book “The Destiny of Civilization: Finance Capitalism, Industrial Capitalism or Socialism.”

    There is quite a bit of energy expended explaining the differences between Industrial Capitalism and Finance Capitalism. You then go on to not define your type of capitalism.

    Methinks you didn’t even bother to read the article, or listen to the podcast; you are just bleeting out your narrative conditioning.

    This is how our (((friends))) win. Neuro Linguistic conditioning is used to get people to go along with their jailers, in something like a Stockholm syndrome. You hear something enough, then you start to believe it without critical thinking.

    The founding of the U.S. was not finance capitalist. The General Welfare clause implies some socialism, which they practiced in the Colonies. There were a lot of debates in the colonial period about elevating labor with improved schools with universal access, public libraries, postal roads, good water, public health, etc. Franklin’s Pennsylvania colony operated along these lines, with a form of socialism.

  88. @Jon Chance

    Lunatic racism. The White Bosses really fear the Chinese. It’s good to see. Perhaps it will chew its own head off in a frenzy of resentment.

  89. @Mefobills

    ‘Genuine’ libertarians believe in liberty for ALL. Rightwing libertarians HATE other people.

  90. Jon Chance says: • Website

    Stephen Zarlenga’s The Lost Science of Money is indeed an excellent resource for understanding the history of money, but it ultimately falls short and promotes a corporate-socialist “solution” to the problems that betray the intent of the American Revolution and other Libertarian movements.

    The Second US Constitution (1787) was constructed by the “Federalists” to enslave Americans.

    The Federalists and the Bank of England imposed their fraudulent constitution on America to ensure slavery would remain alive and well even to today.

    Examine the First US Constitution (Articles of Confederation), Common Sense by Thomas Paine, and the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) by George Mason.

    Then you might understand genuine Libertarianism.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  91. Mefobills says:
    @mulga mumblebrain

    Genuine’ libertarians believe in liberty for ALL

    They believe in free movement of labor, and free movement of capital. They demonize government and ignore the free market string pullers. Oligarchy, sordid gain, and in-groups cannot exist in their world view.

    They are nation destroyers. Their belief system is fairy tale stuff that has nothing to do with reality.

    Libertarians have an august-sounding slogan which they swear by called the “non-aggression principle,” which is sort of “do no harm” for nerds. Ironically these libertarians are all for unlimited immigration; either they’re not keeping up with the news of the day, or think that murder, rape, and trashing a country are not “acts of aggression.” They also swear that all things can be measured by GDP — so that just might have something to do with it.

    Government’s great function, above all other things it does, is to protect us from invasion. But libertarians say government should basically do nothing, and certainly should not protect its own people. The very concept of “its own people” is racist and collectivist and wrong, they tell us. And if we let them have their way, they’re going to be the death of us all.

    • Agree: Sisifo
    • Replies: @Jon Chance
  92. Mefobills says:
    @Jon Chance

    Then you might understand genuine Libertarianism.

    Sticking to your guns I see. Maybe you should also explain where Hudson is wrong? You don’t get to redefine what a term means. Libertarianism has a meaning, and it is for free movement of capital and people, and for democracy.

    I did a search argument on your link, and there are no hits for “genuine libertarian.”

    Stephen Zarlenga’s The Lost Science of Money is indeed an excellent resource for understanding the history of money, but it ultimately falls short and promotes a corporate-socialist “solution” to the problems that betray the intent of the American Revolution and other Libertarian movements.

    The American revolution was due to BOE whispering in King George’s ear. He then went and demonetized Colonial Script, which caused a 10 year long depression. People don’t go to war if they are comfortable. The revolution wasn’t over ideology, it was over economics. The revolution was not a libertarian movement, it was so people could get out from under the BOE’s finance capitalist thumb. The Colonials liked what they had, before the currency act.

    1764, the production of Colonial Script was made illegal by the Currency Act, passed into law in England (of course due to pressure from the Bank of England) prohibiting the Colonies from issuing their own money, ordering them to use only the money that was provided (in insufficient quantities) by the English bankers. Benjamin Franklin said,

    “In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed”.

    The effect that the English bankers were having on the Colonies was by far the most significant reason for the Revolutionary War in 1775, in contrast to what is taught in our history books. Benjamin Franklin was clear about this;

    “The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been for the poverty caused by the bad influence of English bankers on the parliament which has caused, in the colonies, hatred of England and the revolutionary war”.

    I am a national socialist, which is the ultimate expression of industrial capitalism. Zarlinga would disagree with me, like you do. Payne was an advanced soul, but he was a product of his time and he would have had to modify what he knew based on new information now reveled by history.

    The “American Experiment” failed by 1912. Yes, there were a lot of mistakes made at the continental congress. It is instructive to see why America failed so after the coming collapse, mistakes are not made again. If you go running around talking about genuine libertarianism, nobody will understand you. Hudson’s approach of analyzing ancient economies is a good approach, as he shows what worked. Generally what worked, was a god-king, who had the power to release debts and prevent polarization. Zarlinga did not think in terms of debts/credits and polarization.

    The American experiment failed because because it became more democratic, especially behind demands for more “freedom.”

    Democracy is near and dear to libertarian freedom ideology. To be fair, the founders hated democracy, and tried to prevent its excesses.

    By rejecting the authority of the individual and replacing it by the numbers of some momentary mob, the parliamentary principle of majority rule sins against the basic aristocratic principle of Nature, though it must be said that this view is not necessarily embodied in the present-day decadence of our upper ten thousand

    The devastation caused by this institution of modern parliamentary rule is hard for the reader of Jewish newspapers to imagine, unless he has learned to think and examine independently. It is, first and foremost, the cause of the incredible inundation of all political life with the most inferior, and I mean the most inferior, characters of our time. Just as the true leader will withdraw from all political activity which does not consist primarily in creative achievement and work, but in bargaining and haggling for the favor of the majority, in the same measure this activity will suit the small mind and consequently attract it.

    List transmitted Industrial Capitalism (the American System) to the Kaiser. Hitler resurrected it to great success in NSDAP Germany. The National Socialists also had advanced understanding of money, using Bills of Credit and examining said bills to make sure goods were produced. They also had debt release, and returned women to the home-life, rather than making women into indebted wage labor.

    Hudson would probably also disagree with me at comment 80 of this thread:

    It actually takes some sort of Statesmanlike/King or Tsar System to smash the usury crowd.

    The closest example of a Tsar today, is probably Xi of China. Xi is securing plenty of oil and energy for China’s future. There will be enough fertilizer available to do the plantings, so that Chinese people can have future food security and plentiful life.

    Professor Buffin de Chosal* demolishes the ideological justification in which modern democracy rests while he describes the disastrous effects that democratic rule has had on Western societies. He explodes the myth of Democracy as a protector of individual liberty, a prerequisite for economic progress, and a promoter of the higher arts. Once Democracy is seen in this light, a far more accurate interpretation of modern history can be undertaken. The book is a very suitable companion to Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s iconoclastic take down of democracy in Democracy: The God That Failed, released at the beginning of this century.

    Libertarian quixotic attempts at freedom, destroy that which they want.

    • Thanks: Arthur MacBride, Towey
    • Replies: @Jon Chance
  93. Jon Chance says: • Website

    The so-called “Libertarian Party” was created in the 1970s by Jews and other corporate-socialist globalists to prevent Americans from understanding economics and genuine Libertarianism.

    Genuine Libertarianism (genuine liberalism) was — and still is — the basis of the American Revolution.

    The economics of genuine Libertarianism were most clearly explained in Progress and Poverty by Henry George, Making Mondragon by William Whyte, and The Breakdown of Nations by Leopold Kohr.

    Don’t forget to examine The Money Masters by Bill Still:

    The Left-Right Black-White Dialectic is the Jews’ most destructive form of tyranny. Only those who learn to see beyond false labels can understand and communicate effectively. All political parties (including Nazis) are controlled by Jews. No political parties should be recognized as public institutions.

    All genuine citizens must be patriotic and independent critical thinkers. And all genuine citizens must serve in the militia.

    “13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.”

    Anything less leads to totalitarianism.

    • Replies: @Arthur MacBride
  94. @Mefobills

    This is a good post, worth reading multiple times.

    I am tired of the mindless worship of the American South among the “dissident Right” (I’m looking at you Brad Griffin/Hunter Wallace of Occidental Dissent.)

    The South brought us the “negro problem.” My family (Scots–Irish) ultimately descend from the South.

    They are all fucked up and damaged post-1865. I an tired of pretending the ante-bellum South was some Gone With The Wind-utopia.

    • Thanks: Mefobills
    • Replies: @jluker
  95. @mulga mumblebrain

    Real Libertarianism has never been tried!

  96. @Jon Chance

    Kudos for your good intentions (or perhaps self-deception) JC.

    Libertarianism is in reality and in fact a deceptively-named Jewish system which encapsulates the slogans “Greed is Good” and the well-known axiom of the English satanist Alasdair Crowley “Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be the Whole of the Law.”

    The current situation viz Jewish banksters and their satanic-mason servitors in the western system of “democracy” more that amply bears out what Mefo has said.
    The outcome reveals the system, JC.
    How can this not be obvious ?
    Quibbles about “real” libertarianism are essentially just pilpul, like the dupes who say that real “communism” has never been tried.

    Agree your take on armed citizenry.
    But they need clear leadership.
    Libertarians will never provide this.

    • Agree: Mefobills
    • Thanks: Towey
  97. Jon Chance says: • Website

    Socialism is the billionaires’ best friend. It was invented to save their “bank” corporations.

    The most successful nation in history is a capitalist libertarian democratic republic — not a socialist dictatorship.

    The Swiss Confederation served as an example for the American Revolutionaries of what America could become.

    Sadly, the “Federalist” coup d’etat of 1787 overthrew the legitimate US government and replaced it with the UK’s puppet regime in the District of Columbia.

    You can’t understand the history and economics of America without grasping the content of the First US Constitution (Articles of Confederation), the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), Common Sense by Thomas Paine, Progress and Poverty by Henry George, and The Money Masters by Bill Still.

    Those are essential starting points for all aspiring citizens, historians, and economists.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  98. Mefobills says:
    @Jon Chance

    Where does Hudson get it wrong in the below video?

    He takes on your argument about how Socialism is the billionaires best friend.

    The Swiss Confederation was a good power balancing model, which sadly was not adopted in the U.S.

    However, the Swiss Confederation, like all Western Civilizations (exception NSDAP), does not comprehend debt polarization.

    Also, all of history is the starting point, not what you claim. The ancient near east economies were especially illustrative, especially in how they canceled debts.

  99. @Smashed Squash

    You might consider being just slightly knowledgeable before posting — ignorance is sometimes worth a laugh, but not always. Start by researching the topic “electric grid interconnects’. The specifications of the 95% of the US power grid are nominally the same, yet Texas power is not easily delivered to California (ref Enron).

    As for comment on the useless of Russia and China in appearing weak, do scan the Art of War: “When able, feign inability”…”When deploying troops, appear not to be”. “The Way of war is a Way of Deception”.

    • Replies: @mulga mumblebrain
  100. @A B Coreopsis

    Always add, ‘Don’t interrupt the enemy when he is making a mistake’.

  101. In view of the title, thought to post up one small aspect of our Civilization, this excellent musician was an associate of GF Händel, and musician to Frederick the Great.

    • Thanks: Sarah
  102. jluker says:
    @Punch Brother Punch

    You can make all the silly comments you want but your just wrong. Get your facts straight and then distort them as you like. The North had the carrying trade. Those things called ships that float on the water and carry people. The Atlantic Slave Trade was the Northern Slave Trade and it continued into the 1860s. No slave trade no slaves.

  103. Pheasant says:

    Robert Morris was a crypto Jew by the way

    • Thanks: Mefobills
  104. Rubicon says:

    Dr. Hudson states:
    “So right now, for the first time, you have a critical mass. And you have the ability of China, Iran, Russia, India, other countries together to be self-sufficient. They don’t need relations with the United States.

    They can handle their own; they can create their own monetary system outside of the International Monetary Fund……

    If Dr. Hudson is correct about the two above statements, then we see the only thing left to hammer into place is their OWN monetary system “outside” of the IMF.

    We have never heard Dr. Hudson state that China, Iran, Russia, etc. “have reached critical mass!”
    This is a turning point away from the US $$ exploitation around the world!

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Personal attacks and gratuitous insults are not acceptable and this author will ban such commenters.

 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 Michael Hudson Comments via RSS