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
From Junk Economics to a False View of History
What are the real roots of Western Civilization?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

It may seem strange to invite an economist to give a keynote speech to a conference of the social sciences. Economists have been characterized as autistic and anti-social in the popular press for good reason. They are trained to think It may seem strange to invite an economist to give a keynote speech to a conference of the social sciences. Economists have been characterized as autistic and anti-social in the popular press for good reason. They are trained to think abstractly and use a priori deduction – based on how they think societies should develop. Today’s mainstream economists look at neoliberal privatization and free-market ideals as leading society’s income and wealth to settle at an optimum equilibrium without any need for government regulation – especially not of credit and debt.

The only role acknowledged for government is to enforce the “sanctity of contracts” and “security of property.” By this they mean the enforcement of debt contracts, even when their enforcement expropriates large numbers of indebted homeowners and other property owners. That is the history of Rome. We are seeing the same debt dynamic at work today. Yet this basic approach has led mainstream economists to insist that civilization could and should have followed this pro-creditor policy from the very beginning.

The reality is that civilization could never have taken off if some free-market economist had got into a time machine and travelled back in time five thousand years to the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Suppose that he would have convinced ancient chieftains or rulers how to organize their trade, money and land tenure on the basis of “greed is good” and any public regulation is bad.

If some Milton Friedman or Margaret Thatcher had persuaded Sumerian, Babylonian or other ancient rulers to follow today’s neoliberal philosophy, civilization could not have developed. Economies would have polarized – as Rome did, and as today’s Western economies are doing. The citizens would have run away, or else backed a local reformer or revolutionist to overthrow the ruler who listened to such economic advice. Or, they would have defected to rival attackers who promised to cancel their debts, liberate the bondservants and redistribute the land.

Yet many generations of linguists, historians and even anthropologists have absorbed the economic discipline’s anti-social individualistic world view and imagine that the world must always have been this way. Many of these non-economists have unwittingly adopt their prejudices and approach ancient as well as modern history with a bias. Our daily discourse is so bombarded with the insistence by recent American politicians that the world is dividing between “democracy” with “free markets” and “autocracy” with public regulation that there is much fantasy at work about early civilization.

David Graeber and I have sought to expand the consciousness of how different the world was before Western Civilization took the Roman track of pro-creditor oligarchies instead of palatial economies protecting the interests of the indebted population at large. At the time he published his Debt: The First Five Thousand Years in 2011, my Harvard group of assyriologists, Egyptologists and archaeologists was still in the process of writing the economic history of the ancient Near East in a way that was radically different from how most of the public imagined it to have occurred. David’s and my emphasis on how royal Clean Slate proclamations cancelling debts, liberating bond-servants and redistributing the land were a normal and expected role of Mesopotamian rulers and Egyptian pharaohs was still not believed at that time. It seemed impossible that such Clean Slates were what preserved liberty for the citizenry.

David Graeber’s book summarized my survey of royal debt cancellation in the ancient Near East to show that interest-bearing debt originally was adopted with checks and balances to prevent it from polarizing society between creditors and debtors. In fact, he pointed out that the strains created by the emergence of monetary wealth in personal hands led to an economic and social crisis that shaped the emergence of the great religious and social reformers. As he summarized “the core period of Jasper’s Axial age … corresponds almost exactly to the period in which coinage was invented. What’s more, the three parts of the world where coins were first invented were also the very parts of the world where those sages lived; in fact, they became the epicenters of Axial Age religious and philosophical creativity.”[1]David Graber, Debt: The First 5000 Years (Brooklyn, 2011):224. Buddha, Lao-Tzu and Confucius all sought to create a social context in which to embed the economy. There was no concept of letting “markets work” to allocate wealth and income without any idea of how wealth and income would be spent.

All ancient societies had a mistrust of wealth, above all monetary and financial wealth in creditor hands, because it generally tended to be accumulated at the expense of society at large. Anthropologists have found this to be a characteristic of low-income societies in general.

Toynbee characterized history as a long unfolding dynamic of challenges and responses to the central concerns that shape civilizations. The major challenge has been economic in character: who would benefit from the surpluses gained as trade and production increase in scale and become increasingly specialized and monetized. Above all, how would society organize the credit and debt that was necessary for specialization of economic activities to occur – and between “public” and “private” functions?

Nearly all early societies had a central authority in charge of distributing how the surplus was invested in a way that promoted overall economic welfare. The great challenge was to prevent credit leading to debts being paid in a way that impoverished the citizenry, e.g., through personal debt and usury – and more than temporary loss of freedom (from bondage or exile) or land tenure rights.

ORDER IT NOW

The great problem that the Bronze Age Near East solved – but classical antiquity and Western civilization have not solved – was how to cope with debts being paid – especially at interest without polarizing economies between creditors and debtors, and ultimately impoverishing the economy by reducing most of the population to debt dependency. Merchants engaged in trade, both for themselves and as agents for palace rulers. Who would get the profits? And how would credit be provided but kept in line with the ability to be paid?

Public vs. Private Theories of How Land Tenure Originated

Ancient societies rested on an agricultural base. The first and most basic problem for society to solve was how to assign land tenure. Even families who lived in towns that were being built up around temples and civic ceremonial and administrative centers were allocated self-support land – much like Russians have dachas, where most of their food was grown in Soviet times.

In analyzing the origins of land tenure, like every economic phenomenon, we find two approaches. On the one hand is a scenario where land is allocated by the community in exchange for corvée labor obligations and service in the military. On the other hand is an individualistic scenario in which land tenure originated by individuals acting spontaneously by themselves clearing land, make it their own property and producing handicrafts or other products (even metal to use as money!) to exchange with each other.

This latter individualistic view of land tenure has been popularized ever since John Locke imagined individuals setting out to clear the land – apparently vacant wooded land – with their own labor (and presumably that of their wives). That effort established their ownership to it and its crop yield. Some families would have more land than others, either because they were stronger at clearing it or had a larger family to help them. And there was enough land for everyone to clear ground for planting crops.

In this view there is no need for any community to be involved, not even to protect themselves from miliary attack – or for mutual aid in times of flood or other problems. And there is no need for credit to be involved – although in antiquity that was the main lever distorting the distribution of land by transferring its ownership to wealthy creditors

At some point in history, to be sure, this theory sees governments enter the picture. Perhaps they took the form of invading armies, which is how the Norman ancestors of landlords in John Locke’s day acquired English land. And as in England, the rulers would have forced landholders to pay part of their crops in taxes and provide military service. In any case, the role of government was recognized only as “interfering” with the cultivator’s right to use the crop as he saw fit – presumably to trade for things that he needed, made by families in their own workshops.

My Harvard-sponsored group of assyriologists, Egyptologists and archaeologists have found an entirely different genesis of land tenure.[2]Piotr Steinkeller and Michael Hudson, eds., Labor in the Ancient World (Dresden 2015). Land rights seem to have been assigned in standardized plots in terms of their crop yield. To provide food for these community members, late Neolithic and early Bronze Age communities from Mesopotamia to Egypt allocated land to families in proportion to what they needed to live on and how much they could turn over to the palace authorities.

This tax yield turned over to palace collectors was the original economic rent. Land tenure came as part of a quid pro quo – with a fiscal obligation to provide labor services at designated times of the year, and to serve in the military. It thus was taxation that created land-tenure rights, not the other way around. Land was social in character, not individualistic. And government’s role was that of coordinator, organizer and forward planner, not merely predatory and extractive.

Public vs. Private Origins of Money

How did early societies organize the exchange of crops for products – and most important, to pay taxes and debts? Was it simply a spontaneous world of individuals “trucking and bartering,” as Adam Smith put it? Prices no doubt would have varied radically as individuals had no basic reference to cost of production or degrees of need. What happened as some individuals became traders, taking what they produced (or other peoples’ products on consignment) to make a profit. If they traveled large distances, were caravans or ships needed – and the protection of large groups? Would such groups have been protected by their communities? Did supply and demand play a role? And most important, how did money emerge as a common denominator to set prices for what was traded – or paid in taxes and to settle debts?

A century after Adam Smith, the Austrian economist Anton Menger developed a fantasy about how and why ancient individuals may have preferred to hold their savings in the form of metals – mainly silver but also copper, bronze or gold. The advantage of metal was said to be that it did not spoil (in contrast to grain carried around in one’s pocket, for instance). It also was assumed to be of uniform quality. So pieces of metal money gradually became the medium by which other products came to be measured as they were bartered in exchange – in markets in which governments played no role at all!

The fact that this Austrian theory has been taught now for nearly a century and a half is an indication of how gullible economists are willing to accept a fantasy at odds with all historical records from everywhere in recorded world history. To start with, silver and other metals are not at all of uniform quality. Counterfeiting is age-old, but individualist theories ignore the role of fraud – and hence, the need for public authority to prevent it. That blind spot is why U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was so unprepared to cope with the massive junk-mortgage bank crisis peaking in 2008. Wherever money is involved, fraud is omnipresent.

That’s what happens in unregulated markets – as we can see from today’s bank frauds, tax evasion and crime that pays very, very well. Without a strong government to protect society against fraud, lawbreaking, the use of force and exploitation, societies will polarize and become poorer. For obvious reasons the beneficiaries of these grabs seek to weaken regulatory power and the ability to prevent such grabitization.

ORDER IT NOW

To avoid monetary fraud, silver and subsequently gold coinage from Bronze Age Mesopotamia down through classical Greece and Rome was minted in temples to sanctify their standardized quality. That is why our word for money comes from Rome’s temple of Juno Moneta, where Rome’s coinage was struck. Thousands of years before bullion was coined, it was provided in metal strips, bracelets and other forms minted in temples, at standardized alloy proportions.

Purity of metals is not the only problem with using bullion money. The immediate problem that would have confronted anyone exchanging products for silver is how to weigh and measure what was being bought and sold – and also to pay taxes and debts. From Babylonia to the Bible we find denunciations against merchants using false weights and measures. Taxes involve a role of government, and in all archaic societies it was the temples that oversaw weights and measures as well as the purity of metallic metals. And the denomination of weights and measures indicate their origin in the public sector: fractions divided into 60ths in Mesopotamia, and 12ths in Rome.

Trade in basic essentials had standardized customary prices or payments to the palaces or temples. Taxes and debts were the most important used for money. That reflects the fact that “money” in the form of designated commodities was needed mainly to pay taxes or buy products from the palaces or temples and, at the end of the harvesting season, to pay debts to settle such purchases.

Today’s neoliberal economic mainstream has created a fairy tale about civilization existing without any regulatory oversight or productive role for government, and without any need to levy taxes to provide basic social services such as public construction or even service in the military. There is no need to prevent fraud, or violent seizure of property – or the forfeiture of land tenure rights to creditors as a result of debts. But as Balzac noted, most great family fortunes have been the result of some great theft, lost in the mists of time and legitimized over the centuries, as if it were all natural.

These blind spots are necessary to defend the idea of “free markets” controlled by the wealthy, above all by creditors. This is claimed to be for the best, and how society should be run. That is why today’s New Cold War is being fought by neoliberals against socialism – fought with violence, and by excluding the study of history from the academic economics curriculum and hence from the consciousness of the public at large. As Rosa Luxemburg put it, the fight is between socialism and barbarism.

Public vs. Private Origins of Interest-Bearing Debt

Interest rates were regulated and stable for many centuries on end. The key was ease of calculation: 10th, 12thor 60th.

Babylonian scribes were trained to calculate any rate of interest as a doubling time. Debts grew exponentially; but scribal students also were taught that herds of cattle and other material economic output tapered off in an S-curve. That is why compound interest was prohibited. It also was why it was necessary to cancel debts periodically.

If rulers had not cancelled debts, the ancient world’s takeoff would have prematurely suffered the kind of decline and fall that impoverished Rome’s citizenry and led to the decline and fall of its Republic – leaving a legal system of pro-creditor laws to shape subsequent Western civilization.

What makes Western Civilization Distinctly Western? Has It All Been a Detour?

Civilization could not have developed if a modern Milton Friedman or kindred Economics Nobel Prize winner had gone back in time and convinced Hammurabi or the Egyptian pharaoh to just let individuals act by themselves and let wealthy creditors reduce debtors to bondage – and then to use their labor as an army to overthrow the kings and take over government for themselves, creating a Roman-style oligarchy. That is what Byzantine families tried to do in the 9thand 10thcenturies.

If the “free enterprise” boys had their way there would have been no temple coinage or oversight of weights and measures. Land would belong to whomever could grab, foreclose on or conquer it. Interest would have reflected whatever a wealthy merchant could force a needy cultivator to pay. But to economists, everything that occurs is a matter of “choice.” As if there is no outright need– to eat or to pay.

An economic Nobel Prize was awarded to Douglass North for claiming that economic progress today and indeed throughout all history has been based on the “security of contracts” and property rights. By this he means the priority of creditor claims to foreclose on the property of debtors. These are the property rights to create latifundia and reduce populations to debt peonage.

No archaic civilization could have survived for long by following this path. And Rome did not survive by instituting what has become the distinguishing feature of Western Civilization: giving control of government and its lawmaking to a wealthy creditor class monopolizing the land and property.

If an ancient society had done this, economic life would have been impoverished. Most of the population would have run away. Or else, the Thatcherite/Chicago School elite would have been overthrown. The wealthy families that sponsored this grabitization would have been exiled, as occurred in many Greek cities in the 7thand 6thcenturies BC. Or, discontented populations would have walked out and/or threatened to defect to foreign troops promising to free the bondservants, cancel their debts and redistribute the land, as occurred with Rome’s Secessions of the Plebs in the 5thand 4thcenturies BC.

So we are brought back to David Graeber’s point that the great reformers of Eurasia rose at the same time that economies were becoming monetized and increasingly privatized – an epoch in which wealthy families were increasing their influence over how city-states were run. Not only the great religious reformers but the leading Greek philosophers, poets and dramatists explained how wealth is addictive, and leads to hubris that leads them to seek wealth in ways that injure others.

Looking over the sweep of ancient history, we can see that the main objective of rulers from Babylonia to South Asia and East Asia was to prevent a mercantile and creditor oligarchy from emerging and concentrating ownership of land in their own hands. Their implicit business plan was to reduce the population at large to clientage, debt bondage and serfdom.

ORDER IT NOW

That is what occurred in the West, in Rome. And we are still living in the aftermath. Throughout the West today, our legal system remains pro-creditor, not in favor of the indebted population at large. That is why personal debts, corporate debts, public debts and the international debts of Global South countries have mounted up to crisis conditions threatening to lock economies into a prolonged debt deflation and depression.

It was to protest this that David helped organize Occupy Wall Street. It is obvious that we are dealing not only with an increasingly aggressive financial sector, but that it has created a false history, a false consciousness designed to deter revolt by claiming that There Is No Alternative (TINA).

Where Western Civilization Went Wrong

We have two diametrically opposed scenarios depicting how the most basic economic relationships came into being. On the one hand, we see Near Eastern and Asian societies organized to maintaining social balance by keeping debt relations and mercantile wealth subordinate to the public welfare. That aim characterized archaic society and non-Western societies.

But the Western periphery, in the Aegean and Mediterranean, lacked the Near Eastern tradition of “divine kingship” and Asian religious traditions. This vacuum enabled a wealthy creditor oligarchy to take power and concentrate land and property ownership in its own hands. For public relations purposes, it claimed to be a “democracy” – and denounced any protective government regulation as being, by definition, “autocracy.”

Western tradition indeed lacks a policy subordinating wealth to overall economic growth. The West has no strong government checks to prevent a wealth-addicted oligarchy from emerging to make itself into a hereditary aristocracy. Making debtors and clients into a hereditary class, dependent on wealthy creditors, is what todays economists call a “free market.” It is one without public checks and balances against inequality, fraud or privatization of the public domain.

It may seem amazing to some future historian that the political and intellectual leaders of today’s world hold such individualistic neoliberal fantasies that archaic society “should” have developed in this way – without recognizing that this is how Rome’s oligarchic Republic did indeed develop, leading to its inevitable decline and fall.

Bronze Age Debt Cancellations and Modern Cognitive Dissonance

So we are led back to why I was invited to speak here today. David Graeber wrote in his Debt book that he was seeking to popularize my Harvard group’s documentation that debt cancellations did indeed exist and were not simply literary utopian exercises. His book helped make debt a public issue, as did his efforts in the Occupy Wall Street movement.

The Obama administration backed police breaking up the OWS encampments and did everything possible to destroy awareness of the debt problems plaguing the U.S. and foreign economies. And not only the mainstream media but also academic orthodoxy circled their wagons against even the thought that debts could be written down and indeed needed to be written down to prevent economies from falling into depression.

That neoliberal pro-creditor ethic is the root of today’s New Cold War. When President Biden describes this great world conflict aimed at isolating China, Russia, India, Iran and their Eurasian trading partners, he characterizes this as an existential struggle between “democracy” and “autocracy.”

By “democracy” he means oligarchy. And by “autocracy” he means any government strong enough to prevent a financial oligarchy from taking over government and society and imposing neoliberal rules – by force. The ideal is to make the rest of the world look like Boris Yeltsin’s Russia, where American neoliberals had a free hand in stripping away all public ownership of land, mineral rights and basic public utilities.

Notes

[1] David Graber, Debt: The First 5000 Years (Brooklyn, 2011):224.

[2] Piotr Steinkeller and Michael Hudson, eds., Labor in the Ancient World (Dresden 2015).

 
• Category: Economics, History • Tags: Babyl, Classical Antiquity, Debt, Debt Jubilee 
Hide 147 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Dutch Boy says:

    The lynchpin of oligarchic control and wealth is usury. It guarantees a steady flow of wealth from those who have less to those who have more and it also guarantees periodic economic crises as the debt load becomes unrepayable. I allows the capitalist oligarchs to claim an unsustainable share of national wealth, which causes an imbalance between production and consumption which is papered over (temporarily) by usury. Abolish the Fed, create a non-usurious monetary system and suspend all interest payments on the current debt.

  2. ‘Counterfeiting is age-old, but individualist theories ignore the role of fraud – and hence, the need for public authority to prevent it.’ — Dr Michael Hudson

    This story has two sides to it.

    By minting standardized coins, government can relieve individuals and merchants of the need to assay each coin for purity. Obviously this benefits commerce and economic growth.

    But the dark side is when governments themselves become sponsors rather than preventers of fraud:

    “By 170 AD the roman denarius was made of 75% silver, and only 60% silver by 211 AD. By 270 AD this was reduced to merely 5% silver. Soon thereafter, Rome switched to bronze coins.

    “Toward the end of the third century, prices of goods in Rome were now 70 TIMES what they were two centuries prior.” — bitcoinmagazine.com

    BAD Romans! That’s what happens when there’s no democracy.

    Oh, wait … it just happened here too, within our lifetimes. Silver coins disappeared in 1965. Copper pennies disappeared in 1982, replaced with copper-plated zinc.

    U.S. CPI has increased by factor of 9.25 times since Lyndon Johnson signed the Coinage Act of 1965.

    Government, through its bankster-sponsored Federal Reserve counterfeiting engine, is the biggest fraudster of all.

    • Agree: Bro43rd, Drapetomaniac
    • Thanks: Kali
    • Replies: @RoatanBill
    , @Observator
    , @JM
  3. Thanks for the article. What is not mentioned about “the West” is that the original Magna Carta was an uprising against usury and land theft. The 1215 version had specific references to Jews and their lending practices. Also not mentioned, in the context of Adam Smith, is that he was a philosopher, not an economist. He associated with those who were lobbying for the dismantling of the Craft Guilds, which covered virtually every working skill and were an integral part of the local economies of towns and villages. Inflation was virtually unknown, as it was understood that money circulating benefited for everyone. The dismantling of the Craft Guilds enabled the Trade Guilds to take over the ownership of production.

    • Thanks: Ann Nonny Mouse, Kali
  4. Thanks, Michael Hudson! Fabulous, monumental article!

    And I like what you write about Milton the Friedmaniac. Out from under the rug!

    • Agree: dogbumbreath, JR Foley
    • LOL: Emslander
  5. gT says:

    Its looking increasingly like the West is based on Roman, Church and Germanic influences, with nothing from the East. The Germanics had individualism and equality amongst their warriors as well as more rights for women than in the East already, to this was added the knowledge of writing and science coming from the Church and oligarchical civilization with roads and bridges and sewage and water systems coming from the Romans. So no need for anything coming from the East.

    Ok yes, with the Renaissance and Enlightenment lots of Greek ideas did make it into the West after the fall of Constantinople, but it could be argued that such knowledge was gained when the Franks sacked Constantinople in the first place, with that knowledge finding refuge in the church, after which Constantinople was sufficiently weakened allowing its capture by the Ottomans.

    Its also said that the sack of Constantinople kick started the West. The stolen wealth, the likes of which the West had never seen before, enabled more leisure time during which more resources could be allocated towards improving military tools (guns) and techniques. It also encouraged the idea that wealth could best be be obtained from elsewhere, as well as knowledge, which is a form of wealth. Hence the thirst for knowledge commenced. With regards to the theft of wealth from Constantinople, the author himself alludes to “most great family fortunes have been the result of some great theft, lost in the mists of time and legitimized over the centuries, as if it were all natural.”

    The Roman Catholic Church also helped because its wealth, collected every Sunday from the gullible, was and still is stupendous. This wealth accruing to a single host, the Pope, enabled lots of knowledge to be acquired and influence exerted, indeed it was the Church which preserved knowledge during the Dark Ages. Looks like all that is needed for success is a vast pool of wealth which enables R&D to be undertaken, building yet more wealth.

    So yes, the West comes from Roman, Church and Germanic influences, as well as wealth / knowledge stolen from the Near East at first, but then from everywhere else thereafter. This wealth enabled the Industrial Revolution and the modern world as we know it. Now of course the only untapped wealth domain left lies in Russia, but the West cannot get its grubby paws on that wealth so the West has no choice but to collapse.

  6. @Mark Kelly

    Economists are the go to people for every asinine idea that gov’t or the banking mafia has. They have no actual skills since their whole realm is theory, so they can take either side of an issue and come up with a paper that supports either side depending on who is paying for phony “expertise”.

    They are trained to think abstractly Ain’t that the truth. So abstractly that they don’t make any sense past common knowledge like supply and demand that everyone intrinsically understands.

    It’s the economists that have backed every stupid idea that has led to the current situation. The solution is to make their degrees null and void for fraud.

    • Agree: Jim Richard, GMC
    • Replies: @Jim Richard
  7. BuelahMan says:

    where American neoliberals had a free hand in stripping away all public ownership of land, mineral rights and basic public utilities.

    Otherwise known as “jews”.

  8. @Mark Kelly

    Yes, very good points. Paper money also redeemable in silver was last printed in 1963, with payout in the precious metal finally ending in 1968. Gold coin and currency of course were abolished thirty five years earlier, though so few coins were turned in that common date pre-1933 pieces in average condition can be bought for surprisingly small premiums over their gold content.

    Throughout the period of Roman monetary collapse, the gold coinage was not debased, with aureii and later solidi struck with no more than 10% copper added to improve the soft metal’s ability to resist wear in circulation. They were produced primarily to buy the loyalty of the legions, especially the all-powerful Praetorians. Gold coins’ buying power was so enormous that they were rarely used to day to day transactions. Tens of millions of earlier fine silver denarii continued to circulate alongside the base metal issues; they passed by weight rather than by nominal face value. Though Trajan demonetized old denarii of the Republic early in the second century, they also continued in use and turn up in market hoards deposited centuries after they were minted.

    An interesting parallel to our time is that every month the US mints strike millions of NCLT (non-circulating legal tender) coins in silver, gold, platinum, and palladium. These sell to investors at their bullion value rather than their nominal face value.

  9. First of all, Greenspan was not Chairman of the Fed in 2008. Little Ben Bernanke was Chairman. And the problem in 2008 was Ben Bernanke, who decided not to bail out Lehman Brothers, in violation of of Bagehot’s notion of the central bank as the “lender of last resort.”

    Second, we have debt cancellation. It is called bankruptcy. Students with student debt need not apply.

    Third, there is the question of “government’s role was that of coordinator, organizer and forward planner” in the olden time. Really? You think government back then was smarter than today’s brilliant leaders?

    Fourth, economic growth down the ages was almost always zero. So debt, which is the anticipation of future income, was even riskier than today.

  10. Durruti says:

    The citizens would have run away, or else backed a local reformer or revolutionist to overthrow the ruler who listened to such economic advice. Or, they would have defected to rival attackers who promised to cancel their debts, liberate the bondservants and redistribute the land.

    Excellent article by Hudson.

    I prefer to comment on the Political Heart of the article.

    Not sure if your supposition is correct, that “citizens” would respond to their exploitation, or resist a ruler who “listened” to ruinous economic and political advice. History has shown a few Revolutions/Revolts against economic and political abuse. Most have failed. In the History of Slavery, there have been only a few revolts, and only 1 successful.

    We do not disagree. You are implying that it would be wonderful if Americans & others RESISTED this abuse – in 2022. AGREED

    In 2022, in America & Europe, the citizens have quite passively accepted their financial and political slavery.

    As Marx stated, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.”

    Dr. Peter J. Antonsen – nom de guerre, Durruti

    • Replies: @Francis Miville
  11. lloyd says: • Website

    In the Epic of Gilgamesh, King Gilgamesh of Uruk is a neoliberal. The elders of the ruling Council pray to the Gods to be saved, and they send Enkidu the mountain wild man. Gilgamesh and Enkidu fight and then become allies. A good lesson about civil Government there.

  12. What happened to the Jabbas.

  13. @RoatanBill

    Notice how Hudson creates his own definition of an economist. This is fairy tale stuff. Economists are lackies who do other peoples, or governments, bidding. It’s in the Social Science departments of universities for Christs sake. Ask yourself, what do I need an economist for? Maybe I need an accountant, but that’s about it. Their degrees are about as valid as a degree in women’s studies. I take that back. I engaged in women studies in my youth and found it very entertaining.

    • Agree: Emslander
    • Disagree: Ann Nonny Mouse
    • Replies: @RoatanBill
    , @Mefobills
  14. Odyssey says:

    In the early days, the Roman government paid for what it needed in gold and silver. The coinage was stable. Requisition and forced purchases, were used to supply armies during the war. During the ‘third century crisis’, the government resorted to requisition rather than payment in degraded coinage, since it could never be sure of the value of money. Diocletian made requisition into tax. He introduced an extensive new tax system based on head counts and land. Census officials travelled throughout the empire, assessed the value of labor and land for each landowner. Diocletian’s reforms also increased the number of financial officials in the provinces.

    Italy, which had long been exempt from taxes, was included in the tax system from 291. Diocletian’s edicts emphasized the common liability of all taxpayers. Public records of all taxes were made public. By 300, civilians across the empire complained that there were more tax collectors than there were people to pay taxes. Diocletian restored the three-metal coinage and issued better quality pieces.

    Since the nominal values of these new issues were lower than their intrinsic worth as metals, the state was minting these coins at a loss. This practice could be sustained only by requisitioning precious metals from private citizens in exchange for state-minted coin of a far lower value than the price of the precious metals requisitioned.

    By 301, however, the system was in trouble because of new inflation. Diocletian issued the Edict on Coinage, to re-tariff all debts so that the most common coin in circulation, would be worth half as much. It appears that the edict was made to preserve the current price of gold and to keep the Empire’s coinage on silver. This edict risked giving further momentum to inflationary trends, so, the government froze the prices.

    The Edict on Maximum Prices was issued two months after the Coinage edict. In the Edict, Diocletian declared that the pricing crisis resulted from the unchecked greed of merchants and resulted in turmoil for the common citizens. The language of the edict calls on the people’s memory of their compassionate leaders and urges them to enforce the provisions of the edict. The Edict goes on to list in detail over one thousand goods and accompanying retail prices not to be exceeded. Penalties are laid out for various pricing wrongdoings.

    In fact, the edict was ignorant of the law of supply and demand. Its aspiring rational was that criminalizing a practice was enough to stop it. Inflation, speculation, and monetary instability continued, and a black market arose to trade in goods forced out of official markets. The edict’s penalties were applied unevenly across the empire, widely resisted, and eventually dropped, within a year of the edict’s issue.

    So, the text says that what we saw in the history of Rome, that we are seeing the same debt dynamic at work today. The subtitle of the text is: ‘What are the real roots of Western Civilization?’ It means that we still do not know the real roots. In the title we have ‘…False View of History’. It implies that some parts of (Roman) history are falsified.

    The author is right. Maybe the ‘Harvard sponsored-group’ can break the taboo and establish that Diocletian and another two dozen of Emperors, including the Tetrarchy, which succeeded him (Galerius, Severus, Constantius, Licinius, Maximian, Constantine, Maxentius, etc) that all of them were Serbs. Despite of the constant jockeying for power until Constantine legalized Christianity and unified the Empire, this period after the Third Century Crisis and after Diocletian, is considered a stable period of the Empire. We should find out, in the context of this article, if this means economically stable as well. Pre-Roman Etruscans are the roots of Western civilization.

    • Replies: @roberts
  15. @Jim Richard

    Absolutely no honest person or business needs an economist. They are there strictly for their bogus opinions to be pointed at by the top level criminals in the society, the gov’t and the finance industry.

    Anything that comes out of the humanities or social sciences is outright bullshit. Those branches of “education” shouldn’t exist. Of all the various versions of economics, only the Austrians make any significant sense but I wouldn’t trust them to run a lemonade stand.

    With sound money instead of bogus “currency”, there would be no need for a central bank. Without a central bank conjuring currency out of thin air, there would be no need for the frauds with economics degrees. The parts of economics that make sense were absorbed into economics and claimed as their contribution to genius but were actually taken from common sense. All economists did was apply a label or phrase to what people understand intrinsically about money and its purpose.

    • Replies: @Ann Nonny Mouse
  16. Great article that exposes the three pillatrs on which the free market ideology rests that sanctifies it as being divinely ordained to convince the masses they are bound to obey its dictates as revealed by law of “supply and demand.”

    As he describes them, those three pillars are “the sanctity of contracts,” “the security [but acutally the divine rights) of property,” and Friedman’s famous “right to choose” doctrine that supposedly confers on everyone a hand in running the economy democratically by the coices they make.

    The last is, of course, the nuttiest of the three that I always dreamed I could hold up to Friedman by pulling out a Luger and a 357 magnum and giving him the right to choose which one I would use to put a bullet in his hand, therebyby granting him his wish of living by exercising his right to choose.

    The point, of course, is that the ability to choose as a measure of freedom is absolute nonsense until the conditions under which the choice must be exercised is factored into the equation which Friedman entirely ignored as the Hudson points to by noting “ As if there is no outright need–
    to eat or to pay.” It is, indeed human needs not the ability to choose that is the foundation that prompts people to act through the choices they make to enable themslves to realize their needs that, as Maslow put it, consists of a hierarchy of five preponment needs that humans seek to satify with the satisfaction of most preponent physiological and then safety needs being the foundation for the entire hierarchy of five needs he identified.

    The free market ideology perverts it all with the illusion that individuals exercising their choices produces through the invisible hand of the free market the best soicial outcome for all.

    Only as long as the masses can be fooled into accepting the doctrine of the divine rights of property that has replaced the doctrine of the divine right of kings as th foundation for the social order justifying their exercising power in society as the Hobbsian supreme ruler with absolute power over all.

    Of course, this divine right of kings was used to protect the propertied class from the wrath of the masses for the outrages the plutocratrs oligarchs committed against the masses to steal the produce of their labors

    The swan song for the divine rights doctrine was the rapid overthrowing of three major European monarchies at the end of WWI. So the oligarchs chucked it to enthrone their version of the divine right of property shored up by the the sanctiy of contracts doctrine.

    It’s only when the masses realize how they are being hoodwinked into slavishly accepting those doctrine as the guiding light for running society and dump them and its proponents into the dust bin of history that as new age can begin to dawn for humnaity.

    It’s the kind of thing that is a occurring in Sri Lanka and will undoubtedly happen in Europe when the US demands on the Europeans to sanction Russia to enable the US to maintain its world dominance focuses their minds on what really matters when they start freezing in the winter without Russian gas.
    Russian gas.

  17. Borgen says:

    The above is an opinion of the author. There are many authors and many opinions out there. Many economists have opinions and they may be correct and this author entirely incorrect, does it matter is the question. About what may have happen 2-3000 years ago is is an opinion based on the authors’ views, political and other wise just like this article written by him.

    As suspected anti vaxxers and maskers here.

    • Agree: Bro43rd
  18. @RoatanBill

    Adam Smith called it the Wealth of Nations. Are you saying there’s no such thing?

  19. @Ann Nonny Mouse

    Economists can’t prove a thing. There’s no strict empirical evidence used to base their theories on. Get a room full of economists and they’ll disagree with one another depending on which bogus “school” they belong to, Keynesian, Austrian, etc.

    Economics is plausible sounding bullshit for weak minds and is used by gov’t and the finance mafia to swindle the public. Economics should go the way of phrenology and probably will once the fiat experiment has failed completely.

    • Thanks: Kali
    • Replies: @Ann Nonny Mouse
  20. @Ann Nonny Mouse

    Indeed he did, but the wealth is the product of labor and not by the titles capitalists hold on property that enables the to extort tthe wealth produced by labor based on their purportedly divine rights to property.

    Indseed, for Smith the weaslth of nationas was the total a nation produced each year rather than the amount of gold (money) it accumulated that was the notion of wealth among the mercantile class that Smith rejected as basis for the wealth of a nation.

    Those are the financiers of today who are the modern bankster gangsters robbing the public blind.

  21. roberts says:

    There is nothing more pathetic than a prospective debtor groveling before a prospective creditor for a loan, whereupon, after receiving the loan the debtor complains about the rate of interest he agreed to, or the terms of payment he agreed to, or perhaps wishes the loan to be cancelled because the lender is ‘greedy’.
    The thrust of the article seems to be an argument for the cancellation of debt, an action taken by ancient governments not for the health of the economy, or the love of debtors, but to gain popularity with debtors and demonize lenders, for there are more debtors than lenders. Thus, in modern times the State proposes the same, to buy votes, whereas in ancient times it would be to pacify the masses to hopefully prevent revolt of the peasants, for there are more peasants than rulers and wealth could be easily confiscated from lenders at the stroke of a pen. To what extent this action can be prolonged is a function of the amount of money that could have been extorted from the ‘oligarchy’, i.e. owners of wealth, by the people with political power who most often create no wealth of their own.
    The ‘education’ racket, a massive parasitic bureaucracy (the cost of whose services have increased exponentially) working in league with banks that have campaigned incessantly for the student loan racket now wishes to cancel student debt to start the whole mess anew, with the ultimate counter party, the government as lender of last resort should the whole rotten mess collapse, as it will when millions of debtors with largely useless degrees peddled by these institutions are unable to pay these debts even in a lifetime. We will not even begin to explore how these loans were spent by the borrowers.
    The article has nothing to do with the free market, which I call the natural market because it mirrors the laws of nature. It’s about sustaining universities and other ‘educational’ institutions at public expense by taxation, by cloaking its premises in a bunch of economic Marxist claptrap.
    The bottom line is: if you borrow money pay it back. If you can’t, or don’t wish to, declare bankruptcy (itself often a mechanism for fraudulent default by those who spend more than they earn).

    • Agree: Bro43rd, Bubba
    • Thanks: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @Anon
  22. roberts says:
    @Odyssey

    In tacit recognition of the debasement of ‘silver’ coinage and the arbitrary nominal value placed on it, Constantine compelled his (privatized) tax collectors to collect taxes in debased coinage at face value but the collectors were forced to submit to the Treasury only gold.

    • Thanks: Odyssey
  23. Declares:

    The article has nothing to do with the free market, which I call the natural market because it mirrors the laws of nature. It’s about sustaining universities and other ‘educational’ institutions at public expense by taxation, by cloaking its premises in a bunch of economic Marxist claptrap.

    This rank nonsense is the foundation for the false ideology of the so-called “free market.”

    The only way you could actually have a complete;ly “free market” is if all titles to property were annulled and, as in huntering gathering societies, every member of the tribe had equal access to all the resources to be found within the area the tribe claimed for itself. And then everyone would have the same opportunity to produce all the material goods they needed to sustain life. It’s sort of how the market operates among all living creatures on earth, with no courts, no laws, no nothing but each producing for themselves the necessities of life that includes the material goods as well as reproducing the species.

    But were human berings operating according to the actual rules of an entirely free market as do all other living things, there would be no society needed to nurture communal life that is essential to enable humans to act against all the other species many of which would be stronger in various ways to wipe out humans acting individually – I mean, just imagine how effectively any individual would be going up against lions, elephants, rhinos acting as herds.

    That just also really points to members of all other spcies only succeeding when they are able to act communally against other competoitors.

    So you want a really free market? Are you ready to annul all titles to property and let each person produce the necessities of life within their reach with no one having prior claim to exclusive use of any property for their own purposes.

    Friedman who objected to government licensing of any profession or business as an unwarranted intrusion in the wonderous workings of the free market was astute enough to avoid applying that to the most intrusive license government grant – titles to property that are nothing but licenses the government hands out to individuals that essentially in law means no more than the sovereign promises to protect the title holder’s claim to the property against the whoe world which exposes the contradiction on which the promise is based. After all, if the whole world were to contest the claim, no soverign would be able to protect it. It does, however, show that all titles of property are a communal grant that is the community’s property to take away when its users subvert it to enslave the rest of the community by how they use it.

    Only when you are willing to renouce all titles to communal property am I willing to discuss any further your idiotic notions of free markets being ordained by natural law that is a complete nonsense the propertties classes seek to foist off on the masses to get them to be enslaved by the divine right to property that it’s owners claim for themselves as divinely ordained by so called “natural law.”

    • Disagree: Bro43rd
    • Replies: @Kali
    , @JM
    , @Anon
  24. Kali says:
    @The Old Philosopher

    A wonderful comment. Thank you Mr Philosopher.

    Not only that, but you highlight a central aspect of a problem I’m currently working on: one which I have been aware of for a long time, but somehow failed to connect.

    Property rights and “entitlement”. Of course!

    Forever in your debt, 😉
    Kali.

    • Replies: @The Old Philosopher
    , @Anon
  25. @RoatanBill

    So Michael Hudson wrote this article to deceive us?
    You crank!

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  26. @Ann Nonny Mouse

    You’re building a straw man.

    Read what I wrote and if you can find error in it then reply. If you want to make stuff up and ascribe it to me then go away.

    If you have the mental prowess to write more than one sentence then please expound on any position you want to take and provide an actual argument for me to address.

    • Replies: @Ann Nonny Mouse
  27. @Kali

    If you found those comment relevant to your labors, you might want to visit my Comment #411 in the thread about the Hidden History of WWI where I went into greater detail about the relationship between the divine rights of kings and divine rights of property doctrines and the interests they served.

    • Replies: @Kali
  28. Kali says:
    @The Old Philosopher

    Thank you. I’ll take a look via your comment archive.

    Kind regards,
    Kali.

  29. @RoatanBill

    Okay, you’re correct in one sense. Michael Hudson himself writes that Economics as taught in universities is deception. He avoided it, started out in a bank and Wall Street.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  30. @Ann Nonny Mouse

    Economics was concocted by people that were never taught how to think properly. They have no empirical basis that allows them to test their ideas. Everything they think they know is just the misinterpretation of human action. All they do is write papers among themselves in a king size circle jerk where they periodically elect some member for exceptional brilliance in how to pull off the next fraud.

    That’s how they can come up with nonsense like support for central banks that are designed to fleece the public, with fiat currency to replace money to tie people to gov’t, to develop methods to measure exactly how well the population is being fleeced via GDP, CPI, etc, etc, etc metrics.

    No one needs an economist besides the gov’t that wants to know how it’s managing it’s tax cattle and the banking mafia to gauge just how much the system can be contorted for their benefit without breaking due to the purposely inbuilt fraud that the gov’t, bankers and economists created.

    Economists are the enemy of the people. They sanctify every idiotic idea that gov’t and the finance industry want to instantiate. After one of their put into practice theories blows up, these geniuses can’t even do a proper after the fact diagnosis of what went wrong without arguing with each other over was it 9 or 12 angels that fit on the head of the pin that popped the bubble.

    • Agree: Realist
  31. anon[254] • Disclaimer says:

    All debt is a big scam. They make you pay through the nose for stuff that shouldn’t cost a plugged nickel.

    Take college, for instance. I don’t like Noam Chomsky any more than you do. But here is a very apposite fact about his biography, not his ideas.

    He worked his way through Ivy League Penn with after-school jobs, and paid his whole tuition himself.

    See how much college really costs? Peanuts.

    But they’ve been gouging up the prices ever since. And now the fees are astronomical. It would take you a hundred years of after-school jobs to pay off your tuition in the current dispensation.

    So never, no, don’t you dare, complain about the idea of student-loan cancellation. It’s money that should never have been charged in the first place. Funny money. Fake money. Gouged money. And so naturally nobody should have to pay it back. Pay what back? Over-charged gouged scam money? Bah.

    • Agree: davidgmillsatty
  32. Rush says:

    It is a touch ironic that Michael twice throws in a passing reference to economists been seen as autists in today’s borrowing of the term from its specific reference but then makes specific reference to Margaret Thatcher as one example when today those familiar female Asperger’s Syndrome recognise that she actually had Autism (High Functioning) AKA Aspergers herself!

  33. @Durruti

    There were quite a few revolts of slaves that succeeded actually, but they all ended up with the liberated slaves becoming slave masters in their turn. Haiti is a spectacular example : what it resulted in quite rapidly was a black aristocracy buying as slaves the other Black people that hadn’t participated in their uprising, and a country which is as of now the only one in the Carribean where use of domestic slaves (reste-avec) is still the way to thrive for those who have howsoever little property. Liberia started as a like example of a new country to be peopled with revolted American Black slaves that were offered property in Africa so as to prevent their revolt from spreading : as they arrived on that African coastal land their first care was to enslave local Blacks so as to build slave estates on the very model they had known in the US as slaves. In Brazil revolted or fugitive slaves regrouped in Quilombos, independent fortified cities that after having been military assaulted in vain were rapidly bribed with other slaves so as to tempt them into aristocratic life and thus prevent them to stay revolutionary.

    The only example on the new continent where successfully revolted slaves avoided becoming slavers in their turn was British Guyana, but they could think up no other solution than to become more primitive than their ancestors had ever been in Africa, not even caring to build permanent huts or make clothes, most probably as a strategy not to suggest they posed any revolutionary danger to the plantations that were still working nearby by leading an even more austere life than those still serving their masters.

    An important successful uprising of Black slaves imported from the African East coast, the Zanj, happened in Iraq around Bassorah, and also ended up with those Blacks employing other slaves of various origins. An other one happened in India, which was the first country having employed them to work sugar cane.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @JM
  34. As Rosa Luxemburg put it, the fight is between socialism and barbarism.

    Yes. But she also wrote that “la liberté de la critique et le caractère sacré des ‘recherches scientifiques’ doivent rester intangibles / the liberty of the critique and the sacred character of ‘scientific research’ must remain intangible” (p. 177, vol. III of the Oeuvres complètes, édition Zetkin/Warski). It is obvious that the non-respect of that admonestation ultimately led to the downfall of the USSR – …

  35. Franz says:

    Quite challenging and engaging article.

    If the points stated are valid, the one and only true people’s revolt the US ever had was the Whiskey Rebellion (1791-1794, not to be confused with Shay’s Rebellion). It meets all the criteria.

    In particular, the Western American, in outstate Pennsylvania and Virginia, mostly, were distilling liquid money to stay alive. The had a hardscrabble life already. Alexander Hamilton made it even harder when he finagled George Washington and the national representatives to slap a tax on all stills … based on capacity.

    For the big Eastern distilleries, no problem. The small operators out west could only pay their obligations with distilled grain. Paying their taxes or buying tools from Back East was chancy. If they had to pay in crops, it would mean a fleet of wagons no one then could afford. But paying with the whiskey they distilled created a hardship for them.

    In the end they lost. A recent book, though, makes you see that in paying in whiskey they were adding to the nation’s wealth and creating an economy by whatever the people at a given location could reasonably produce. From that point of view, they HAD to lose.

    The recent book on it:

    The Whiskey Rebellion: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and the Frontier Rebels Who Challenged America’s Newfound Sovereignty by William Hogeland.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  36. GMC says:

    We never hear how many Economists or Bean Counters are employed by the USG , the Fed. or any other Agencies – do we? We never hear of any one of them getting indicted, much less losing a job. And we all know, they are in a great position to either rip us off or cook the books, resulting in Trillions being stolen or divided up between the individual Crime Syndicates. They are looking as invisible as the Deep State itself.

    I lost a good job because of a egotestical bean counter. He convinced the President of the Company ” Princess Tours Construction Division” { projects from Alaska to the Caribbean} to fire the in house management and crews and hire a ” professional General Contractor” for the next multi million project that had already started. We had built 4 large properties in the past – as in 160 acre parcels with 300 to 400 room capacities, in house power & utilities, roads bridges, lodges, etc. We all knew he couldn’t beat the in-house management team and crews and after we were laid off and the project was finished a couple years later, and insider { architect friend} told me the job went 2+ million over budget, but he kept his job – of course. Bean counters are weasels.

  37. @Dutch Boy

    As usual Hudson always doesn’t see the rotting elephant in the room….The Jews. Usury is the bread and butter of the Jewish Hierarchy. He always has a simplistic view of the world and the economic pathways. Perhaps he should investigate why Jews have been thrown out of 105 nations, states,or countries.

    And while he is at it perhaps he should realise how much money the Jews make on all of the wars they have started while America collapses into uncivilization and anarchy.

  38. @Christopher Chantrill

    Yours is the first mention of bankruptcy. Not one in the article which seems to build as usual on Michael Hudson having read a bit about rilers’ ways of dealing with debt in a completely different world. Useless crap that it is odd to find published by the creator of Wall Street Analytics. Did Michael Hudson make money out of predicting the 2008 melt down?

  39. JM says:
    @Dutch Boy

    Nationalize the banks and all other issuance of money…

    • Agree: davidgmillsatty
    • LOL: Alrenous
  40. JM says:
    @Mark Kelly

    Government, through its bankster-sponsored Federal Reserve counterfeiting engine, is the biggest fraudster of all.

    This is wrong. It’s the “banksters” who determine the main outlines of government policy, not as is implied here.

    • Replies: @Anon
  41. JM says:
    @The Old Philosopher

    Generally when people talk of “free markets”, they are talking of relatively free markets. Are you denying that there are degrees of freedom in markets?

    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @The Old Philosopher
  42. JM says:

    I’d say the Sri Lanka has been forced to revert to a Malthusian condition by the imposition of the technology denying Green Agenda onto their hitherto application of the Green Revolution, very energy (including fertilizer/pesticide) demanding indeed, but essential to stave off this Malthusian state.

  43. Alrenous says: • Website

    In the above article, you can see a peasant Fascist complaining they’re not allowed to chimp out as much as they want, and civilization is about being as chimpy as possible.

    I especially like the low-resolution blank slatism. Every chimp is just as chimpy as every other chimp. One person cannot handle debt, therefore, every person cannot handle debt. QED.

  44. @Francis Miville

    Very interesting. Your recommended sources?

  45. This “debt” BS just don’t pay it. It was all the malarkey of the jews anyway. Do as Hitler did, go on the barter system. He by-passed the useless jews with their dumb “money” crap. That’s why the wanted to get him.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  46. HT says:

    The future is certain. It is the past that keeps changing.

    • Agree: mulga mumblebrain
  47. Eric says:

    The neolithic age brought many advances to whatever was before it. However, economic development was relatively stagnant until around 1750, when the Industrial Revolution started, which permanently changed the trajectory of economic growth. It is no accident this occurred at a time and place where individual property rights were strong. The correlation between property rights and collective wealth and growth is clear across time or countries.

    We should not aspire to pre-industrial economic policy any more than we should aspire to their medical procedures or social mores. A national banking monopoly would imply either socialism–the Soviet kind, not the Scandinavian–or fascism.

    • Agree: Emslander, Mark G.
    • Replies: @JM
    , @Alrenous
  48. Anon[200] • Disclaimer says:
    @JM

    Doesn’t the Federal Reserve counterfeiting engine benefit the politicians/bureaucrats/government etc?

    • Replies: @JM
  49. @niteranger

    Sure see the Jews…Hudson has pointed them out before but the problem is fully how Hudson presents it.  It is Systematic.  The system has to be revolutionized and only the people in popular uprising can accomplish that currently.  

    And in all the talk ordinary popular Americans simply won’t rise up and take care of their national social business, which is their responsibility at this historically mandated stage of American social development.  It’s a global stage really!

    You yourself do not recommend much!  A condition of emergency must be set up by the people in revolutionary action under which the bureaucracy(ies) can be cleansed, and the departments like the FED shut down, the bureaucrats responsible for all the crimes arrested and charged, and tried summarily and punished!

    All the corporations like the monstrous Bezos appropriated… and Bezos himself dealt with!
    Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Soros, Schwab…all Jews/Khazars but not only Jews are billionaires.
    There are lots of billionaires who are not Jew and huge ones as well…as well as multimillionaires- which is also still a massive and plentiful form of individual  form of wealth not in general social interest.  No one must have a billion dollars, especially creditors and hundreds of billions at that.  They must be expropriated according to their crimes personal fortunes reduced to sane levels where legal

    Business and production must return to ordinary levels and normal values based on actual labor and other costs put in by the people including the banks…if banks are permitted at all.  Banking as we kow it may not be necessary at all.  The people must decide in direct action

    All debt must be written off…all!  A clean slate and fresh start for society as a whole.  Only the people in general social control and action can accomplish that.  Only the people can remove Covid 19… which is also a way to make the people stationary so they cant travel and flee debt…run away, leaving the creditor/rentier holding on to empty usury certificates

    And only the people in revolutionary control can create social forms, organizational forms that address permanently the interests that keeps society functioning indefinitely as they go, without constitutional conventions at which the men and women with money who are trained and prepared to twist to their advantage with their expert manipulations can find great play

    The basic social authority is the people in popular action in any and all nations. what the people do in such condtions is absolute and undeniable ..not constitutions or constitutional conventions

  50. CSFurious says:

    Why have Jews been kicked out of countries for centuries?

  51. @Christopher Chantrill

    It is not just students. It is all those people who are forced into wage earner plans.

    No jubilee there.

  52. @Dutch Boy

    The weapon against usury is to put wealth before money, to which in policy terms means paying the raw material producers their due first. This creates ‘earned income’ which limits the need for borrowing debt money.

    This is the policy of Agricultural Parity under 7 USC Sec 602 and the policy used from 1942-52 win great success, was what really stopped the Great Depression and created the post war boom…unitl General Motors and Wall Street lobbied to stop the program so the economy had less “earned income’ (free from debt) circulating.

    Here is an essential chart documenting the collapse! And why the family farm is gone…

    http://www.normeconomics.org/parity_table_45-16eb.pdf

    • Replies: @A B Coreopsis
  53. JM says:
    @Eric

    We should not aspire to pre-industrial economic policy any more than we should aspire to their medical procedures or social mores. A national banking monopoly would imply either socialism–the Soviet kind, not the Scandinavian–or fascism.

    Call the social system what you will – and they overlap anyway – but nationalization of the issuance of the currency is long overdue. Of course that is just a start. No radical change is an end point…just, likely or perhaps, better. The genius of individual policy implementers and the support of the mass of the people are decisive.

  54. @goeshittheragman

    Actually what he did was set up a separate government currency that was credit based (like Lincoln’s greenbacks) and not bank currency that is credit based.

  55. JM says:
    @Anon

    Yes, that’s how the system is structured. The ultimate settings and benefits fall on the plutocrats…OF COURSE. But there have to be illusions along the way to hide this reality. Just look at the result in the contemporary economy regarding income/wealth distribution.

    • Replies: @Anon
  56. @Franz

    Thanks … but wasn´t Shays´Rebellion (veterans of the Revolutionary War
    for the American Jubilee they had been promised) the more fundamental one?
    Either way Washington (George, not Sodom) mobilized more men against
    them than at any one time against the British so the priorities were clear from
    the beginning.

    • Replies: @Franz
  57. @Ben Sampson

    People are not going to remove Covid. Five major mutations in the last 8 months. Immune escape, of every kind, is now common. Every infection creates a bit more immune deficiency.

    And it is either the most infectious disease or second most behind the measles.

  58. JM says:
    @Francis Miville

    Thanks for this.

    The Mode of Production was apparently unable to be transcended. Thus we can strip this history of all the judgmental appendages that – appear – to drive the modern age. This real history is so much more interesting and truthful.

    I think that Marx, an heretical thinker, would certainly approve as these types of phenomena which fit comfortably into his profound dialectical system. Note the distinction between this Marx and the contemporary use by his NWO supporting sub-epigones.

  59. TPM says: • Website

    Start with a basic test of competence.

    Under the terms of a typical micro-loan or payday-loan, the borrower receives \$335 today, in exchange for an obligation to pay \$400 in ten days.

    What is the rate of interest so defined and expressed as a rate per annum?

    Based on my reading of the article and the comments, neither the authors nor any of the commentators are capable of doing the math, notwithstanding that such used to be required for graduation from high school.

    Any takers?

    • Replies: @A B Coreopsis
  60. The idea of capitalism is simply stupid, to believe that private ownership of the product of labor benefits humanity is tremendous nonsense. Just look around.

    • Troll: Alrenous
  61. Anon[200] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Old Philosopher

    Is “individuals exercising their choices produces through the invisible hand of the free market the best soicial outcome for all“, the goal of capitalism/market economy/free market and the like?

    • Replies: @The Old Philosopher
  62. Anon[200] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Old Philosopher

    So the solution is to let the socialist state run by “representatives” take comtrol/ownership of everything?

  63. Anon[132] • Disclaimer says:
    @Kali

    Entitlement to the communal produce regardless of contribution?

  64. Patricus says:
    @Dutch Boy

    It sounds great to eliminate usury. What do we do if we need capital for some worthwhile project? Who will lend money when there is no reward, such as interest? Those who profess to bypass interest in fact effectively establish usury but give it other names. Muslims and medieval Christians have played this game.

    It seems possibly sensible to eliminate usury for consumer debt. What happens if citizen John Doe loses his income stream for several months? A few credit cards might help prevent evictions or defaults for a while, and put food on the table. What if someone needs a reliable auto but doesn’t doesn’t have \$40,000 cash. The driver might use the vehicle for frivolous vacations but he might also commute to his job.

    Societies without credit (usury) tend to be primitive. African nations are often that way.

    • Replies: @Mr. Grey
    , @Alrenous
  65. Anon[132] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ben Sampson

    Billionaires who have built businesses from the ground up, have no business owning/controlling those businesses?

    • Replies: @Ben Sampson
  66. @niteranger

    “Usury is the bread and butter of the Jewish Hierarchy.

    Um, no. Government is.

    How else can a tiny group of pyschopaths basically run the world? A top-down chain of command hierarchy that 99% of the people – useless idiots – are wired for.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  67. Here’s an interesting interview of an unconventional economist just out in the NYT

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/07/18/magazine/herman-daly-interview.html

  68. Anon[356] • Disclaimer says:
    @JM

    The argument is that the banksters “control/own” the politicians/bureaucrats, so what would prevent the politicians/bureaucrats from setting up a similar system to their own benefit, if one removed the banksters from the equation?

  69. Mefobills says:

    There are some commentators talking about debasement of money. It is a very difficult thing to control the gold/silver price, especially with the draining of this “international’ money outside of national borders.

    It is always WHO controls the money. “Individualist” type privateering types are loath to admit this basic fact of nature. Money’s true nature is law, and ergo a national money must never leave its borders.

    Of course privateers are a WHO, who then want to control the money, so they can have a nice easy life of taking usury and sordid gain on others.

    William Ridgeway, Origin of Metallic Weights and Standards (Cambrdge University Press, 1892)

    “The gold unit represented originally simply the conventional value of the cow as the immemorial unit of barter.”

    and

    130-135 grains (grains are barley weights) was selected partly because it fits conveniently into the palm of the hand

    In the beginning (before coinage) power was in the Temples, as Temples had an ample supply of precious metals, and the power to hold gold off of the market. Gold rings and hoops found in Egypt weighing 128 grains, and similar weight gold jewlery were found in Mycennae (Agemmmon’s home) weighing 130-135 grains, and more jewelry of similar weight found on the island of Aegina.

    Gold has always been fiat money, created by law, first as weight, and later as coinage.

    Rome got its start using bronze disks, not gold. The idea was to keep gold for “international” trade and as jewelry. The Bronze disks were created by the King by law.

    Numa, Rome’s second KING (716-672 BC) used his King power, to institute new law. This law was that bronze would be used instead of gold and silver for money. Copper was easy to get, as much of the precious metals were stored in Temple establishments of the East (Temple cults of the East).

    By disenfranchising the silver/gold hoards of the east, Rome was able to chart her own course, independent of of the power of the eastern temples and (((merchants))). Of course later, when Rome adopted precious metals, that was an element of her future oblivion.

    Rome’s mistakes:

    1) Adopting gold/silver as Rome’s internal money – especially after the second Punic war.

    Rome adopted silver/gold in order to be imperialistic, and in order to pay the legions in “international money.” Soldiers want to be able to buy on the conquered local economy, especially to buy luxury goods, and get some trim from the local ladies. Conquering the periphery, allowed creditors in the center to be paid.

    2) The Sovereign is never to borrow from privateers.

    3) Allowing a creditor oligarchy in Rome to develop.

    4) Not releasing debts, and thus allowing Rome to polarize into Latifundia. Creditors grab the land in lieu of being paid in specie.

    During Crisis stage of second Punic war, Rome borrowed gold jewelry from its citizens and used 4,000 pounds of Treasury gold to mint its first gold coinages. These were the Janus (two head)”Oath scene” coin, minted around 218 BC, to remind bearers of the solemn oath of allegiance. The other coin was 209 BC Mars eagle, which was issued in three different weights.

    By time of the second Punic war, there was already accumulations of precious metal “capital” in the hands of a non-Senatorial business class. This capital was the beginnings of a Roman Oligarchy, and said capital probably accumulated during first Punic war, as war profiteering gains.

    This capital class oligarchy loaned or had reserves of silver that were delivered to the Roman government starting in 215 BC. This Oligarchy of private creditors provided silver to the mint at many times overvaluation. In other words, the loan would be paid back in multiples of gain, effectively at usury.

    No doubt these capital accumulators were virtue signaling their patriotic spirit, but the overall picture is the same as today, philargurists (money sick people) out to make sordid gain. This class works together as an in-group, promoting its selfish interests at the expense of Roman society.

    Immediately after defeating Hannibal (and having paid the legion in precious metals), there was a political thrust to start a new war with Macedon 214 BC.

    Apparently, those benefiting from the war, the MIC of the day, didn’t want any interruption to their profiteering.

    From 200 BC to 168 BC, or 32 years, there was no let-up in war, which gave no breathing space for Rome’s farmer class, who had become soldiers.

    Hudson’s approach is DEBT and its obverse, Credit.

    Money settles debts. It is also a form of credit; money is pay to the bearer upon demand.

    Any sort of discussion about money must always include debt claims, and who is holding the claims on society.

    Who. Who controls the money. Who is holding debt claims against society.

    When the money power is properly codified in Sovereign hands, and if said Sovereign abuses that power, that is a separate issue. The solution is not to privatize the money power, but instead to punish the sovereign.

  70. @davidgmillsatty

    I do not trust anything I am told about Covid by the medical elite

    • Agree: Brad Anbro
  71. Patricus says:
    @gT

    The net wealth of the Catholic church is generally agreed to be about 30 billion Dollars. That’s a lot of money to me but scores of individuals have more than that. It is a worldwide organization and owns many hospitals, nursing homes, churches, commercial properties and of course art in the Vatican and elsewhere. 30 billion is not such a large sum for the largest Christian religion in the world. There are more Christians than Muslims or Hindus.

  72. Corvinus says:

    “The reality is that civilization could never have taken off if some free-market economist had got into a time machine and travelled back in time five thousand years to the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Suppose that he would have convinced ancient chieftains or rulers how to organize their trade, money and land tenure on the basis of “greed is good” and any public regulation is bad.”

    To the contrary, that is how those past rulers had developed their empires!

    https://www.routledge.com/A-History-of-Interest-and-Debt-Ancient-Civilizations/Ustaoglu-Incekara/p/book/9780367517755

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years

    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
  73. Corvinus says:
    @Drapetomaniac

    So apparently you are part of this 1 percent who does not fall under the category of “useful idiot”? Do tell the viewing audience how and why, because you come across as one of those elitists that you seemingly despise.

    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
  74. @The Old Philosopher

    Thanks for your insightful comments. It appears we’re on the cusp of a new world paradigm of socioeconomics, thanks in no small part to Dr Hudson, who has had significant influence in Russia and China. These are now the tip of the spear against the US’ super-imperialism, a system of neoliberal feudalism or gangster capitalism imposed by bribery, blackmail, coups, and aggressive war. What they sell as free-market capitalism is nothing less than rigged-market cannibalism, utterly devoid of morality or humanity. I’m thrilled to witness its collapse, even tho it is bound to be painful to me as an American.

    Your comments are thoughtful and substantive critiques that stand out against a number of vacuous dismissals of MH’s profound, historical socioeconomic analysis. His detailed alternative to the neoliberals’ economic Darwinism is so compelling and self-evident that his critics are reduced to empty sputtering, with the predictable, ignorant “Marxist!” perjorative.

    • Agree: Mefobills, JR Foley
    • Thanks: The Old Philosopher
  75. @Mefobills

    Great comment. Thank you.

    • Thanks: Mefobills
  76. @gT

    Minor disagreement here.

    Western civilization owes more to the Greeks than any of the others. The Greeks gave the West, among other things, Science. No one else came up with science, without which man’s world would be quite backwards.

    Presently man is devolving into a pre-science mindset – his natural one – as the populations that never developed science are, for all practical purposes, marginalizing those capable of scientific inquiry.

    A future of Idiocracy awaits us all. Enjoy!

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  77. @Mefobills

    Nice to read a post like yours to emphasize again that government, always and everywhere, is nothing but a POS.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  78. @The Old Philosopher

    “The last is, of course, the nuttiest of the three that I always dreamed I could hold up to Friedman by pulling out a Luger and a 357 magnum and giving him the right to choose which one I would use to put a bullet in his hand, therebyby granting him his wish of living by exercising his right to choose.”

    Really really stupid comment. In nature and in man’s world animal predators are outnumbered by about 50 or 100 to one by their prey. People sre compltely clueless to the fact that if you killed off criminals eventually their genes disappear from man’s gene pool. That would be a beneficial form of evolution.

    But no, man is wired to embrace the very thing that keeps him in the animal world – government.

    With government man can never be civilized. Without government he can evolve out of the animal world.

    • Replies: @The Old Philosopher
  79. Mefobills says:
    @Drapetomaniac

    Nice to read a post like yours to emphasize again that government, always and everywhere, is nothing but a POS.

    That is a separate issue. The plain fact of the matter is that all of life is hierarchical.

    If government is a POS, it does not automatically follow that the money power should be privatized.

    Privatizing the money power is a transference from an open hierarchy to a hidden one. Privateers owning the money by definition is hidden, and hence unlawful operations are a foregone conclusion.

    Also, how can government not be a POS, if they are operating under false ideology, such as neoliberalism?

    Hudson is doing humanity a signal service by deconstructing ancient civilizations, so that the future can have less POS. Or, at least there will be an intellectual class able to grasp what he is teaching, and they will then have the intellectual tools to resist the pozzing.

    Here is a link to a government that is attempting to not be a POS in the monetary sphere, and is the likely future. The Atlantacist long game of monetary hoaxing is coming to an end.

    https://thecradle.co/Article/interviews/9135

    The new economic system united various strata of their societies around the goal of increasing common wellbeing in a way that is substantially stronger than the Anglo-Saxon and European alternatives. This is the main reason why Washington will not be able to win the global hybrid war that it started. This is also the main reason why the current dollar-centric global financial system will be superseded by a new one, based on a consensus of the countries who join the new world economic order.

    • Replies: @Mr. Grey
    , @Drapetomaniac
  80. Mefobills says:
    @Drapetomaniac

    Western civilization owes more to the Greeks than any of the others. The Greeks gave the West, among other things, Science. No one else came up with science, without which man’s world would be quite backwards.

    That’s right, the Greeks figured out that money was law, and hence belongs to the sovereign.

    Aristotle: “Money exists not by nature but by law.”

    Aristotle: All goods must therefore be measured by some one thing…now this unit is in truth, demand, which holds all things together, but money has become by convention a sort of representative of demand; and this is why it has the name nomisa (nomos = binding law = custom), because it exists not by nature, but by law (nomos). And, it is our power to change it, and make it useless.

    Aristotle: … money then acting as a measure makes goods commensurate and equates them… There must then be a unit, and that fixed by agreement.

    Plato: “a money token for the purposes of exchange”

    Paulus: “This device being officially promulgated, circulated and maintained its purchasing power not so much from its substances as from its quantity.

    In Eraxius, Plato said that the Carthaginians used money that was the size of a drachmae coin, tied up inside of a leather pouch, and then marked with a state seal, and then it passes into circulation.

    The Carthaginians would raid ships at sea, and then take the silver coins/gold as pirate booty. They would then retreat to their safe harbor (where Tunisia is now).

    Most probably, Hannibal was paid in international gold/silver and not the “pouch money” of Carthage.

  81. Mefobills says:
    @Jim Richard

    Notice how Hudson creates his own definition of an economist. This is fairy tale stuff. Economists are lackies who do other peoples, or governments, bidding. It’s in the Social Science departments of universities for Christs sake

    Hudson is independent… Please prove to us that he is doing other people’s bidding. You are making up strawmen, to then knock them down, and to support your agenda, whatever it is.

    Hudson is in his lane, as a Political Economist, and is not creating new “definitions” for himself.

    Definition of Political Economist from Wiki:

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

    Political economy is the study of how economic and political (e.g. law, institutions, government) systems are linked.[1][2][3][4] Political economy studies macroeconomic phenomena such as growth, distribution, inequality, and trade, and how these phenomena are shaped by institutions, laws, and political behaviour. Originating in the 16th century, it is the precursor to the modern discipline of economics.[5][6] Political economy in its modern form is considered an interdisciplinary field, drawing on theory from both political science and modern economics.[4]

    Political economy originated within 16th century western moral philosophy, with theoretical works exploring the administration of states’ wealth; “political” signifying the Greek word polity and “economy” signifying the Greek word οἰκονομία; household management.

    • Agree: The Old Philosopher
  82. @Anon

    We have been over this many times already! We know why it makes no sense for individuals to be free to own and control such huge sums of the national resources…enough to control the entire society. It serves no useful purpose.

    Take a look at the world around you! Any one of Musk, Bezos, Schwab, Gates, anyone of the Rothschilds can control what…more than a fifth of the entire world..even as the world roils in all manner of impoverishing economic problems that actually enriches those guys even more…

    What sort of reality is that that provides so much for the few at the expense of the multitudes?

    Such a reality is bound to lead to programs of depopulationand holocaust!

    Who determines that that is the basic purpose of social life…the way we have lived for so long now, clearly at our own human physical and social existential expense the degrading of the very natural conditions of existence we depend on for life. The long millenarial experience has taught us we are wrong, we need another way of life because there are now too many people to be supported by such a way of life that won’t affect the nature of the planet in ways that would kill us

    We need less people so the men with the billions who stole it most from the unsuspecting ordinary people of the world while using them horribly in so many disgusting ways have decided to depopulate so he has given us a menu of Pandemics with a vaxx dessert

  83. Lez says:

    The basis of Western economic success is characterized as an imperial pursuit of naked self interest, relying as it did on several centuries of slavery, slaughter and colonial conquest that has brought us to the present moment – The Collapse of The West.

    Superbly papered over by a veneer of Victorian moralizing and high minded narratives that The West brought civilization to primitive people who should remain ever appreciative. They are not.

    Examined here in depth, the sacrifice of The Ukraine in this US-NATO-UK Proxy War designed to collapse the Russian State. Just did not deliver – and it won’t . . .

    Examined here . . . Join The Club of Kremlin Stooges

    https://les7eb.substack.com/p/ukraine-notes-the-long-war

    and here . . . Foreign Policy, Power Projection, Deceit

    https://les7eb.substack.com/p/ukraine-notes-the-long-proxy-war

    and here . . . The Writing Is On The Wall

    https://les7eb.substack.com/p/ukraine-notes-the-long-proxy-war-b15

    • Replies: @Ben Sampson
  84. @Lez

    Brilliant! I could not have said it better myself…not in a millenium!

  85. Well, there was a Western country that did away with laws favouring creditors and that exiled the rapacious Jew bankers.

    Wonder what happened to it?

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  86. Mefobills says:
    @Maple Curtain

    Wonder what happened to it?

    There were others too. For example when King Edward kicked out our friends in 1287, debts were released. The upper middle ages in England (after expulsion) were not nearly as horrible as most historians make out. Personal debts especially were settled every year at the big fairs, like Mayfair.

    After expulsion, England went on the Talley stick system, where debts were owed to the Palace for corvee labor. The Jews were allowed to take their gold and silver with them, so this caused a collapse in the money supply.

    The sticks, instead of evidence of debt, became circulating money, and good for paying taxes. Also, they couldn’t be counterfeited, and were not “international” money.

    The Jews were brought in by the Normans during invasion in 1066, to be a “foreign element” and to collect taxes. The Jews were subjects of the King, and not subject to the Noble classes already in England.

    It took about 200 years for the Jews to put land next to land. As stated earlier, to pay off monetary debts, real assets are transferred. The debts grow beyond the ability of production and nature to pay, so there is polarization, especially of land, due to debt mechanisms.

    And yes, Mustache man also released debts, especially among the farming class. Mustache man also made the Reichsmark related to labor and production, and not finance.

    So, is the West a detour? It looks like there were lots of skirmishes, and attempts toward righting ships of state. Unfortunately, agents of Mammon have a long track record of deception, war, and winning.

    https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-english-translation

    Magna Carta 1215 (expulsion in 1287, so there were already problems 70 years before expulsion).

    (10) If anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies before the debt has been repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age, irrespective of whom he holds his lands. If such a debt falls into the hands of the Crown, it will take nothing except the principal sum specified in the bond.

    (11) If a man dies owing money to Jews, his wife may have her dower and pay nothing towards the debt from it. If he leaves children that are under age, their needs may also be provided for on a scale appropriate to the size of his holding of lands. The debt is to be paid out of the residue, reserving the service due to his feudal lords. Debts owed to persons other than Jews are to be dealt with similarly.

    During the reign of King Henry II ( 1154 – 1189), English Jews prospered economically, with Aaron of Lincoln, a Jewish financier, becoming one of the richest men in all of England. Jews were able to build themselves houses of stone, a material which was usually reserved for palaces.

    The house burning of Jews in England, which is attributed as “anti-semitism” by our friends, was to burn the records of debt. It was a Jubilee by fire. Even though the homes were stone, they were still burned, which gives one pause, as townspeople were enraged.

    People don’t wake up some day, and decide, “oh I am going to be an anti-semite, because I am an ignoramus.”

    • Thanks: Biff, nokangaroos
    • Replies: @CMC
  87. Rubicon says:

    Are there any, even one US “reporter” that’s pro multi-polarity that could properly interview Dr. Hudson? Thus far, no names come to the foreground.

    Best to call in Pepe Escobar, or even a knowledgeable and well educated European, Central European, or a Russian journalist who can both describe the latest circumstances and *ask* the most pressing questions centered on these issues?

  88. @Corvinus

    Your comment reeks of a true believer in government.

    Alpha-males/rulers “owned” all of their realm and government has always been a net negative throughout history. It steals wealth created by others and gives a less than a 50% return of the value of what was stolen.

    Ex. in the US government cost is about 50% of the economy and its net ‘benefit’ is at best less than half of that.

    For any everyday worker I would say that government’s real value is negative.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  89. JR Foley says:

    Economics now is a pseudo-science sitting on the fringes of reality. Standards –actual standards must be set and met.

  90. There are several major forces driving humanity to Near Term Extinction. One is the pace of change. Our drive to maximise everything eg profits, population, production and consumption, is at odds with the way the natural world acts. There the pace is slow and not uniform across the planet allowing organisms a chance to adopt, sometimes as individuals in migrations and flights for safety, but most tellingly in evolution through natural selection.
    This human speed is a result of our short lifespans and the variability of human individuals. There are many humans who value life and think beyond their lifespans to the future in which their descendants will exist, but there are plenty who couldn’t give a rat’s arse what happens after they are dead. The latter type have dominated for thousands years, more or less coinciding with the rise of patriarchy and the benign Holocene climate regime.
    That type created agriculture and animal husbandry, beginning the process of forest destruction, human population growth, the commodification of everything, including women and children, biodiversity loss and all the rest. This process hit overdrive with the Industrial Revolution, and the destructive process has reached a climax as our technology and the means of destruction burgeoned.
    Latterly, a few have noticed the unfolding apocalypse of life destruction, although those we euphemistically call ‘the Right’ ie the psychopaths, more or less florid, still deny it or simply do not give a stuff. Hopeless propaganda measures have been taken to ameliorate the devastation, like the loony tunes, advertising-driven, program to ‘re-seed’ the Great Barrier Reef with new corals, in inexorably warming and acidifying waters. It will have a limited PR usefulness to continue ignoring the herd of elephants, the fossil fuel Moloch.
    Any even ‘successful’ measures generally create one or more new disasters, as the biospheres have no time to adjust to the changes, or unpredicted negative consequences arise, particularly from that beastly inter-connectedness of all things that our science long ago left behind in the race to ever more discrete ‘specialisations’. Of course rank pseudo-science like ‘neo-liberal economics’ further worsen the situation. Our, now forlorn, hope of survival relied on reducing our destructiveness by humanely reducing population, consumption, production and destruction, and in massive bio-system repair, over centuries. Too late. The Evil ones will move to more and more violent means of repression to destroy resistance to self-destruction, and protect their precious money.

  91. @Corvinus

    You are wired for governance like other social anmals – from ants to chimps.

    Tough luck.

    • Replies: @Johnny Johnny
  92. @davidgmillsatty

    It was carefully created, by some US or globalist group, I would say, to immediately infect humans, and be Protean in its variability over time. The madness of vaccinating during the pandemic drove the selection process for immune escape. This was all carefully crafted to be a great reducer of the ‘useless eaters’.

  93. @CSFurious

    Bernard Lazare, a Jewish intellectual in late 19th century France, an early defender of Dreyfus and opponent of Judeophobia, asked as much.
    Why, he wondered, have Jews been expelled from most of the countries in which they dwelt over the centuries, despite the often great differences of race, religion, history, social arrangements etc, in those countries? Lazare decided that at least some of the blame MUST be the fault of Israel (the Jews) itself. Today he would be denounced as an ‘antisemite’ and a ‘self-hating Jew’.

  94. Jett Rucker says: • Website

    It may seem strange to invite an economist to give a keynote speech to a conference of the social sciences. Economists have been characterized as autistic and anti-social in the popular press for good reason. They are trained to think It may seem strange to invite an economist to give a keynote speech to a conference of the social sciences. Economists have been characterized as autistic and anti-social in the popular press for good reason. They are trained to think

    One hell of an opening.

  95. Jett Rucker says: • Website
    @Dutch Boy

    I allows?
    Please type more-carefully. I’m reading, and so might others (be). Are our time and attention that cheap to you?

  96. If you liked this article you might try reading E. Michael Jones. Things like:

    The American founding went wrong from the start when the founders took the side of the banks and decided to put into law favoring contract disputes for the creditors.

    Or, The Church taught for a thousand years that usury and homosexuality go hand-in-hand.

    Or, just read the back cover of Shylock’s Ewes and Rams.

    By the way, it sounds like National Socialism is the best way to go…a gov’t that actually looks out for its people…maybe that’s why anything to be demeaned by the mainstream today has to be called a Nazi. General Patton was right, we fought the wrong enemy.

    • Agree: HdC
  97. @Drapetomaniac

    As Jordan Peterson said, the Dominance Hierarchy is older than trees.

    • Troll: Corvinus
  98. @Ben Sampson

    Did I miss someone saying that all billionaires are Jews? Or are you just a very simple person in a complex world?

  99. @Abdul Alhazred

    This is a hopelessly antediluvian position based on grasping one variable out of dozens all of which impinge on usury. Begin with compound interest (just need to need to know how to multiply, forget the exponentials).

  100. @davidgmillsatty

    Do give us the citation for your latest research stud (peer reviewed only) or alternatively the number of your last NIH grant.

  101. @TPM

    Eyeballing it at 465%.

    • Replies: @TPM
  102. @Christopher Chantrill

    Fourth, economic growth down the ages was almost always zero. So debt, which is the anticipation of future income, was even riskier than today.

    Ok, but there was always “industrial growth” in the sense that we became more productive in terms of manufacturing, exploitation (in the classical definition) of resources etc, which improved/grew our standard of living. So what do you mean RE: “economic growth down the ages was almost always zero”? Is that an empty “banksters” related comment (which it could easily be)?

    Thanks in advance for your (‘s or anyone else’s) thoughtful reply!

  103. Franz says:
    @nokangaroos

    Either way Washington (George, not Sodom) mobilized more men against
    them than at any one time against the British so the priorities were clear from
    the beginning.

    Well, Daniel Shays fought in the Revolution, and his rebellion happened BEFORE the US Constitution was passed. He had doubts and he was right to have them. He had fought for the principles outlined in the Articles of Confederation, which the city slickers were throwing out.

    The Whiskey Rebellion was economic necessity, but the Constitution was already done by then. The fact that George Washington had to raise an army to put it down nearly the same time Anthony Wayne had ANOTHER army marching west against the Indians had to be irritating.

    Both rebellions were proof for latter-day libertarians that the founders used a classic bait-and-switch. The men fought for one sort of government and ended up with another.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  104. Corvinus says:
    @Drapetomaniac

    “Your comment reeks of a true believer in government”

    So exactly what is the alternative from your vantage point? Please be specific. Cite sources.

    “You are wired for governance like other social anmals – from ants to chimps.
    Tough luck”

    So exactly how are you wired? Again, be specific.

    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
  105. Alrenous says: • Website
    @Eric

    However, economic development was relatively stagnant until around 1750

    Gregory Clark showed that economic development was in fact a smooth exponential for a long as any form of data exists.

    What happened circa 1750 was that the exponential exceeded population growth for the first time, causing wealth to go up per capita instead of only driving more population growth.

    In fact the correlation between wealth and property rights is likely the reverse – growing wealth revealed to locals the importance of property law.

    English property law has been in decay since about 1300. It used to be far more powerful and flexible than it is now. The current version is strictly inferior to ye olde versions. Using 1300s-style property law, you would be able to buy and sell not only your vote, but the right to vote itself, along with everything else in the bill of rights.

  106. Alrenous says: • Website
    @CSFurious

    They make excellent scapegoats. As is meet for the inventor of the very practice the term “scapegoat” is named after.

    Same role they’re playing now.

    Individual joos are generally unpleasant to be around. They don’t make friends, so peasants/serfs/voters are happy to let them take the blame. This lets the true criminals go on to perpetrate again. “Ingroup would never do bad thing! Only outgroup would do bad thing! Throw outgroup down the well!” And lo, outgroup ended up at the bottom of the well.

    Especially an envious scapegoat like the highly intellectual joos. Not only do the peasants/serfs/voters get to let their friends off the hook, they get to take their ressentiment out on a convenient target.

    Many of the more audacious schemes would never have been attempted in the first place without a convenient scapegoat.

  107. Mr. Grey says:
    @Patricus

    I agree with your comments on usury. See how many factories are built or infrastructure created when the Benevolent God-King wipes out people’s investments. Investing is a way the average worker can make his money grow. In those ancient Far East societies, the only way something got built was if the King or another wealthy warlord made it happen, and then they would enslave You at spear tip to do the labor. Sounds like Communism, which Hudson is seems to favor.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  108. Mr. Grey says:
    @Mefobills

    Hudson is doing humanity a signal service by deconstructing ancient civilizations, so that the future can have less POS. Or, at least there will be an intellectual class able to grasp what he is teaching, and they will then have the intellectual tools to resist the pozzing.

    This made me laugh.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  109. Alrenous says: • Website
    @Patricus

    If usury is possible it shows democracy is a bad idea.

    Also, banning usury is impossible. Nobody has ever managed to do it. All that happens is folk with excess money get clever and subvert the rules. All it accomplishes is to add wasteful expenses to the loans due to the complication.

    What is “usury” as distinct from regular interest? It is interest that is too high.

    Usurious lenders make such loans because they are more profitable than regular loans – they extract more money than not-lending to the victim. As such, they are a bad deal. To defeat usury, all the victim has to do is not take out a loan.

    If usury is possible, we must assume that there is a class of people who can’t refuse bad trades, such as a loan with unprofitable terms. By inspection, these folk also can’t be allowed to vote.

    (If -all- interest is usury, it is clear nobody should be allowed to vote.)

    If there is a class of folk that can’t be allowed to vote, there is clearly a distinct (very disparate-impact) class of folk who happen to be especially good at voting.
    Indeed, there is probably one guy who is best at voting. Why not strip votes from everyone except the very best voter? Why settle for unnecessarily poor service?
    We can call this voter a king voter, perhaps. He’s the best, after all.

    [MORE]

    P.S.

    borrower receives \$335 today, in exchange for an obligation to pay \$400 in ten days.

    If this is structured as an annually compounded loan that happens to charge 65 dollars of interest in ten days, then the interest rate is 708%.

    By the way, banning payday loans is the class “outlaw being poor” strategy. If you raze the slums, that will get rid of the slum-dwellers, right?
    Reality: personnel is policy. Paupers gonna paup. It’s not a slum because the paupers ‘accidentally’ bought/rented bad houses from slum lords, it’s a slum because it’s full of slum-dwellers.

    When you try to outlaw being poor, paupers still gonna paup, but now they don’t have houses. It’s State-level bullying, done apparently for sadistic glee.

  110. Mefobills says:
    @Franz

    Both rebellions were proof for latter-day libertarians that the founders used a classic bait-and-switch. The men fought for one sort of government and ended up with another.

    Lolbertarians are always good for the LoLs! They cherry pick history, or color outside of the lines, anything to find their confirmation bias. They also are beyond reach with logic and facts, as they cling to their unreal worldview.

    It was the first bank, and allowing privateering creditors to own stock. The compromise worked out by Hamilton was a 50:50 split… supposedly. Eventually the first bank Treasury stock was sold off to the Baring Brothers of London, a banking corporation IN LONDON. To be fair to Hamilton, he was against this, and probably figured out he had been duped.

    Hamilton let the privateering camel into the tent, making the first bank a kissing cousin to the Bank of England.

    The taxes were to pay the (((creditors))) at the bank, many of whom had funded the revolutionary war at debt. They wanted their pound of flesh.

    And to be fair to Washington, he had to be convinced to allow the first bank to be constructed with “privateering” (read Lolbertarian) alignment.

    • Replies: @Franz
  111. Mefobills says:
    @Mr. Grey

    Lolbertarian alert! Wherever Hudson goes, the fleas are buzzing around.

    The fleas fly on over from their parallel universe, and then the Kvetching begins. If only the Kvetching energy could be harnessed, it could power a city.

    They cannot accept that maybe their worldview is unreal. How dare Hudson challenge what they think they know!

  112. Mefobills says:
    @Mr. Grey

    I agree with your comments on usury. See how many factories are built or infrastructure created when the Benevolent God-King wipes out people’s investments.

    More LoLs!

    I guess Xi, who in effect is a god-king, is wiping out Chinese investments?

    Yes, he is.

    He is wiping out the sordid gain taking of the property bubble. He also slammed the head of privateering fin-tech in the form of Jack Ma.

    Ma was trying to make his own finance technical money available on his Ant-Group platform. This was the usual maneuvering of a privateering oligarch wanna-be grabbing for power, a power which does not belong to him.

    Oh Wait! Only bad investments and sordid-gain taking are being targeted by the god king. Maybe the free market is only free for rentiers, and usurers, and the Lolbertarian world view is a fantasy.

    Meanwhile, China continues to surge ahead. Let’s all just pretend it isn’t happening, as our precious shibboleths are more important than observable reality.

  113. Franz says:
    @Mefobills

    To be fair to Hamilton, he was against this, and probably figured out he had been duped.

    I wouldn’t bend over backward for Hamilton. At least in Hogeland’s telling of the tale, Hamilton was manipulating and lying to Washington something awful. He was a snake.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  114. Mefobills says:
    @Franz

    I went though only a few of your comments for the LOL’s.

    Here is one:

    The National Security State smothered the Republic and its constitution just short of 8 decades ago. The violation of America as a sovereign nation started right there:

    1912 election was when the republic was smothered, and it had nothing to do with the National Security State.

    The split ticket election was to install the 16’th, 17’th amendment and Federal Reserve Act. This was funded by privateers, especially a (((finance class))) from Europe, and some Americans.

    Hamilton had installed a sinking fund, which was to be used to buy out the foreign stock owners, and then return first bank back to Treasury.

    If somebody like you were around back then, you would have been shilling for the first bank to become “private,” which happened anyway.

    If some Milton Friedman or Margaret Thatcher had persuaded Sumerian, Babylonian or other ancient rulers to follow today’s neoliberal philosophy, civilization could not have developed.

    If some Franz had persuaded Sumerian, Babylonian, or (George Washington) other ancient rulers ….civilization could not have developed.

    • Replies: @Franz
  115. CMC says:
    @Mefobills

    …Jews were able to build themselves houses of stone, a material which was usually reserved for palaces.

    “The house burning of Jews in England, which is attributed as “anti-semitism” by our friends, was to burn the records of debt. It was a Jubilee by fire. Even though the homes were stone, they were still burned, which gives one pause, as townspeople were enraged.

    Yesterday evil party twitter was petting itself because one of their guys, Jamie Raskin (US Rep. …) gave a two-minute rebuttal to a stupid party rep re gun control.

    See, https://www.salon.com/2022/07/21/a-constitutional-joke-jamie-raskin-destroys-republicans-2nd-amendment-fantasy/

    As far as I was concerned it was a straw man.

    But possibly relevant to this discussion, is that he cited Shay’s Rebellion as amongst that which caused the founders to put the ‘guarantee clause’ into the US Constitution.

    This is great!! Consciousness is rising. I encourage all to research that history.

    From main stream source Wik:

    “Shays’ Rebellion was an armed uprising in Western Massachusetts and Worcester in response to a debt crisis among the citizenry and in opposition to the state government’s increased efforts to collect taxes both on individuals and their trades….
    “…
    “Most rural communities attempted to use the legislative process to gain relief. Petitions and proposals were repeatedly submitted to the state legislature to issue paper currency, which would depreciate the currency and make it possible to pay a high-value debt with lower-valued paper. The merchants were opposed to the idea….”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays’_Rebellion#Shutting_down_the_courts

    My further understanding from this and other reading is that Shay and hundreds (thousands?) of his types blockaded the courts, because that’s where the debt paper evidence and foreclosure motions were, and where the court orders were gonna come from. And then it escalated and they got put down.

    Also, my take is that the state legislature back in Boston were basically in cahoots with the merchants and finance class to take sordid gain from guys like Shay who actually fought in the Revolution. Like the merchants and their politician cronies were gonna not only not lose money but make a killing with their debt management shenanigans.

    Maybe in a way it’s better now? There’s less of a temptation for an ‘easy’ out of just like burning down the debt paper.* One is almost forced to look the whole thing right in the eye and say give me a break, it can’t be paid it won’t be paid and we won’t be slaves or enslave the next generation; we have to do everything up front and honest and in the clear. Talk about it; make the sordid creditors take a hair cut.

    So yes, Rep. Raskin, you go man! Keep talking about Shay’s Rebellion!!!

    *FN: The movie ‘Fight Club’ had a joke ending imo. Pull the buildings down because they house the servers and databases with all the credit card debt records?!? Give me a break. Like those things aren’t backed-up off-site in multiple nuclear-attack and ice-age proof locations.

    • Thanks: Mefobills
  116. Franz says:
    @Mefobills

    If some Franz had persuaded Sumerian, Babylonian, or (George Washington) other ancient rulers ….civilization could not have developed.

    No, I was right about the Republic.

    We were cursed at birth with the likes of Hamilton and Jefferson, but we could speak freely.

    After 1947, anything the security state decided was off-limits was taboo. Maybe you don’t think it should be mentioned, as Charles Beard and other smart guys did.

    I who anywhere thinks a private bank would do anything good? Why would I want to convince anyone of that nonsense?

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  117. @Mefobills

    “The plain fact of the matter is that all of life is hierarchical.”

    Certainly aspects of it are. You as an intelligent person cannot create another intelligent person but your DNA can with other DNA and a suitable environment.

    You are a tool used by DNA to propagate itself – much as you use tools for your benefit. Are you less important than DNA?

    In the sweep of history, yes.

  118. @Corvinus

    No specificity needed.

    Everyone voluntarily self-assort.

    The problem is those of aggressive intent – government supporters – would set about conquering those wishing to be free. Because the control freaks are still animals under complete control of nature’s “diktat” – Might Makes Right.

    Hundreds of millions killed, trillions upon trillions in money stolen, trillions upon trillions of wealth destroyed, just in the 20th century.

    Government lovers are the most evil animal ever created.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  119. TPM says: • Website
    @A B Coreopsis

    Sorry about the delay – I keep thinking that the forward response to my email button is going to work.

    Regardless, and with no disrespect, your answer is not even in the ballpark. With respect to the rate of interest, an equal amount paid sooner is a greater rate by definition and in fact.

    The rate of interest defined by the transaction (\$335 today for \$400 in 10 days) is 64,622% per annum.

    That is the rate that the micro-lender / payday-loaner will report to its shareholders, and the real rate of interest. It is what determines whether they get a Ford versus a Ferrari as part of their bonus package.

    But the same management will tell the customer / borrower that the rate of interest is 708% per annum.

    If and when challenged, they will avoid the question of the real rate, and claim that they are required by law to tell the customer that it is 708% per annum. That law is the 1968 federal Financial Consumer Protection / Truth-In-Lending Act.

    The same ridiculous and wholly-bogus methodology has been at-least officially prohibited and banned as civil and criminal fraud in the U.K. since 1971 on the grounds that it is “false and seriously misleading”, which is itself the understatement of the century.

    It is, in a word, impossible. But it is what it is.

    The high-school-level-math version is at http://werex.org/nominal-rate-real-fraud/

    The university-level version is at http://werex.org/the-psy-op-goes-on/

    ___

    The spreadsheet formula is:

    =(((1+(335/400))^(365/10))-1)

    = 646.22 or 64,622% per annum

    P.S. The government’s official position is that the math is too complicated for an average American to understand, and that the class of people who have to pay interest at such rates would tend to get agitated, and possibly violent, if they were told the real rate. Therefore they substitute a “nominal” interest rate which is in fact a Non-exclusive convergent logarithmic derivative of the interest rate, instead of the real / actual rate.

    Thanks. Tim.

  120. Corvinus says:
    @Drapetomaniac

    Yes, specificity is required. How are you wired? What exactly entails this plan of “everyone voluntarily self assort”? What pitfalls will result? How do you seek to minimize them?

    “The problem is those of aggressive intent – government supporters – would set about conquering those wishing to be free.”

    Ok, how do you define “free”? What metrics are involved? How do you think people are free without any form of government?

    “Because the control freaks are still animals under complete control of nature’s “diktat” – Might Makes Right.”

    False premise, for starters. Furthermore, your demand that everyone abandon government is rooted in absolute control of one’s behavior. It’s hypocritical on your part.

    “Hundreds of millions killed, trillions upon trillions in money stolen, trillions upon trillions of wealth destroyed, just in the 20th century.”

    Overgeneralization.

    “Government lovers are the most evil animal ever created.”

    In your opinion. It’s safe to say you are an extreme outlier.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
    , @Drapetomaniac
  121. Craken says:

    The West invented the modern world, provided *all* of it fundamental underpinnings. Hudson forgets to mention this point for some reason. He prefers to babble on about the economic wisdom of realms perpetually trapped in Malthusian conditions. What communistic nonsense.

  122. Mefobills says:
    @Franz

    We were cursed at birth with the likes of Hamilton and Jefferson, but we could speak freely.

    We weren’t cursed by Hamilton and Jefferson.

    Jefferson wanted one do-over at the end of his life, and that was to fix article 1 section 8. He basically wanted “bills of credit,” so the country did not have to borrow from privateers.

    Jefferson didn’t know if Hamilton was a fiend or a friend. Hamilton DID have a sinking fund, which you cannot wave your hands and dismiss. That means unequivocally, that Hamilton intended on returning money power back to Treasury after the debt crises had passed.

    The debt crises was in the intervening years after the war, and before the constitutional convention. It was basically chaos, with creditors wanting their pound of flesh.

    Since humans are imperfect, then both Jefferson and Hamilton made mistakes, but it doesn’t automatically follow that they were intent on self aggrandizement.

    Hamilton DID confab with the real POS, Robert Morris, who is not even on your radar.

    Hamilton DID also do some shady moves, such as buying up war bonds, on the cheap, and then using them at face value for capitalizing the bank.

    In all cases, the real credit of the country belongs to the people, and not those who would use it as their own piggy bank.

    Jefferson figured this out, which is why he wanted a do-over. Hamilton was more of a real-politik person trying to navigate with the sharks. He sometimes behaved as a shark, in the grey area.

    Then there were super predators, sharks like Robert Morris, who in turn became wealthy by war profiteering.

    We were cursed at birth because Robert Morris prevented language, and then the country was “back doored.” The full destruction happened in 1912.

    https://www.unz.com/jtaylor/juneteenth-they-want-their-independence-we-want-ours/#comment-5410289
    _______

    One Crypto Jew did enormous damage, and changed the course of history, and now here we are celebrating negroes. Bow down because your (((overlords))) have told you who to worship.

    Robert Morris at the Constitutional Convention, prevented language from being inserted into Article 1 Section 8. Why? Because he had Hubris, and wanted to be the Creditor to the new nation.

    Not including the words, “Emit Bills of Credit” overturned the revolutionary war, and was the original sin.

    • Replies: @Franz
  123. Mefobills says:
    @Corvinus

    “Government lovers are the most evil animal ever created.”

    In your opinion. It’s safe to say you are an extreme outlier.

    Why don’t you plug your ears, and then stamp your feet like a petulant child?

    You cannot accept that all of life is a hierarchy. People that cannot accept basic reality, belong to clown world. That makes you a clown.

    The question should be reformulated. How do you keep crazy people out of government (which would include you)?

    Hudson, as a political-economist, has noticed a societal problem of philarguria. These are money sick people, who have no loss of wants.

    These types of people are drawn to the levers of power, so they can self aggrandize.

    But, with your clown world posturing, the conversation could never advance to the point where can never look at the “people” infesting government, because your default hypothesis, should be that government is banned, or some sort of other sophomoric drivel.

    Pretty much, Lolbertarians and “super individualists” have imbibed on false ideology, and are contributing to clown world.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  124. Anon[116] • Disclaimer says:
    @roberts

    Thank you.

    Hudson is an out-and-out communist, seething with egalitarian jealousy. His every published utterance is simply a rationalization and advocacy of his resentment of the fact that there is no free lunch. If you want the tools of production, you must pay for them, they are the products of others’ thought, work, and daring, often over generations; and if you have no money to pay for them, then you must hire the money; and if you hire the money, then you must make good: you must pay your debt. Pounding sand and bawling: “cancel debts, liberate the bondservants and redistribute the land” is the infantile tantrum of someone who wants his betters to work for him for free.

    Anyone who is struggling financially can Google “debt relief.” There are a number of companies who can help. I paid off my credit card debt earlier this year using such a company. Another good resource to Google is Dave Ramsey.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Mefobills
  125. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Yes! And notice the demand to “redistribute” land. This demand relies on the assertion that land as such originally belongs to all, equally, evading the issue of the capital improvement in land that has occurred. It really isn’t land that these communists want: there is plenty of undeveloped land that almost no one wants. You don’t see communists fighting for equal distribution of land in the badlands of the Dakotas; you do see plenty of them hatching “land-redistribution” schemes on Manhattan island or in regard to other valuable real estate, including the more prosperous kind of farms. What they want is land already improved. They want wealth created by others. Communists are thieves rancorously accusing their victims, or would-be victims, of theft. History shows us many communist theoreticians cooking up inversions like that, on the order of “freedom is slavery,” “obedience is liberation,” “creators are parasites,” and so on.

    I like the suggestions about debt relief to people who are struggling right now. But I have never been able to stand Dave Ramsey’s voice lol.

    • Replies: @JR Foley
  126. Corvinus says:
    @Mefobills

    “You cannot accept that all of life is a hierarchy. People that cannot accept basic reality, belong to clown world. That makes you a clown.“

    Thanks for the strawman.

    “But, with your clown world posturing, the conversation could never advance to the point where can never look at the “people” infesting government, because your default hypothesis”

    Another strawman.

    The fact of the matter is that there are some leaders in government who are in it for themselves.

    How many local, state, and national officials in government fir your description? How are you certain? What specific evidence backs up your numerical claim?

  127. Mefobills says:

    That there is hierarchy in all things is not a strawman.

    If you cannot accept that reality, then there is something wrong with your brain function.

    Even in very small groups, humans organize themselves into a hierarchy; in larger groups it becomes a government. This is so obvious it should not even bear mentioning. But, here we are in clown world, with clowns.

    The people that occupy the hierarchy is also not a strawman, and is central to said hierarchy functioning. If your brain starts functioning improperly, you are considered crazy. If you arm is not taking commands from the brain center (top of hierarchy) you are not crazy, only a body part is malfunctioning.

    The fact of the matter is that there are some leaders in government who are in it for themselves.

    Yes, of course there are. The question remains, how do you select for your hierarchy, and keep out the clowns? You would not be a candidate.

    How many local, state, and national officials in government fir your description? How are you certain? What specific evidence backs up your numerical claim?

    I don’t know what you are getting at here. But, there have been civilizations in the past, where a concerted effort was to populate the government with people who weren’t degenerates.

    Democracies especially are weak, and allow the worst sort of people to latch onto the levers of power.

    Of course China considers itself a democracy, but it is not a (((creditor))) democracy like in the west, where creditors and oligarchs string pull government from behind the scenes. China has an open power vertical (hierarchy), which rules by mandate of heaven. Ooops, there goes that god-king thing that Hudson alludes to.

    https://english.news.cn/20220722/f086a4f875b245e392fa2c88a7458faa/c.html

    Looks like Shibadong Village is benefiting from good government, and state investments aimed at lifting up labor conditions are meeting with success.

  128. Franz says:
    @Mefobills

    the real POS, Robert Morris, who is not even on your radar.

    No, Hogeland (among many others) gets into Morris. He was a chiseler, but how impressed can anyone be with an chiseler who died broke? More on all this in Hogeland’s other book, Founding Finance. It’s not the revelation the reviewers at Amazon make it sound like, but it’s not bad either.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  129. @Corvinus

    Perhaps you should try and figure it out for yourself although you seem to be wired to not be able to.

    Your replies offer nothing but emotioal responses much like a petulant child that has to always get its way.

    As for being an “evtreme outlier” that is nice compliment. Much better than the vast majority of the population that steals, kills, and destroys so that they can have a better life at someone else’s expense.

    My question to you: if you stripped away all of the knowledge imparted to you from the last several milennia of mankind’s intellectual achievements, and ignoring physical differences, how would you be different from a rhesus macaque monkey?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  130. Mefobills says:
    @Franz

    No, Hogeland (among many others) gets into Morris. He was a chiseler, but how impressed can anyone be with an chiseler who died broke?

    The chiseler who died broke, changed the entire learning from the Colonial Period.

    That learning was industrial capitalism, and that money was to be equity and not privateering debt.

    Also, Morris (and fellow mamonites) inverted the natural order, where privateers via the money power were in charge of civilization, and hence the planning was done in the dark, with motives that were not “For the General Welfare.”

    Of course, I am not surprised that you would wave you hands and be dismissive of a mere chiseler who died broke, because money is the measure of a man, right?

    ________

    Article 9 of the Articles of Confederation 1781, (not the Constitutional Convention). Article 9 = Congress has the power to “emit bills of credit.”

    Constitutional Convention, six years later in 1787, Article 1 Section 8, the words “to emit bills of credit,” is erased.

    The new nation has to borrow its credit from privateers like Robert Morris, and the reason for the Revolutionary War (demonetization of Colonial Script) is overturned with barley a whimper.

    It was through the money power that the U.S. was back-doored. The Continental Currency and the various Colonial scripts were issued by “Bills of Credit,” which was the entire reason the war was fought.

    Madison recorded the argument, which was won by the chiselers. Jefferson wanted his one do-over at end of life, to undo this argument, because of its world shaking implications.

    Gov. Morris: The moneyed interest will oppose the plan of government if paper emissions are not prohibited.

    Read it two or three times. He is saying that moneyed interests, the privateering oligarch class, get to have veto power on the new government.

    This is hardly inconsequential.

    Mason (Virginia), who speaks the truth: “The Revolutionary war could not have been carried on had such a prohibition existed.

    Read it again two or three times.

    The revolutionary war was funded by “Washington’s money,” or colonial script, or “Continentals.” The Continentals were not evidence of debt to be paid to a creditor class.

    Ellsworth (CT.) “By withholding the power (to emit bills) from the new government, more friends of influence would be gained to it than by almost anything else.

    Ellsworth is another P.O.S. who is signaling for the creditor class (friends of influence).

    Butler (S.C), chimes in: “Paper money was not legal tender in any European Country.”

    Butler is a P.O.S. who has just waved his hands and ignored what was learned in the Colonial period. There was no gold and silver when Colonies got their start, and the colonials would have died if they could not have money to kick start commerce.

    Mason (Va) countered Butler, and said, “Neither was any European Country forbidden from making paper money legal tender.”

    The committee voted 9 to 2 AGAINST including the words “to emit bills of credit.”

    The money power not being properly codified is where it went wrong, and the top P.O.S. who operated for the privateering money interests (finance oligarchs) of the day, was Morris.

    Morris was the richest merchant in America through his war profiteering, primarily through his firm Willing and Morris.

    In 1781, Congress (Continental Congress) appointed Morris as Superintendent of Finance. This is hardly trivial, and from this cat-bird seat, Morris was able to a lay his plans.

    Hamilton tried to convince Morris to create a State Bank, or really a National Bank with a 10 year charter, and said bank was to be based on Land. This is NOT the bank of England model, of which Morris was an adherent.

    In 1783, when Congress dismantled his scheming, especially for a National Debt. (Some members of Congress still remembered the Colonial Period.)

    His Scheme: “Paper money had to be backed by Gold, and must be based on the interest and influence of monied men.” Then Morris wanted the Country to borrow from a bank he controlled, so he shilled for a national debt. This would make him the creditor, and the nation his debtors.

    Morris died with too much debt, failures of his business operations, and speculation on land gone wrong.

    • Replies: @Franz
  131. Mefobills says:
    @Anon

    Hudson is an out-and-out communist, seething with egalitarian jealousy. His every published utterance is simply a rationalization and advocacy of his resentment of the fact that there is no free lunch.

    Where do you retards come from?

    The free lunch is the free gift of nature. The French Physiocrats were a farming class, who noticed that the sun shone down, and that plants grew, and they had seeds, and that humans ate the plants and seeds. It was a free lunch. The Earth provided the free lunch, it was the soil (land) and the sun shining on the land that was free.

    When Hudson is talking about a Free Lunch it is in terms of distribution, or the grabbitizers, who grab others wealth though various mechanisms, most importantly through debt schemes.

    You are projecting, “seething with egalitarian jealously.” LoL

    You probably don’t want YOUR free lunch taken away. You are probably a “coupon clipper” or have some sort of rent scheme where you don’t produce, but only harvest others.

    • Agree: The Old Philosopher
    • Replies: @Anon
  132. @JM

    Oh, I see, you subscribe to relativism of marlets with degrees of freedom and unfreedom. I can see it now that this version of economics can generate an entiurely new subject area for assessing the relativity of freedom of markes, much like scholasticists counting and establishing how many angels could stand on a pin head.

    Feel free to indulge in such nonsense. But noite that not once did the guru of free to choose ever even give a whiff of a hint that there are degrees of freedom that determine just free you are to hooose that could mean you are as controlled as a slave.

    Thus when the advocates of free markets extoll its virtues, never do they even hint there are any limitations to this freedom that could still be called free. It hocus pocus bunkum to mislead and deceive the masses.

    Actually, as Hudson points out in his book The Destiny of Civiliazation what the classical economists like Smith and Ricardo meant by free markets were markets free from the ability of the rentier class by whom they meant landlords and banksters extorting from the producers of wealth a tribute for the entirely non-productuve activity derived from holding titles to property and monatory instruments that created no wealth but that merely by their ownership enabled them to extort from the producers of wealth payments in the form of rent and interest.

    So my short answer is I have no use for attempt to preserve free markets by relativism that is simply ackowledges unconditional surrender to my points.

    BTW, I would not take much comfort from the support you get from the the know nothing wizard of frauds.

  133. @Anon

    That’s what free market prponents claim, although as you cited my comment, you distorted it.

  134. @Drapetomaniac

    The thoughtful response from least knowledgable member of the peanut gallery who mages to discern from the following comment about the ability to choose as a measure of freedom:
    as proved by his really insightful conclusion that was a:

    Really really stupid comment. In nature and in man’s world animal predators are outnumbered by about 50 or 100 to one by their prey. People are compltely clueless to the fact that if you killed off criminals eventually their genes disappear from man’s gene pool. That would be a beneficial form of evolution.

    Those comments in the first instance prove beyond doubt that he entirely missed the substance of my reference that I made clear in the immediately following sentence to the comment he cites:

    The point, of course, is that the ability to choose as a measure of freedom is absolute nonsense until the conditions under which the choice must be exercised is factored into the equation which Friedman entirely ignored as Hudson points to by noting “ As if there is no outright need–to eat or to pay.”

    He then exhibit his total ignorance about everyhting by first alleging that :

    In nature and in man’s world animal predators are outnumbered by about 50 or 100 to one by their prey.

    without explaining how the vastly outnumbered prdators regularly prevail over their prey.

    And then proves to a certainty his ignorance of genetics by claiming:

    People are compleely clueless to the fact that if you killed off criminals eventually their genes disappear from man’s gene pool. That would be a beneficial form of evolution.

    without explaining how capital punishment has been used for centuries to rid humanity of its criminals that has not had a discernable impact onm making their genees disappear from the gene pool since criminals are still very much within us and they killing them will never make thei genes disappear from the gene people because criminals are identified by the laws mankind enacts rather than the genes criminals had inherited from their ancestors.

    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
  135. Anon[287] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mefobills

    “the sun shone down, and that plants grew, and they had seeds, and that humans ate the plants and seeds. It was a free lunch”

    No effort or improvement required.

    I wouldn’t want you running a farm. You’re strictly an “outer three rows” person.

  136. Corvinus says:
    @Drapetomaniac

    “Perhaps you should try and figure it out for yourself although you seem to be wired to not be able to.”

    You’re being evasive. Again, specificity is required. How are you wired? What exactly entails this plan of “everyone voluntarily self assort”? What pitfalls will result? How do you seek to minimize them?

    “Your replies offer nothing but emotioal responses much like a petulant child that has to always get its way.”

    And now you are projecting.

    “Much better than the vast majority of the population that steals, kills, and destroys so that they can have a better life at someone else’s expense.”

    That comes across as self serving and elitist.

    How exactly does your own philosophy NOT lead people to act in ways you find uncivilized!

    My question to you: if you stripped away all of the knowledge imparted to you from the last several milennia of mankind’s intellectual achievements, and ignoring physical differences, how would you be different from a rhesus macaque monkey?

  137. Franz says:
    @Mefobills

    Of course, I am not surprised that you would wave you hands and be dismissive of a mere chiseler who died broke, because money is the measure of a man, right?

    I honestly have no clue who you’re talking to. Not being a libertarian, I’m convinced you’ve confused me with someone else.

    Then you make my point when you say “…Morris (and fellow mamonites)”. That was my point — why single out one fellow when a whole gang was required to do the job?

    Whatever floats your boat.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  138. Mefobills says:
    @Franz

    Franz, sorry if I imputed you with being a Lolbertarian. I consider Hogeland to be one, or at least leaning in that direction. My Appalachian relatives told me stories from birth that are at variance with Hogeland, and I have pointed out to you a more naunced history on Hamilton and Washington than Hogeland possesses.

    There ARE groups of mammonites that work to self-aggrandize. Hamilton was both, a complex character, who was both good and bad. His triangulation meant that he had to have feet in both camps. And, he did make mistakes, most especially with allowing the camel into the tent, as I pointed out earlier. Of course the creditors in the first bank did not want to be paid off with the sinking fund, they wanted to take rents forever.

    The same thing happened in the Federal Reserve Act, where member banks were guaranteed profits forever. Heads I win, tails you lose. It took Wright Pattman to sniff this out and put a stop to it.

    Hogeland is not wrong on the fact that there were battles after the country was formed, and I heard first hand from birth stories about some of those battles, many of which are not written down, and are much worse than even Hogeland knows.

    _________

    Triggered by the tax on domestic whiskey, with which the prodigiously energetic Alexander Hamilton was realizing his visions of high finance and commercial empire, the rebellion brought to a climax an ongoing struggle not over taxation but over the meaning and purpose of the American Revolution itself.

    (My opinion is that Hamilton was triangulating, and did have visions of high finance and commercial empire, which would redound to Americans and not the British. Further, you can glean insights into his thinking by reading his report on manufacturers, and SEUM, society for establishing useful manufacturers. Without some sort of manufacturing and industry the nascent country would have been doomed. In his report of manufacturers, you can see American Credit flowing in sectors, and this was not gold, silver, or bank of england money.)

    The struggle had financial, political, and spiritual aspects. In the most literal sense, it was about paying the revolution’s debt. The whiskey rebels weren’t against taxes. They were against what they called unequal taxation, which redistributed wealth to a few holders of federal bonds and kept small farms and businesses commercial paralyzed. Farmer and artisans, facing daily anxiety over debt foreclosure and tax rebellion and its suppression turned into outright conflict. By the time federal forces marched west, the Whiskey Rebellion was bathing all of its actors – founders and terrorist, extremists and moderates – in the stark light, not of an argument between genteel parties in Congress, but of a guerrilla war on the country’s ragged margin, our first war for the American soul.

    (Yes, and the confusion was that a country is not to borrow its on credit from privateers. This is a basic law of economics, an iron law. Wealth was being taken from the periphery, to pay the stock and bond holders. This mistake is what destroyed Rome.)

    ….

    What people in the western backcountry recognized, and most Congressman lacked the expertise to understand, were mechanisms embedded in the tax for keeping wealth in the hand of a few while denying western laborers and small farmers their last, slim chances for economic opportunity.

    (Here Hogeland is not being a libertarian, as it is impossible for freedumb to produce expertise on mechanisms, as it has to be formally taught to politicians, and is a requirement for good governance. Russia is beginning to do this now, as any governor of a Krai or Oblast is required to go through training, the same as Military Officers.)

    The whiskey tax was offensive to genteel libertarians… those whom the tax disabled (Hamilton) knew he was dropping a smart bomb on his target (the rebels).

    (Hamilton was being confused, as taxes on whiskey are taxes on production, when taxes are to land on cancers, many of which are the ‘creditor class” that Hamilton was triangulating. It was easy to do, to have a sin tax – and a mistake.)

    The secretary of treasury was celebrating a victory … the long struggle of nothing less than the power of money in the lives of the American people.

    (I don’t think so. Hamilton had locked himself in with his stupid sin tax on production. In other words, he was a complex figure, who did both good and bad. The other side of money creation is taxation, and there was no good theory on fiscal policy in those days. )

    When you drill into it, these sort of people (Hogeland) are bolstering the libertarian argument that the money power is to be privatized.

  139. @Curmudgeon

    “The original Magna Carta was an uprising against usury and land theft.”

    Yes. The first Jewish communities of significant size were brought to England by William the Conqueror in 1066. William encouraged the Jews to establish usury, so that a portion of the extorted proceeds would be sent to William as tax revenue.

    Average people in England resented Jews and their swindles. By the time King John signed the Magna Carta (15 June 1215) Jews were hated.

    Hatred of Jews and their swindles continued to increase until 19 July 1290 when King Edward I signed his Edict of Expulsion, which purged all Jews from England.

    England was free for the next 350 years, until Oliver Cromwell re-opened the door to the plague in 1657.

    Since then the Western system of finance, based on usury, has been Judaic. Today it faces imminent collapse.

    In May 2022 the Church of England formally apologized to Jews for the Edict of Expulsion. The Church of England was not formed until 244 years after the Edict was signed.

    Westerners are so eager to worship their Jewish owners that Westerners apologize for things they never did.

  140. @The Old Philosopher

    “without explaining how capital punishment has been used for centuries to rid humanity of its criminals that has not had a discernable impact onm making their genees disappear from the gene pool since criminals are still very much within us”

    I would hope that you might consider that how government operates would explain that. Government removes people it doesn’t like, that is, dangerous to government. Criminals sit in a corner for a while and then are released back INTO society.

    Dangerous animals are usually removed from society or killed and don’t get to reproduce amongst the civilized – as should dangerous people. Can you understand that?

    Self-assort and see which system works. Your system, as you admit “has not had a discernable impact onm making their genees disappear from the gene pool” doesn’t appear to work. At all.

    You can enjoy it with your kind.

    • Replies: @The Old Philosopher
  141. @Drapetomaniac

    Burbles:

    Your system, as you admit “has not had a discernable impact onm making their genees disappear from the gene pool” doesn’t appear to work. At all.

    I guess it was too deep for you. That’s not my system. I am thereby describing your system of clearing the gene pool,of criminals by executing them. That’s been going on for ceturies without a discernable impact omn ridding humanity of criminals.

    You obviously missed the import of my point that it is laws enacted by communities that identifies who is deemed a crimninal worthy of execution rather than having been identified as crimninals by their genes that were then eliminated from the human gene pool by their execution.

    There is, of course, one tiny step missing from your briliant argument. You have produced not even an iota of evidence that establises any link between the genes that without esxception identifes who is a criminal whose genese need to be eliminated to thereby end criminality in humanity.

    Your proposal is even more absurd than Plato’s notion that God embeds in human beings the gold, silver and bronze metals identifying the various classes of individuals in society, with gold naturally identifying those destined to rule.

    Now go play stupid somewhere else.

    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
  142. Anonymous[354] • Disclaimer says:

    Why does Unz publish the musings of a communist economist?

    • Replies: @JR Foley
  143. JR Foley says:
    @Anonymous

    It is evident that with the great divide between color—an economy entering a recession -then depression- a nation held captive by a cabal 1% – weekly mass shootings – people residing along the street and the porous Mexican border —USA and capitalism is Failing.

  144. JR Foley says:
    @Anon

    Do you believe in God ? Do you believe the Bible is the True Word of God? If yes to both questions Acts 4:35 and Acts 11:29 are by definition true. Agreed?

    If NO –you are in violation of the Word of God.

    Odd thing is —both these readings apply to the early Church and a couple were killed for not complying. What exactly did they do?

  145. @The Old Philosopher

    “how would you be different from a rhesus macaque monkey?”

    The monkey and you would both want “government”.

    I would not.

    “laws enacted by communities that identifies who is deemed a crimninal worthy of execution”

    The victim would do that either alive or by will.

  146. Babbales:

    “how would you be different from a rhesus macaque monkey?”

    In your case, whateverr difference there is would tell in the monky’s favor.

Current Commenter
says:

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