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
Rebel Economists on the Historical Path to a Global Recovery
Real Vision Interview Transcript with Steve Keen
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


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

With two renegade economists in one room in London for 90 minutes you can expect some pretty controversial opinions about the current economic establishment. This film has all the makings of a Real Vision classic, as Steve Keen interviews professor and author, Michael Hudson, sharing their radical views and an extraordinary depth of knowledge.

Discussing the complacency and complicity of traditional economic models, as taught in universities and adopted by central banks, Michael and Steve take us on a journey from a solar system to a galaxy of thought, taking in the history of economics to solutions for the ongoing global depression

Video Link:

Steve Keen: Often you’ll see somebody who’s a public speaker – or back in the old days, a public speake, who’d start with saying, “Unaccustomed as I am to public speaking.” Well, this is literally true for me this time, because I’m Professor Steve Keen from Kingston University. And I’m very much unaccustomed to being on this end of the camera, because rather than being the interviewee, I’m being the interviewer for my good friend and fellow rebel economist, Michael Hudson.

Michael, for those who don’t know him, is one of the few who not only saw the crisis coming, but was warning about the fact that we were inevitably going to have one, courtesy of financializing capitalism. And his two most recent books – this is the penultimate, right? [Keen’s comments and questions henceforth in italics]

Michael Hudson: Yes. Penultimate.

Penultimate book. Still, of course, available. The Bubble and Beyond , which I’ve read most of. And this one I haven’t started reading yet, but I’m under orders to read it by the end of the year. Killing the Host .


So, Michael, give us a bit of background to these and let’s just have a rave.

All right. Well, Killing the Host will be published in German at the end of the month of November, and, basically, it’s a more popular version of The Bubble and Beyond. And it shows that when the financial sector takes over, it’s very much like a parasite in nature. And people think of parasites simply as taking the life blood of the host and draining the energy. But in order to do that, the parasite has to have an enzyme to take over the host’s brain. And the key thing in nature is they take over the brain, and they convince the host that the free luncher is actually part of the host’s own body, and even its baby to be protected. And that’s what the financial sector has done.

Classical economics was all about separating the rent-extracting sectors – landlords, monopolies, and finance – from the rest of the economy. And that was unearned income. It wasn’t necessary. And the whole idea of classical economics from Quesnay’s Tableau Economique to all the way through Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill was to look at the finance sector and the landlord sector and monopolies as unnecessary. You’re going to get rid of them. You’re going to tax away all the land’s rent or else nationalize the land. And you are going to have public enterprises as basic infrastructure so that they couldn’t be monopolized.

Well, you had a revolution against classical economics in the 1890s and 1900s, and the national income now – accounts make it appear as if the financial sector and the real estate sector and the monopolies – oil and gas – are all contributing to GDP. So a few months ago, you had the head of Goldman Sachs – Lloyd Blankfein – say, the Goldman Sachs managers are the most productive workers in the United States, because we make $22 million a year in salary, and we get bonuses. And that’s all considered as contributing to GDP. That’s the financial services that we’re providing $22 million per manager of financial services.

Now what they don’t realize is that this $22 million per manager in that Goldman Sachs extracts money from the rest of the economy. It’s a zero-sum game. And instead of adding to the GDP, you should have –

A subtraction.

Yes, you should have – all of this is overhead – unnecessary. And since 2008, the 99% of the population in America, and I think in most of Europe, too, have seen their incomes go down. But the 1% have had their financial and real estate incomes go up so much more that there is an illusion of growth. And what’s been growing is the tumor, not the actual economic body.

Yeah. And this is the – I mean, if you look back at Ricardo and look at his arguments for comparative advantage, which has become the one horse pony of neoclassical economics. Everything’s about specialization. And they’ve fallen for this whole pea and shell trick that Ricardo put there to get rid of the corn laws. But when you read it and see, why did he do it – and I know I can say this to you, because you’ve actually read Ricardo, and far more of the classicals than in fact I’ve read, which is I don’t think there’s anybody else in the world I can say that to, but you clearly have.

When Ricardo says why he designed that model, it was so that he could argue for the reduction in the price of corn, which would mean that no change to the real income for the workers, because they still have to get the corn to stay alive. But the price of corn would drop, which meant the money going to the landlords would fall. And that money would instead go to the capitalists, which were therefore enable you to continue growing and grow for longer than you would if all the money was wasted by the landlords and frivolous behavior.

So even that particular absolute core of neoclassical thinking came out of Ricardo’s attempt to get the money away from the rentier class and get it to the capitalists where the investment can occur.


Well, of course, he really wanted it to be to the banks. Ricardo was the bank lobbyist of his day. He went into parliament to be the arguer for the bank. His brothers, by the way, ran the capital firm. They underwrote the Greek debt after 1832 that bankrupted Greece already in the 19th century, just as the IMF and the Troika are doing today.

Ricardo, being the bank lobbyist – how did banks make their money back in Ricardo’s day? You still had a landlord class in England, so they didn’t make their money making mortgage loans. Banks made their money mainly in international trade and international financial transactions.

–and things like that.

And Ricardo thought that if you had a division of labor and everybody specializing, then banks would have this huge market in export-import trade and financing collections outstanding and basically currency swaps. And Ricardo’s example of comparative advantage was let Portugal only produce wine. Let England produce cloth. And in his example, Portugal comes out ahead.

And England does as well, because the –

Yes, but not as much as Portugal. So if other countries will agree to be hewers of wood and drawers of water and let the industrial companies industrialize, somehow the raw materials people will benefit. And, of course, that’s not what happened at all.

So when Ricardo fought against the landlord class represented by Malthus, he basically wanted England to have to buy all of its grain abroad, so the bankers would benefit not only from British industrial exports to Portugal and America, but also get the import trade in grain.

Malthus said, “Wait a minute, the landlords are very productive. We employ coachmen. We buy nice clothes. Who would be the servants? Who would hire all the servants, if it weren’t for us extracting all of the rent?” And he said, landlords also are able to put – if you have protectionism in high prices, landlords are going to improve the quality of the soil, and we’re going to make increased productivity, as we did during the Napoleonic Wars when there wasn’t trade.

Ricardo said that’s impossible here. He wrote at the time, when you had the greatest revolution in agricultural chemistry in history. You had Justus von Liebig. You had all of the increased fertilizers, mechanization. Ricardo said, you have the original indestructible powers of the soil. You cannot destroy the environment.

The Americans broke from all of this and said, wait a minute, you have the slavery system, and the cotton and tobacco planters are destroying the soil. In America, we had the term mining the soil. Soil depletion goes down. If you specialize the way Ricardo did, you deplete the soil, you deplete the environment.

And so it’s this Ricardian model – this narrow-minded tunnel vision that prevents economists today from looking at how the environment is being harmed by oil and gas specialization. They deny global warming. And, most of all, the worst environmental damage is debt pollution. The economic environment is being polluted by running into debt and, of course, that’s what banks produced.

And that’s what Ricardo was advocating for. He had a financial theory that said it’s impossible for any country to have a balance of payments problem. Impossible for any country to have a problem repaying the debt that we’re negotiating with them, because of automatic stabilizers. The magic of the marketplace will mean everybody can always adjust, everything adjusts.

And then, of course, you had the Irish potato famine, and you had Nassau William Senior saying – when he was told that a million Irishman had died, he said, that is not enough. Economics is about equilibrium. For them to have equilibrium, more than a million must die. That’s the equilibrium of the neoliberals today. It lives on.

I mean, I’ve read Ricardo’s principles, obviously. And where did you find – because what I see in Ricardo, when I read Ricardo is the arguments about reducing the money going to the landlords. You must have read much more to get the background on the banker history and so on than I’ve managed to read. Where would they have been in Ricardo?

Well, he wrote – there were two –

Collected works, you read the collected works?

Yes. Ricardo – there were two schools of monetary theory in England. After the Napoleonic Wars, what happened, they had a post-war deflation. They tried to return the price of gold to the original price. This is the same idea of deflation that wrecked the American economy from the Civil War through about 1890, crucifying the price of gold. You had deflation.

There were two schools of thought. There was the banking school that Ricardo headed, the lobbyist for the banks. And there was the currency school with Thornton and all sorts of other great people. The currency school said debt matters. Ricardo said debt doesn’t matter. So the arguments you’re having today all found their predecessor in the 1830s in the bank arguments.

Now this is not taught in any of the history of economic thought.

The history of economic thought isn’t taught anymore either.

That’s the problem. They take mathematics. And mathematics it’s all about taking the existing status quo for granted. And if you had a history of economic thought, you’d know that Adam Smith and the adversaries of Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill, their idea of a free market was a market free from rent, free from the banks, free from monopoly. But now when you have the Austrian School and Hayek’s talk about the free market, they mean free for the parasite. Free for the predatory.

They don’t they mean that half the time. They’re so caught up in their own ideology. But that is a huge part of it. And to them, it’s – in that classic sense, people think Smith is a free
market person as they define free market today. But when looking at Smith’s writing, he was in favor of limits on the rate of interest.


His logic was that if you have – people who are willing to pay well above the rate set by the King are likely to be profligates. Projectors and profligates he called them, and if you give money to them, they’re almost certain to have wasted it. If they want to pay that much for it, they must want it for nefarious purposes. Having the legal rate set slightly below a maximum rate set by the King, means that banks would have to give their money to people who would make productive investment of it. So he was in favor of control of interest.

Now his main rival – and you’d know better than I do on this front, too, but – one of his main-

Jeremy Bentham.

Jeremy Bentham. Bentham coming out saying, he sees – you probably remember how he expressed it about the crying shame of – he was trying to show – to save people from being accused of the crying shame of usury. And saying usury had a bad name, and the rate of interest should be set by the market, etc, etc.

It’s all free market. And the rate of interest I noticed on British credit cards of where I’m staying is 19%. In America, it’s 29% penalty rate. And banks make more money in penalties than they do in interest. After the interest rates hit 20% in 1980, all the usury laws were abolished in the United States. So it’s predatory.

Adam Smith also said something else about money. He said that wars should not be financed by borrowing from bonds. That was called Dutch finance, because the Dutch investors were the main bond buyers. And he said, if wars – like the military spending that England is doing today in NATO – if wars had to be financed by direct taxation, people would really feel the burden of war, instead of issuing bonds, where you have to add the interest onto a tax on necessities. And every war that England went in – and Book V of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations lists every single tax on every single – that was added with every new bond issue, pricing England out of the market.

And Adam Smith said, look, interest is a cost of doing business. And if you’re going to have all of these taxes and all of these interests, you’re not going to be able to be a competitive industrial market.

Which is the situation that we’re in again today.


By falling for – the financial sector. One thing that I’ve just written in – wrote my new book is called Can We Avoid Another Financial Crisis? So my little promo here. And as part of that I focus on the level of private debt to GDP as I know you do too. And I haven’t shown you this, yet, but you know the graph of American private debt to GDP. Going from very low in the 1860s up to 140% say roughly of GDP in the Great Depression. Plunging down and then rising again. And every time you look at the American data, there’s this tendency for the level of debt to rise compared to GDP.

I expected the same thing for England. When I plotted it, from 1880 through to 1980, it never exceeded 70% of GDP. And it was a series of humps and ups and downs, OK. But it never went past 75% of GDP. Maggie Thatcher gets elected. Within two years there’s this exponential – like watching a Saturn 5 take off, from about 65% of GDP to 200%.

She was the useful idiot for the banking class.

Yeah. And that’s where the cities come from here, which I’m sure are going to please many of our viewers to call them that way. But this city was enabled by Thatcher, coming really out of her reading of Hayek.

Well, you’re speaking so fast that I want to make sure that the audience gets to –

I’m faster than you?

What? I’m speaking fast, too? Well, I think we have to explain something to the viewers.

Let’s say that debt is equal to 100% of GDP, which it is at least in almost every country. Now, if countries are only growing at 1%, then if you pay interest at usually 5%, a country would have to grow 5% per year – the GDP – just to pay the interest. And if countries are growing at 1%, and the interest rate for average that everybody pays, about 5% or 6%, then you’re going to have the actual economy shrinking every year as there’s this siphoning off of interest. That’s what debt deflation is.

And that’s the situation that England is in. That is turning eurozone into a dead zone. And it’s the situation of the US economy. That all of the surplus is paid for interest – not to mention financial returns, capital gains, and economic rent to the landlord class and to the monopolies.

So no wonder the economy is shrinking. Nobody has enough money to buy what they produce anymore. So that’s why there are so many vacancies in storefronts in New York. Why stores are going out of business. Restaurants are going out of business. There’s a squeeze on.

Yeah. Can you – is that palpable in the States? Because in England it’s not quite so palpable.

Yes. Well, just imagine the average paycheck. I don’t know if it’s similar. In the United States, the big chunk off the top of every paycheck is for housing. Now in America almost all mortgages – 85% of mortgages are guaranteed by the government and banks will write a mortgage up to the limit of 43% of your total income.

So imagine, here’s a family that in order to have a home is either paying 43% of its income on a mortgage, or it’s paying that in rent. The average – average – rent in New York City of
$4,500 a month. Well, you can imagine if the average salary is about $80,000, do the math for yourself.


Now in addition to that, people have to pay maybe 10% more of their income to the banks for credit card debt, student loans, auto debt. And then also taken off the front of every paycheck is 15% of a forced saving of social security and medical care. So that’s taken off. And there’s about another 15% recombination of state and local and federal income taxes. And then you have the value-added taxes. So you add all that up. To the 43%, to 10% to the banks, maybe the 25% for taxes, you have only about 25% of the average paycheck that’s available to be spent on goods and services.

Now think of the circular flow. The whole of economics was founded by a doctor, Francois Quesnay in France that looked at a national income like the circulation of blood in the body. But you have this blood being drained – 75% of the circular flow now is drained for what we call the FIRE sector – finance, insurance, and real estate.

And the ironic thing is that’s actually the way it’s titled inside the American national accounts. When I first heard you say the fire sector, I thought it was a nice acronym, before I’d actually dived into the NIPA –

National Income and Product Accounts.

And there, lo and behold, it’s labeled the FIRE sector.


And it’s quite – that was Copland’s work, wasn’t it to put that


That was brilliant work when you look at it, because that’s the gold standard of the flow of funds to work out where the money flows actually go. And the crazy thing is that if it hadn’t been for Copeland, we probably would have this information at all, because according to conventional economics, money doesn’t matter. They completely ignore all that stuff.

And everything is productive.

Everything is productive. And this nonsense – I mean, at the same time, you and I are both trying to say, you cannot have a model of capitalism which doesn’t include money and banks and debt.

And debt. And people even who do talk about money, like the monetarists, don’t talk about debt.


And they don’t realize that money is debt. One person’s savings is somebody else’s –

The problem they make there is that they get to the stage of talking about money and debt in the same sense that Fisher beautifully described it back in the debt deflation theory of great depressions is that – no, actually, it was in Booms and Depressions and First Principles. He said, that a man-to-man debt – I’m going to use the sexist language of the ’90s, or maybe the sexist language of today now with Donald Trump.

A man-to-man debt doesn’t matter, because if one person pays down his debt to another person, then his spending power is fallen by the money he had to forego to pay the debt, but the person who receives the money as repayment of debt then has additional cash, and it’s like a seesaw. They balance each other out. The average level remains the level of the fulcrum, it doesn’t go up and down.

But when you include banks in there, and, of course, banks are the people who generate debt, it’s an elevator. It goes up or down. If they are increasing the amount of debt in the economy, then you’re both getting higher. But if you start repaying, you both start heading down towards the ground.

Well, another way of saying this – it’s said in America, the debt doesn’t matter because we owe it to ourselves.

That’s Paul Krugman’s classical cliche.

Right. And the question is who are we, and who are ourselves? The we is the 99%. The ourselves are the banks and the 1%. So when you say, wait a minute, white man –

But it is it goes beyond that because, again, if that was the mantra that we were borrowing from the wealthy people, there’d be no money creation involved. There’d be debt creation without money creation.


And that’s the link that they haven’t got right. Whereas when you know that when banks – and this is where the Bank of England must deserve a big pat on the back from people like ourselves that they came out and publicly said, as a highly respected official organization, banks create money when they lend, and, therefore, as well as providing –

And that creates deposits. They create money by creating deposits. You go to – for the audience – you go into a bank, you borrow money, the bank credits your checking account, and adds to the loan. It’s done by a computer. It’s not somebody’s savings. It’s not a recycling of the savings.

And this is the hassle you and I are having. We’re both arguing in favor of things like debt abolition in some sense. People think, oh, if you write off debt, what about the poor lender. Lender’s being ripped off. And that’s seeing in the sense of a man-to-man debt. That if you lent me $100, and I didn’t repay you, I’ve stolen $100 that you had to earn. You had to save and put aside to have.

But when you take it from a bank, the bank is making an entry in the asset in increasing its assets, making an entry into liability side in giving you a deposit. It isn’t a money warehouse, it’s a money factory.

That’s right.

And that’s the interest in producing as much as it can, because by producing debt, that’s their means to make a profit.

Debt is the bank’s business – and you call that endogenous money, and that’s what you write about in your articles.

Yeah. But you go into the parasite side of things.

Well, there’s a strategy for all of this. I used to work for Chase Manhattan for many years. And I worked for other banks. I was a bank analyst, so I saw how it was done.


While I was working for the bank, I was taking my PhD At New York University. And the courses had this fantasy about how banks work. I would say, wait a minute, this is not how – here’s how banks actually work. Here’s what happens, and I used the example – I was the economist for the central bank for the savings banks – and pointed out the idea that – well, I won’t even get into the details, but I got a C minus, because –

You got a C minus?

Yes, a C minus, because it was explained to me exactly what Nobel Prize winner Paul Samuelson and others say, you don’t understand, Mr. Hudson. Economics is all about assumptions. It’s about whether the logic is internally consistent. What you’re saying may be realistic, but it’s not internally consistent with the body of mainstream economics that we’re talking. You have to suspend disbelief. You have to act – we’re in an as-if world. And I thought, my god this should be in the literature department as science fiction, not in an economics school.

Yeah. This is actually where I meant to get this. How did you become a rebel in economics? I know you’ve got a family background.

My family. I was born a rebel, basically – I was born in Minneapolis, which was the only city in the world where being a Trotskyist was a career advancement opportunity. My father was fighting against the Stalinist trade unions. As soon as America went to war was thrown in jail for advocating the overthrow of the government by force and violence – the Minneapolis 17 – because there was a deal between the mafia – the mobsters that wanted to take over the truckers union that was organized by Trotskyists of Minneapolis and the Stalinists that promised Roosevelt not to go have any labor strikes during World War II if they’d throw the Trotskyists in jail.

So your dad ended up in jail over that particular ruse by the mafia?

Yes. And so everybody I knew growing up – I thought the draft, and people were drafted, I thought everybody was going to jail. I didn’t know really there was a war on. I thought it was just a class war. I didn’t know it was actually a military war. You know I’m at three or four years old.

Well, I went to New York, thinking I was going to be – I inherited the copyrights of Leon Trotsky when his widow died.

You actually, this is one thing that you better mention here, who your godfather.

I don’t want to mention that.

OK, OK, all right.

Well, nobody was interested in these, so I had to get a job. I met the Chief Economist for General Electric, a man who had been. He was the most – in one evening, he was the most brilliant man I’d ever met. My friend Gavin –

How old are you at this stage? In your early 20s or?

I was 21 years old. And my friend Gavin MacFadyen had gone to school with his daughter, and said, you’ve got to meet this man. And he talked about how the change in the water level – in the sunspots and in the weather would affect the water levels in the Midwest and that would affect the autumnal drain, where the farmers had to draw money from the banks, from the east and almost all the crises almost always happened in October, because of the autumnal drain. And he described it and it was such a beautiful, aesthetic flow of funds that, believe it or not, I got into economics, because it was beautiful and aesthetic.

And Terence, I must have talked to him every day for an hour a day for 30 years. And he said he would work with me if I would read – he had made the first translation of a book that was banned almost all over the world. Banned in Russia. Banned in China. Karl Marx’s history of economic theories called his Theories of Surplus Value.

It was banned at the time, was it?

There was no English translation. It was the only thing that wasn’t translated, because it was Marx’s history of thought outlining how a national income account should be made. And by doing – he showed that what Russia took as its national income account was thinking only material labor is productive. And so Russia’s national income accounts were not based on Marx, they were based on Adam Smith. And so they did not want the history of economic thought really discussed.

So, indeed, I went into – I studied basically classical economics. And classical economics from Smith, Mill, the others, all sort of – Marx was the last classical economist. And he pushed it to the logical extreme, because his principle was that capitalism itself is revolutionary. Capitalism in order to do what we talked about at the beginning of the show-
– in order to get rid of the landlord class, in order to get rid of the idle rich, in order to get rid of the monopolies, in order to get rid of the banks and make that a public utility, that’s socialism. And the logical tendency of industrial capitalism is toward socialism. Well, that was a radical thought.

Well, it turned out that when I went to Wall Street first for savings banks and then at Chase, by about 1968, all of the leading – there were about four leading economists. And Lazard Freres and other companies. We’d all meet once a month on Thursdays at a Japanese noodle place.

And on one occasion I remember at 9:30 in the evening, we were all discussing Volume III of Capital –

Bloody hell, OK.

Where Marx discussed the interest and rentier money as an unnecessary faux frais, false cost of production. And then we broke out laughing, wouldn’t it be – what if people knew that we’re supposed to be the bank economists, and we all have a Marxist background, and here we are discussing Volume III of Capital.


When Terence translated – Terence McCarthy – translated the Theories of Surplus Value as A History of Economic Doctrines – he founded Langland Press to do it – the Stalinist operatives broke into the printing house and poured acid over all the plates of Volume II of it. The Volume III is in actually three parts, three volumes, I mean the Theories of Surplus Value is three volumes. So Terence is only able to publish the first volume, not the other two volumes. Then the Stalinists came out with another translation confusing value and price. And mistranslating it.

That’s actually the Progress Press volume. Because the volume, I’ve read the Theories of Surplus Value in the Progress Press edition, which is from the Russian edition. Now –

There was a bad Stalinist version through London & Wishart. But finally, Progress Press did come out with a very good scholars edition of all three.

All right, which is probably the one I’ve read.

And that’s good.

But they tried to stop it.

Initially. I mean, finally they figured nobody cares about Marxism anymore in Russia. If Russia would have known about – Russia’s really the only country that has no Marxist background at all. If they would have known about Marxism, they never would have privatized and fallen for neoliberalism in 1991.

Yeah, well again, the labor theory of value, I think was a magic contributor there, because that whole ideology became a huge part of the politics and the way they tried to organize industry as well. And to me the false vision that labor’s the only source of surplus.

But what they didn’t – what was the function of the labor theory of value. It was to isolate all those elements of price that were not an element of value. That were not necessary for value. And rent was the excess of price over intrinsic value.

Now that’s the principle that the national income accounts should be on. You want the basic cost value. What does it cost to produce the goods and services in the things that you need. And then everything that’s not necessary for this, that’s extractive – whether it’s land rent or natural resource rent or monopoly rent or financial returns – this is not actual cost. Because we know that you could have countries like Soviet Russia, America, China, and Japan all having the same technology, but having completely different relationships with
the financial and the real estate and the monopoly sector. And you need a technological core, and then you show how much is unnecessary, how much is institutional in nature.

Your point about the bank chief economists all sitting down discussing the third volume of Capital. Trying to imagine that happening today is just impossible. If they discussed the third volume of anything, it’d be the third volume of Mas-Colell. Micro-economic theory. The horizons of modern economists are so limited that if we talked – I just imagine if we actually bumped into a modern neoclassical, knowing the training they’ve gotten in an academic world these days. If we mentioned the classics, they would think we’re talking about –


Lucas and econometric problems in price inflation. Or Muth on the cobweb cycle.

Well, it wouldn’t even be that. When I worked for banks, until about the 1970s, banks really had a research department. I did actual research and statistics. After I left the bank, they changed the name to research and publications. And it was all public relations.

Law suit stuff.

Citibank led it all. It was all lobbying, and it was all fictitious stuff.

And at least when I was at the bank, I had to do a study once with the oil industry, and David Rockefeller said, we want you to tell us really what the facts are. We want to figure it out. I’m telling you, if we don’t like it, we won’t publish it, but write whatever you want. Don’t think you have to please us and whitewash this. Give us the facts.

This was actually one of the Rockefellers telling you this?

Yeah. David Rockefeller. And I met with the head of Standard Oil and Socony, New York, there. And so I was always given completely free reign. I had to code everything. They were just worried that the Senate might subpoena my documents, because –

Too much information.

And figure it out. They didn’t. They wanted to know. But it was actual research. Later – today, it’s all public relations from the bank, and you’re just not going to get anything. I think the Bank of England is the only really innovative central bank that I can think of.

Well, certainly in terms of central banks.

And I can’t think of – I mean the Federal Reserve is still so dominated by the neoclassical canon, you don’t get anything interesting out it.

A precondition for getting a job at the Federal Reserve is not understanding how the economy works. If they mention your name, and people say, oh, yes, Steve Keen, I’m sorry, you’re over qualified for the position.

Actually, I do know. I had some colleagues working in a couple of hedge funds who told me that they had a meeting with Bernanke once. And one of their female staff had just transferred from the hedge fund to working at the Central Bank and she came along for this meeting. And Bernanke was actually questioning her about the mechanics of money transfers because he didn’t know it. And you find – literally, she found herself – she thought she’d be talking to a superior she could learn a lot from, and she found the guy’s actually quizzing her about the actual mechanics of money transfers.

Yeah. That’s what happens when you go through a PhD, and you actually spend your time in school, instead of in the real world.

But you spent – where did you do your PhD at?


New York University, because all they wanted was my money, not my mind. And other universities they actually insist that you actually go along and agree with what they say. And New York University, the biggest private university in America is just a business – all they wanted was the money, and that’s what I wanted. So I actually learned everything I know about economics while working on Wall Street. But I got the union card, which is a PhD that you need in order to get the job.

And what was your PhD on?

Well, it was on Erasmus Peshine Smith, the leading American economist of the 19th century who developed the energy theory of GDP. He thought product was ultimately reducible to energy.

I agree with him. And I’ve got to show you some maths on that shortly.

Yes. He was the economy – in 1853, the year the Republican Party was created in America, his manual of political economy outlined the Republican policy for half a century. Protective tariffs. A national bank. And internal improvements. And this was the old Whig policy of Henry Clay.

Peshine Smith was the law partner of William Seward, who everybody had expected to be the presidential candidate. But by being so outspoken against slavery, they decided to get a gray figure. Someone nobody had ever heard of that was – they hoped would be completely mediocre. Abraham Lincoln.

Are you kidding?

He made William Seward secretary of state, and after Seward resigned, he made a trip around the world and went to Japan. And they said, we want to break away from England’s free trade policy. So he sent Peshine Smith over to be an advisor to the Mikado, who they waited till the British ambassador went on vacation, passed protective tariffs. And Smith went native and had a Japanese mistress and wore a sword when he went out in a kimono and everything and introduced protective industrial policy to Japan.

Which is what turned it from being a rural colony of totally feudal in 1868 through to an industrial super power that could challenge the Germans and the Russians in the First World War.

Yes, and in the process Smith broke up with the coolie trade. A Japanese ship stopped a coolie transporting Chinese coolies to America. The case went I think to Bismarck or some to referee, and it blocked the coolie trade between China and Peru.

China and Peru?

Yes. But that stopped it for the whole new world. The whole Western hemisphere. The ship was on – Maria Luz, I think it was, going to up Peru, and Smith stopped that.

He’s somebody I’ve never heard of.

There’s a reason – isn’t that surprising that the most important economists of the 19th century, who shaped American policy, nobody’s not only heard of not Peshine Smith, but there was a whole American school of economics. It’s very interesting.

America did something that has relevance for America for today. After the North won the Civil War, they thought how are we going to teach protectionist, non-Ricardian, non- Malthusian economics. And they say, most of the economic courses were taught at prestige universities, and most universities in America were founded by religious orders to train the priesthood. And the political economy course was taught in the seniorly years, you know, the final one, and it’s all, markets are great.

So the solution was that you can’t reform these academics. They’re hopelessly tunnel visioned. So America founded state colleges with a different faculty, new people teaching rational, protectionist economics, and the business schools. And the first business school professor was Simon Patten at the University of Pennsylvania, the Wharton School, which was funded by industrial protectionists. And so you had in America this whole body of theory that now has been whitewashed out of textbooks into a kind of Orwellian memory hole.

Wow. And in some ways we’re reproducing the same struggles today.

Yes. And you can’t do it through the universities –

Again, I can’t – being at Kingston University, which is one of the recently converted polytechnics here. Way down the bottom of the picking order of the English university system. The same applies to the University of Missouri, Kansas City, for the modern monetary theory group. The New School, where all the – University of Utah. That’s where the non-orthodox thinkers are.

Whereas the top universities are reproducing the religion. And the thing is this is quite a successful strategy when you’re fighting an ideological war. But it’s not a successful strategy when you’re trying to manage a capitalist economy. And, unfortunately, they’re trying to do both at once. And, of course, what that leads to is the debt deflation episode we’re seeing now. Because according to the theories of this high priesthood, such things can’t happen.

Yes, reality doesn’t exist.

So we’ve got the same thing happening again now. That this high priesthood dominates the Cambridges and the Oxfords and the MITs and so on. And they’re like the religious colleges you were talking about in the 19th century. And then the approach – the groups that are critical of theory – not necessary critical of capitalism, in fact, because you’d say they’re trying to achieve capitalism, rather than the feudal system that the financial sector is taking us towards.

We’re all forced to teach in the low-rank universities, where the priests don’t want to work. And we find ourselves in badly funded institutions, poor administrations, poor locations, and the students, who don’t know any better, think that they’re going to get a better education by going to the top places, so we don’t necessarily get the good students, unless they themselves also revolt like we ended up doing ourselves.

Right. And what they get is an expensive Andy Warhol instead of a Durer.

Yeah. And with Andy Warhol, it’s just a photograph, guys, he didn’t really do any art to draw them.


So it is such a pain, because in this sense we’re seen as critics of capitalism. And as you said, like your father being thrown in jail and things like that. That sort of thing is we’re traitors, we’re the ones who are trying to bring capitalism down. But what we’re really trying to say is unless you control the financial sector, the financial sector will bring capitalism down.

Will control you. Yeah. You own the banks or the banks will own you. You own the public-
and that’s what mayor Tom Johnson of Cleveland, Ohio, said a century ago. If you don’t own the public utilities and the transport system and the streetcar system, the public utilities are going to own you.

Yeah. And that’s what ended up happening.

Yes, and Dennis Kucinich, who was a later mayor tried to prevent it, and the banks all tried to gang up on him and said, look, if you privatize the electric utilities, we’ll push you for governor. We’ll make your career. Privatize, and if you don’t, we’ll smash you. And Dennis said, I’m not going to privatize it. I’m going to save Cleveland the price in electricity, and they got rid of him. And it was 25 years later, they realized he was right all along, they elected him to Congress. And pushed him for the presidency.

But he didn’t get there.

He wasn’t the tallest candidate.

That’s a problem, isn’t it. He’s actually – the visuals are – if only he was the height of his wife, he might have had a chance of success.

Yes, they did give her as much visual as they could.

You and I are both campaigning for debt abolition?


What you think our odds are, now after the last 10 years?

There are a lot of problems – people are realizing that it seems unthinkable to cancel the debts, but it’s also people have an avoidance of thinking, what happens if you don’t cancel the debts.


If you don’t cancel the debts, they’re going to keep growing, and all of the growth and national income is going to go to the creditors. And so the fact is that the debts aren’t owed to the we – to the 99%. The debts are owed to the 1%. 1% of the population has 75% of the financial assets. So and all of this – their growth has occurred since 1980. So what you’re doing is – the question is, who are you going to save? The economy or the banks?

And when President Obama came in, he promised that he was going to write down the debts. The mortgage debts to – especially the junk mortgages – to the actual real value of the homes that the junk mortgage people had taken out. Or and set the debt service – the money you have to pay every month to pay the mortgage, amortization, and principal, and interest to what the normal rental value of this would be.

Well, of course, as soon as he was elected, he dropped it all. He invited the bankers to the White House and said, boys, I’m the only guy standing between you and the pitchforks out there. Don’t worry, I can deliver my constituency to you.

So, basically, the Democratic Party broke its voters into a black constituency, a women’s constituency, a LSGBQ constituency, and they’re all for Wall Street. Instead of saving the economy, Obama bailed out and saved the banks by keeping the debts in place. And once
you have to pay that, it’s curtains. And so the end – everybody’s going to end up in Greece. Greece is where you’re going, if you’re don’t.

Unless you abolish the debts.


Yeah. There was that mortgage reset policy.

But it wasn’t policy – it was only in paper. Banks didn’t do it.

I think about what three – from what I understand about 300 people actually had their mortgages reset.

Yeah. It was all just a fiction.

Out of about 50, 60 million.

10 million. It was all fraudulent.

There was a particular individual as well I think who was involved in that, who was quite useless, the head of the organization as well. You might not know that particular detail. But again, even the person was put in charge of it was against the whole concept of debt writing off to begin with.

Well, no, you had the SIG Inspector General write a very good memoir as soon as he left, saying how Tim Geithner at the Treasury undercut everything that he was trying to do. And Sheila Bair head of the deposit insurance organization also explained how she was just sabotaged by the fact that Obama put all of the Wall Street lobbyists in charge of the Treasury and the Justice Department, so no banker would go to jail, because it was the bankers’ lobbyist who was the head of the Justice Department and as people.

And regarding the debt cancellation, people think it’s – how do you do it in the modern time. It’s impossible. Well, there is a perfect debt cancellation that should be the model. And that’s the German economic miracle of 1848. They canceled –

1848 or 1948?


1948, yeah.

Did I say, 18? That was the revolutions that didn’t go far enough, a century earlier.

That’s the one. Sorry, I thought you were getting your centuries mixed up.

Yes, I do that all the time.

Well, in 1948, because most of the debts were owed to the Nazis, people who had been Nazis in the war. All of the debts were annulled except for the debts that employers owed their workers, labor debts. And everybody had a minimum working – you could keep your minimum working balance up to a given amount. So they did a debt cancellation that was the German economic miracle. That was the free market.


But the trouble is this time around – look, if you go back to the original debt cancellation back in the time of the Sumerian civilization, because another part of your background is an archaeological focus. And just a bit of personal curiosity, how did that come about? Because as well as doing your research on 19th century economists we should have learned from and didn’t, you also got involved in archaeological research about the origins of money and culture.

Well, in 1979, there was – I was an advisor to UNITAR, the United Nations Institute for Training and Research for about three years. And I was writing a whole series of reports on the fact that the third world debt couldn’t be paid. This was just before Mexico –

Which year was this? 1970?


OK. I was doing similar work in Australia for the Freedom from Hunger campaign. Curious.

Well, we had a meeting in Mexico, organized by the Mexican president, who’d wanted to be head of the UN and thought if he had UNITAR come. So you know I gave the position of the rest of the staff. And I’d brought along a whole group, including some radical Canadians, including Kari Polanyi, was there.

Daughter of?


Kari Polanyi?

Yes, the daughter of Karl Polanyi.

Right. OK.

Or Kari Polanyi. And so I gave my speech and saying that the debts couldn’t be paid. It turned the reparteur was, I suspect, a CIA plant, who gave the summary of my speech, saying that it would be hard, but third world could pay the debt.

I stood up and said, I’m pulling out the American delegation. I insist on an apology from the President of Mexico for this. This is a willful and malicious falsification of everything I’ve said by a lobbyist for the US banks and for the government. There was a riot. And then they tried to beat up all of the Americans they could find.

In this conference?

In Mexico City. I had a girlfriend who was part of a Dadaist painters group that was having a ballet, and I hid out, literally, on the ballet stage, while they were trying to look for me to beat up in Mexico. So I realized that debt cancellation was very political. And I just said, I’m going to write a history of debt cancellation.

And so I – it took me about a year to go back through the medieval times to Rome and to Greece, to Solon’s debt cancellations.

This is reading at this stage, rather than doing archaeological research?

Reading. So I went back – I had just moved down to Wall Street from where I was living to the Tribeca, one block from the World Trade Center. And then I got all of a sudden, there were references in the Jewish jubilee year to the Babylonians

But there was no economic history of Babylonia. So I begun to read about Sumer and Babylonia. And I found that every new ruler for thousands of years – from 2,500 BC down to about 500 BC – would start their reign by abolishing all of the debts owed to the palace and temples, all of the consumer debts. Not the business debts. The business debts – silver debts – were left in place. But the personal debts – the usury – that were paid in grain would be annulled.

When there was a failure of grain and people – the debtor’s, the harvesters, the citizens couldn’t pay their debts, the ruler would proclaim a clean slate. The word the rulers used in Babylonian was andurarum. And that’s the word that in Hebrew, deror, used for the Jubilee year. in Leviticus 25.

Then I did more reading, and I realized that when you know what these words mean, when Jesus gave his first sermon, reported in Luke 4 – the first sermon that he gave. He unrolled the scroll to Isaiah and said, I have come to proclaim the year of the Lord. The year of the Lord was the word for deror, for debt cancellation. And what he’d said was I’ve come to insist in abolishing the debts. And his rival was the chief rabbi of the pharisees, and who said who had the prose book – the small print, every debtor to borrow money had to sign, I will not insist on my rights to have the debts canceled in the jubilee year.

So I wrote a book – a history of this – by about, I think, 1988 and 1990, and submitted it to a university press. They submitted it in a right wing Assyriologist that said, it’s impossible to cancel the debts, because if you cancel the debts, no one would lend you money.

Take it in the first place.

But the problem – most debts didn’t arise from borrowing money. Most debts arise just like they do for the third world countries today. From not paying a bill. You ran up – if you were a Babylonian, during the crop year, you’d go to the bar, to the ale woman, and you’d – and we have all this on record. And you’d have put it on the tab, and they’d keep a tab for how much you would owe for the beer you drank to be paid on the threshing floor when the harvest was in. And if there was a failure in the harvest, or if there were just a new ruler wanting to restore balance in the economy, they would – the debts wouldn’t have to be paid.

Well, they actually had a model – a number of models in Sumer and in Babylonian times. We have the economic models taught to the students in 1800 BC. They’re more sophisticated than any model used today except for yours. Because the model had on the one hand compound interest. And we have the test exercises. How long does it take a debt to double? Any interest rate is a doubling time. Well, it took five years to double it 20%, which was –

Linear. Compound. Yeah.

Back then. And there was no compound interest. You couldn’t let the debt compound.

But it doubles in five years. How long does it take to quadruple? 10 years. How long does it take to multiply 64 times? The answer is 30 years. So you can see that –

It was simply unsustainable. It was obviously unsustainable.

Now in addition to doing the debt, they had what is the growth of a herd. And then they had growth of output. And it was an s-curve, just like almost every curve of whether it’s refrigerators or television sets or iPhones –

Which is the saturation point.

It’s always an S-curve. So they had the s-curve, they had the compound interest growing through it. And you can see that at a certain point, the debts mount up in excess of the ability to pay.


Now modern theory – mathematical theory – says, wait a minute, equilibrium means everybody can pay. There’s no unpayably high debt. And they don’t see what for 2000 years was basic principles of rulership in Mesopotamia. The Greeks know it. This is what really should be taught.

Well, I was when I was teaching money and banking at the New School in the ’60s and ’70s, I couldn’t fit it into the curriculum. And that was why I stopped teaching. I thought the whole curriculum didn’t have room for debt and rent and the kind of things that I wanted to talk about finance. I had a big following of students, but they weren’t the core courses in the curriculum there.

And same thing with Kansas City. When the graduates, who learn what you and I are talking about money, graduate, they can’t get jobs, because jobs are conditional upon being able to publish in prestigious economic reviews, and they’re all controlled by University of Chicago and by neoliberals.

And the genius of Chicago free market theory is you can’t have a free market Chicago style unless you have a totalitarian state that will prevent any alternative to the theory. When they went to Chile, Harberger is said to have sat in a hotel room saying, here are the professors you have to kill. Pinochet and the American embassy said, here are the labor leaders you have to kill. And here are the intellectuals you have to kill.

You cannot have a free market neoliberal style unless you are willing to either kill or exile or suppress or censor any alternative to your theory, because the theory doesn’t work. It’s fiction. It’s junk economics.

Well, what we find – this is what I found is quite intriguing right now, because the mainstream actually do believe in their theory. They actually – they genuinely –

Useful idiots.

Useful – and they also believe that their theory is a good way to manage the system. So what they’ve had by the purge they’ve managed to achieve – not quite as drastically as Chile, thank god – but the purge they managed to achieve in intellectual economics to make them just that the sole mainstream and knock out any alternative arguments meant that they took over economic policy as well as economic theory. And pushing it forward led them to the financial crisis that they could not see coming, because they didn’t even include the variables that cause the financial system in their models.

That’s right.

Now what you’re seeing 10 years after the crisis is, finally, some awareness coming through that our models are completely at variance with the real world.

Well, my next book is called J is for Junk Economics. And I’m going to have that out in December. I’m just correcting the page proofs now. But I’m juxtaposing our reality economics to their junk economics.

But as to where – I mean, will we succeed? I mean the classic thing is you and I are both fighting for realism. Now realism with an edge, because we’ve seen the impact of unrealism right back from Roman times forward to now. But capitalism needs realism to function. But it doesn’t need realism to maintain its ideology.

But they put the propogandist in charge of the planners. It’s just like the banks. It’s as if the banks are run by the public relations people who have this patter talk about debt is good for you, debt will make you rich. And it’s one thing to have them there to advertise for the people – the usual Orwellian deception. But you have to have somebody who knows what’s happening.

At the same time.

And they don’t have any one who knows.

That sense of you need someone like you – you need two bank research units. One for like yours giving the actual information to the Rockefellers of what’s actually happening and the other public relations for the public.

Yes, that’s what they need. Yes, but they don’t.

But the reality is they got rid of the back one. And what I find amusing about all the conspiracy theorists – the right wing and left wing conspiracy theorists that see this all being like a Rothschild plot and stuff like that. They think the banks are operating with you in the back room and the public relations people in the front. But no, they’ve got the public relations people in the front and in the back. And, therefore, giving completely misleading advice about how the system works.

That’s it.

It’s worse than think, funnily enough.

This is what Thorstein Veblen called educated incapacity or trained incompetence. You’re trained not to understand the reality when it comes up.

You have – you’re the only person I can think of who’s read far more of the literature than I’ve read. When you read, when you did read, what did you do? Did you take massive written notes of everything and have stacks?

I haunted the bookstores. I’m a little older than you. So in the ’60s – I mean, I knew all of the book dealers, and I’d ask – I had to get the books that Marx talked about and the history of economic theories. But I also asked, are there any other sort of strange books? I’d – what’s this book here? And I’d found books by people who’d nobody ever heard of. Like A Clue to the Economic Labyrinth by Michael Flursheim. Great books. And I found the American protectionists. I found Peshine Smith.

That’s how you discovered him before you did your PhD.

Yeah. I couldn’t have discovered him after I did the PhD about him.

No way.

So I found Calvin Colton and Alexander Everett and Henry Clay and Henry Carey and Simon Patten and all these books that – what are these books. And so, I said, if you, let me know more. And I was the only guy who bought them. Most people wanted first editions of Adam Smith. And I was the only guy that wanted –

All the obscure texts that they had all the same.


Have you still got that collection?

No, I had to sell it. I decided when I moved – once I got this feeling that I wanted to write on debt cancellation, I mean I sold my art collection. Most of it was burgled, actually, and I never got it back – the money from the insurance company. But I sold the books, because I’d read them already. And, essentially, thought I’d rather have my own free time than have the books. So, essentially, I sold what I had, had my free time to do the studies, and, I mean, I ended up OK. But I can’t carry the books around. That would be like a shell.

What about what about the notes? Did you take massive handwritten notes? Have you got those? Or you typed?

Yes. I typed up notes on everything. Yes.

OK. So you’ve those sitting somewhere.

I’ve got all the notes that I took.

Because when I read your books, that’s what I find. The voluminous references. And what look like in anybody else, they’d be in footnotes, if they existed at all, because they couldn’t be, because nobody else has read as much as you’ve read of the literature. But then you just find this – you put it together in your brain in a way that – like we’re going through this talk right now, I’m sure people watching and thinking, how the hell does he recall all this stuff. And it’s an amazingly organized structure of knowledge, far broader than any modern economist actually accumulates.

And it’s really because I always had an end in mind. The first discussion that I had with Terence McCarthy, who got me into economics was to realize that the debts couldn’t be paid. And he told me if I read tried to read everything ever written on usury, I still couldn’t
read it during my lifetime. But he said the big problem of our time is the debt. They don’t realize that –

So he was inspiration for that particular ?


What about your – l mean, the line, every time I use it, I say my good friend Michael Hudson’s line is. I embellish it a bit. I’m saying, the debts that can’t be repaid won’t be repaid. And what I add is all you have to work at is how you’re not going to repay them. Which is it.

He wanted me to study that. And that’s why he wanted me to work on Wall Street. And from the very beginning, my focus was on the ability to pay debt and the financial side – looking at the financial system and the flow of funds, and so everything that I was reading, I was organizing.

You know, every economic theory begins with a conclusion and they work back from the conclusion is what kind of logic is going to lead to this.


It’s a reverse of – it’s not empirical. So the is free market people said, how can we tell people that a lower wages are good.

Make a model that the free market gets to equilibrium.

How can we tell people that austerity is good for you? Well, what assumptions are necessary to believe the IMF austerity plan –

Is going to work.

Is good, and all the IMF riots are bad. And so they have the fictitious line of reasoning that they engineer for that. And I was free of that.

And partly because of my political background, I always – I had to go to a school where we had to read Mein Kampf in class. This was the University of Chicago Lab School.

You had to read Mein Kampf in class?

Yes. The Social Science teacher had a sign over his board, “Give them all what the Rosenbergs got.” And I thought he meant communists. But he meant Jews. And in the class, he would call me a commie. But we had a real Stalinist in the class. Danny Landau. And he called me a fascist. And for the first time – the only time in my life I was the voice of reason in the middle.

I converted the class into Trotskyism. Recruited what became basically the leadership of the Young People’s Socialist League, and the Trotskyists, and my friends. And that was the time in my life when I was right in – that was my idea of being in the middle – a centrist.

Yeah. And this is as a school student, like 16?

It still seems realistic to me and this should be the center. So that was my radicalizing high school experience, where I realized – everybody should have a schooling experience where the teacher is in authority and completely so wrong that all of the students know that it’s all full of bullshit, and they lose their trust in authority, and they realize they have to think for themselves. If education did its job, it would be a radicalizing experience by giving you these incompetents and accusers.

I had a similar – like I benefited from a similar sort of thing in some ways. There were two teachers in particular I can think who did exactly what you’re talking about, unintentionally of course. I went to a Marist Brothers school. And there was one teacher who was so duplicitous in his treatment.


My class was sort of divided into the tough side and the brain side. I was the chief of the brain side, and there was a tough gang as well. And he let us have discussions, which he tried to try to chair. And we just got more and more verbal and vocal in our discussions. It began talking about haircuts, and the pill, et cetera, et cetera, and much more progressive. And he told the class we could say whatever we like, it would never go outside the room.

Then one day he was ill, and a replacement teacher came inside. And we’re having our usual conversation just like the other guy was there. And suddenly this guy explodes, I heard what a blasphemous lot your class was, but I didn’t believe it, and now I know. And he’s admonishing us, you could feel these two groups just come together and think that asshole blew our cover.

And he came in the next day, and there was just a wall of 64 kids – we were known as the 32-32 fighting each other. You said you wouldn’t say what we spoke about inside this
room. He had to be replaced inside a Catholic school. The next day, he was removed as our school teacher. We got somebody else.

So that was the same sort of thing, experiencing. And it made you think outside the confines. And what I find weird, because that’s again what I – that’s who I am and that’s who you are as well. And yet you find yourself surrounded by people who follow this stuff. And to me this comes down to trying to understand why does it happen.

I believe people – we see ourselves as critical and curious, wanting to know how things work creatures compared to animals that don’t actually think at all. But I think what we are-
we’re belief systems. We see something. We try to get a belief system that explains how something functions. And we become wedded to the belief system.

And when we share a belief system that makes us extremely powerful against other forces, versus actual lions on the Serengeti or whatever else. We can take on any other species. But now we find ourselves in a world we’ve created out of our belief systems, where the main threat to our existence are those very belief systems. And you and I are now trying to break through that one over debt.

Yup. One friend of mine taught sociology at the University of Chicago. And he was trying to tell them, there is such a thing is that a belief system, and there is the orthodox point of view, and I forget the Veblen term he used. And one of the students said, yes, that’s what we’ve come here to learn.

The brainwashed yes.

I know. I know.

We want to rise.

Again, like even on the radical side. I had a lot of friends who were Marxists. In my student days, I was leading the revolt at Sydney University over the teaching of economics back in 1973 as an undergrad student, just because I regarded the neoclassical stuff as total nonsense, but having abandoned that and having abandoned Catholic religion, as well, I didn’t go to Marx as somebody that I wanted to get a new religion from. I wanted to read Marx and understand the logic of his thinking.

And I was very much skeptic about the labor theory of value. I wanted a serious convincing and that made sense, because I was looking at all these cranes on the skyline of Sydney in

1973, and I was thinking, I just can’t imagine they’re not adding value somehow to output. But that’s a long –

Of course they are. I wish they would have called it the rent theory of price.

Yeah, that would be better. But what – some years later, on the bus I met one of this old Marxist mob, we’d actually kicked in the door of the vice chancellor’s office, you know, at one of our little demos once. And we’re just having a personal conversation, like you and I are having to some extent now about how we got our orientations in life. And he talked about being a school student. And he said, I remember the day that I found Marx. And I thought – I didn’t say it, but I thought to myself, that’s exactly how somebody would say, I found Jesus. He went from one belief system to another belief system.

I find the situation worse in academia. In Wall Street, they know my background. They knew all of our backgrounds. They didn’t care. All they cared about in Wall Street was whether we were right or not and could make good forecasts. And because I could make good forecasts, I did very well.

In the university, they didn’t care at all whether we knew reality. All they wanted to know was are we part of your ideological gang. You know the theme that you have for the ‘on our side’. And no reality. And so I found much more academic freedom on Wall Street than I ever found in the university.

Well, that’s a similar thing that I’m now going through. I’ve been battling through the university sector all the way through my life. That’s where of I’ve done, my battling was there. And you’re right. What I find now, people would expect – that my academic colleagues think, nobody in the finance sector would talk to somebody like Keen, because he’s such a critic of the finance sector. That’s where I get most of my invitations. Because, again, they want people who can actually remove the veil.

These other people want to see what’s to happening.

They want to see what’s actually happening.

Yeah, because there’s money involved.

Yeah. It’s serious stuff. This is actually matters.

Yeah, and these other people – once you get tenure, you don’t have to think anymore.

So it’s a priesthood thing. Because the irony now is that priesthoods have been actually taken over the running of capitalism. And you and I – again the thing that I find frustrating about being critics of bad theory, rather than critics of the system itself fundamentally is that people – when the system is working OK, people think the people who are wearing the mantle of experts must know how it functions. So they don’t bother about economics. They’d rather watch football and want to talk about football and talk about grid iron and soccer than talk about economics. Only after a crisis occurs, do they start talking about economics.

So you and I are lucky in that sense to be alive during a financial crisis, because we have many predecessors. Minsky and Gottlieb being the two most important recent ones who died before.

Well, Minsky was also a Marxist. I mean he didn’t talk about it, but his children told me he gave them Capital – that was the first thing he gave them to read.

You’re talking to Alan.


What’s your Alan story?

Well, just- I don’t have a particular Alan story –

Well, my particular one is actually on this very issue. Because Alan was telling me how he and his father had a usual sort of father-son schism that tends to occur quite regularly, and he didn’t want to study economics. But in his 30s he got more interested and went to his dad finally and said, you know, what book would you recommend me to read first to get into economics.

And he said his dad went into his study, and he came out with a book, and he said, this is the first one you should read. And it says volume one of Das Kapital. And, of course, Minsky couldn’t admit that in academic circles, because it was the McCarthy experience.

Well, no. He told me that he was radicalized at the University of Chicago by the vice president candidate with Norman Thomas on the socialist – Maynard Krieger. And Krieger used to be over at our house a lot. I mean this is part of the group that I grew up around for that. While he and his wife and his children you know will talk to me about Marxism, the Levy Institute and the people around Minsky are sort of embarrassed about that, because they’re trying to cover it up. But that was – he also followed Volume III of Capital.

So people who look at our show, they should read Volume III not only have Capital, but Book III of Theories of Surplus Value.

Well, that’s the – I mean, I was with them when I got my beginning in academia I was doing – my master’s thesis which was on Marx’s theory of value, because I believed Marx’s dialectics contradicted the labor theory of value, and so I – I found that in the Capital Volume I, I found where I saw the contradiction occurring. And though Marx’s theory was far richer than the labor theory of value. It was a –

Whole theory of society.

Yeah. But I then had to go back and read everything Marx wrote from 1844 through to third volume of Capital in chronological order.

But you know the Theories of Surplus Value Marx had meant to be the first volume of Capital, and he summarized that in his critique of political economy, which was his sort of summary of the history of economic thought.

It’s supposed to be a six volume set, and, actually, in that sense Capital as published is one book –

And international. A whole – international trade. So it was enough to me that I wrote that, that was my first big volume in what I taught.

But that’s again, this is one reason I want to get history of economic thought back into universities once more, because that’s not only the – we’re talking about people that wouldn’t even turn up in any history of thought the modern crowd would even consider doing. Their history began in 1973 so far as they’re concerned.

But this richness that you get out of reading history of economic thought doesn’t let you get trapped in any of the particular eddies that you see people getting trapped in. Not just, I’m not just talking about neoclassicals here. I’m talking about some of the other –

A theory of society.


And there’s another reason for that – that all reformers – the classical economists were reformers. They wanted to free industrial capitalism from feudalism. They wanted to get rid of the landlords who’d conquered the land. They wanted to get rid of the monopolists.

And all of the reformers, including you and me, look at the – we have a picture of the overall economy, because we’re showing how something whether it’s bad or good will affect the overall economy. The anti-reformers have something in common – a methodology.

And the methodology is a very narrow minded. Only look at the market as the whole economy. Only look at individuals. So an individual will borrow from another individual.

Not a systemic.

Not looking at banks. Not looking at how the flow of interest and financial gains and capital gains do not appear in the national income. And yet that’s what the name of the game is capital gains, making asset price inflation. We look at the whole economy. But the Austrian School, the Chicago School, the Neoclassical School, the neoliberals carve things up only as how individuals make their money. And that’s really the difference.

Once you can get students to adopt this narrow, tunnel-visioned methodology, they’re not going to see what you and I are talking about, which is the whole society. And that’s what all of the classical economists were talking about. Pro and con. From Smith, Malthus, and Ricardo – they had a great debate between Malthus and Ricardo. It was something that took me a long time to get through. John Stuart Mill. And it all led to Marx. And that traumatized.

I’m going to finish –ask one question if I can, which I think is important. What’s your method for debt abolition? How would you go about reducing the debt?


You’d have to do it on a case-by-case. In Greece’s case, I would have simply called the – Greece’s problem was foreign debt – official government debt. I would have said, this is odious debt. We’re not going to pay it. You, the IMF, knew that we couldn’t pay.

However, the debt is about $50 billion. The Lagarde list of kleptocrats holding accounts in Switzerland just happened to be what we owe. Take that money, folks. But you’re not going to get it from us, because this was simply theft.

For domestic debt, it would depend on a situation. I know you have a plan, and your plan is mathematically logical. The question is how to get it politically, and you almost have to play it by ear when the political situation comes up. But you realize that if you cancel the debts, they’re going to be – the counter to that, is oh, gee, you’re going to give some people a free lunch. And what about all of the poor people that have saved. And you see quite rightly that you have to give some compensation to people who’ve saved up to a middle class degree. But not an exorbitant degree. And I think you’ve worked it out.

So we’re common on the modern debt jubilee?

Yes, we’re common.

Sounds good. Let’s go have dinner then.

(Republished from Real Vision by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Economics, Ideology • Tags: Classical Economics, Debt, Wall Street 
Hide 58 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Pretty thin gruel, with many distortions and omissions.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  2. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @E. A. Costa

    Do you ever utter anything beside a sneer?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  3. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Protective tariffs. A national bank. And internal improvements.

    Makes Wharton School graduate, Trump, sound distinctly [Peshine] Smithite.

    The interview would surely be easier to assimilate in audio format. Is there an audio file that could be attached?

  4. Mike1 says:

    It is very hard to take anything with Steve Keen attached seriously. I asked him some questions on a model he posted on his site. The model made accounting errors so basic a high school student should have been embarrassed to post the work.
    My politely worded questions received shockingly nasty replies from his fans. Even by “hiding behind the keyboard” standards of internet comment sites they were out there. It was interesting to note he replied to these comments but did not reply to me.
    Most economists are charlatans but Keen is unusual in that he pretends he is a renegade and a thinker.

  5. Penultimate? Is there a contract out on Mr. Hudson? Maybe his editor was hit by mistake, because the absence of an editor certainly detracts from this article.

  6. Realist says:

    Economics is called the dismal ‘science’ for a good reason. It’s not science and they are (economist) only right by accident.

  7. OMG, what a tour de force! Due to time constraints I’ll need to revisit this fab article. Anyway, I got as far as this and it alone was worth the time spent because it confirms a concept that many have spoken of for a long time..

    …And other universities they actually insist that you actually go along and agree with what they say. And New York University, the biggest private university in America is just a business – all they wanted was the money, and that’s what I wanted. So I actually learned everything I know about economics while working on Wall Street. But I got the union card, which is a PhD that you need in order to get the job.

    Cf. Note the dates.

    [Annually] our university heads as a rule pray only for the greatest possible number of freshmen to squeeze money from, and do not care whether they are educated or not, provided they are sleek, well groomed, and good-looking, and in one word, men of means.

    Philosophasters innocent of the arts become Masters of Arts, and those are made wise by order who are endowed with no wisdom, and have no qualifications for a degree save a desire for it.

    Theologasters, if they can but pay, have enough learning and to spare, and proceed to the very highest degrees. Hence it comes that such a pack of vile buffoons, ignoramuses wandering in the twilight of learning, ghosts of clergymen, itinerant quacks, dolts, clods, asses, mere cattle …

    – Robert Burton, The Anatomy of Melancholoy (1621), Part 1,Sect.2, Mem.3. Subs 15. Pg. 201 Burton

    Burton was schooled at Oxford and elected a life fellow of Christ Church, a college of the university in 1599. He became a bachelor of divinity in 1614 and later vicar of St. Thomas’s Church, Oxford.

    Plutarch’s comments could be applied to many other specialties than philosophy…

    Farmers take more pleasure in looking at the heads of grain that are bent over and bowed toward the ground, but those that tower aloft owing to their lightness the farmers think are empty cheats; so among the young men who would study philosophy: those who are most empty and have no weight, have assurance and a pose and a gait, and a countenance filled with a haughtiness and disdain which spares nobody; but, as their heads begin to fill and to accumulate some fruitage from their lectures and reading, they lay aside their swagger and superficiality. CAnd just as when empty vessels are being filled with a liquid the air inside is expelled by the pressure, so when men are being filled with the really good things, their conceit gives way and their self-opinion becomes less inflexible; and, ceasing to feel pride in their philosopher’s beard and gown, they transfer their training to their mind, and apply their stinging and bitter criticism most of all to themselves, and are milder in their intercourse with others. They do not arrogate to themselves, as before, the name of philosophy and the repute of studying it, or even give themselves the title of philosopher; Iin fact, a young man of good parts, on being addressed by this title by another, would be quick to say with a blush:
    I am no god, I assure you; why think me like the immortals?28

    Plutarch, Moralia, How a Man May Become Aware of His Progress in Virtue, ~100A.D.

    as published in Vol. I of the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1927*.html

  8. polistra says:

    When you cite “global warming” as a fact, you destroy the rest of your argument and show your role as an Agent Provocateur for financiers. “Global warming” is a scam run by bankers and re-insurers, designed to ruin industry and farming and direct all money into the finance class. Just like Ricardo’s Corn Laws.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @OutWest
    , @Olorin
  9. Most economists are charlatans but Keen is unusual in that he pretends he is a renegade and a thinker.

    I’ve found that most so called “authorities,” whether individuals or institutions, are in fact charlatans and worse.

    While gawd may be dead, and the priests made obsolete, quackery nevertheless thrives.

    Where do people get their faith?

  10. You have to suspend disbelief. You have to act – we’re in an as-if world. And I thought, my god this should be in the literature department as science fiction, not in an economics school.

    The promise and plea of the religious, the powerful and the pedantic to gain approval or license is, “Trust me on this”.

  11. @CanSpeccy

    Admittedly it would be more useful if he spelled out the detail of the omissions and distortions but I also felt tempted to be briefly dismissive along the lines of commenting on the uselessness of having this pair effectively interviewing each other by taking turns to conduct and sing – without dealing with half a dozen major issues, like moral hazard, the morality of changing the rules suddenly and without subtle discrimination on which many had been properly relying according to received wisdom and common culture, the well established bankruptcy law, huge demographic change since the 19th century, whether they were even considering the good side of free trade as experienced by the Chinese etc.

  12. @polistra

    But you undermine your case against the deluded warmists by overstatement and over certainty about the conspiracy version of the warmists campaigns. On the last point it is reasonably clear that the rent seeking derivatives inventors and traders only got into the act quite late in the piece after the IPCC was set up by the UN although lots of rent seeking so-called climate scientists and international place men got on the gravy train pretty early. On the overstatement: the global atmosphere has been on a warming trend though with longish pauses and plateaus for over 200 years starting during the last Little Ice Age before (probably) increases in CO2 emissions could have started the warming. The big failure of all the many models that the IPCC and faith-based warmists rely on is that they don’t explain the many past periods of huge climate variation which can have nothing to do with CO2 (except perhaps to cause its release from the oceans as they warmed).

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @animalogic
  13. Durruti says:

    It is worth a read of this summary by the ‘Rebel Economists.’

    Hudson & Keen manage (in a lengthy introductory article/interview, not to link their analysis of economy to the political reality of Government, specially our American Government. This comment is not to be construed as a criticism, just an observation.

    The interview/discussion brings back memories of Samuelson 101 at a proletarian college, City College NY. I was young and handsome then. I was attracted to Leon Trotsky, simply because I believed him to be some sort of Anarchist. Fought my way (with some friends) through the 1st Volume of Marx’s “Capital” It was quite interesting; even had some humor inserted, but it was too formulaic for my tastes.

    I prefer my economics, (and history), linked to morality.

    On the subject of DEBT, I prefer Jefferson’s, and the Anarchist approach.

    I wrote earlier:


    “The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with a clean slate.”

    As American Founder, Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:

    “I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’:”

    “Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it’s course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation.”

    From the moral, to the heroic, to The Restoration of our Republic! – destroyed, utterly, on November 22, 1963.

    *Economic policies that help the people to advance and prosper, to obtain “unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” are the ones that work. Other economic practices may enrich the few, or fail all.

    • Replies: @Durruti
  14. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Admittedly it would be more useful if he spelled out the detail of the omissions and distortions

    Spelling out any kind of an argument is something he seems to find too much trouble to do. If he has any argument, that is.

    I agree that this discussion is diffuse and largely obscure. But mainstream economics is so obviously bullshit that it is worth considering what other points of view exist, and the Marxist view still has relevance, as does the view, discussed here, that debt has become increasingly an instrument of exploitation rather than a means to raise the general level of prosperity.

  15. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    The real fly in the ointment for the warmists is that there is virtually no possibility of proving their thesis, even though it is quite plausible. The reason there is no way of proving the thesis is that not only is it necessary to model the CO2 effect accurately, but also to model the climate baseline from which CO2 causes deviation. But the baseline is affected by dozens, hundreds, maybe an near infinite number of direct and indirect effects, solar irradiance, land use changes, changes in terrestrial vegetation cover, human caused emissions of black carbon, sulfur, refrigerants, methane, changes in the orientation of the earth relative to the sun, etc.

    In other words, to prove the effect of CO2 on climate by actually predicting climate change requires an near infinitely complex model giving accurate forecasts for decades ahead. Which is completely impossible.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  16. Durruti says:

    Moderator at UNZ,

    Was it necessary to hide half of a short comment (which includes my conclusion), under [MORE]?

    • Replies: @anonymous
  17. OutWest says:

    Actually, global warming is pretty much factual, and has been for maybe 14,000 years. A lot of ice has melted during this period. And a lot has just sat there getting warmer. For some reason –well, maybe profit- scientists now think that climate should be in stasis. Particularly when you name a park Glacier.

    That said, one mechanism for “natural” climate change is the increase in Sun energy reaching the Earth, i.e. Milankovitch Cycle. The small amount of energy is not enough to cause the resulting temperature increase. However, it’s enough to heat the oceans to drive carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This positive feedback amplifies the sun’s increased albedo to cause increased heating. By directly releasing carbon dioxide here on Earth we likewise initiate warming.

    There are better ways to counteract this than the retro technologies government scientists are proposing. The science and engineering are more straightforward than the economics of the article discussion.

    • Replies: @Chuck Barnard
  18. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Yours was an incoherent comment which should have been entirely hidden.

    • Replies: @Durruti
  19. Durruti says:

    “Yours was an incoherent comment which should have been entirely hidden.”

    Coward! What is your name, Mr. “anonymous.”? Identify yourself!

    Care to specify just exactly what part of my comment is “incoherent”?


  20. @OutWest

    However, it’s enough to heat the oceans to drive carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This positive feedback amplifies the sun’s increased albedo to cause increased heating. By directly releasing carbon dioxide here on Earth we likewise initiate warming.

    1. Heating the oceans does not “drive carbon dioxide into the atmosphere”. Carbon dioxide absorbs heat, therefore carbon dioxide dissolved in the ocean tends to make the water warmer.

    2. The sun has no albedo. Presumably, you refer to the Earth’s albedo. If so, increased albedo tends to reflect more sunlight away from the Earth, causing the Earth to cool, not heat.

    3. During any given year, the CO2 either released, or absorbed by the ocean can vary by as much as 6%. The volume of CO2 in the oceans is so enormous that a 1% variation, much less the 6% normal variation, in CO2 released or absorbed, completely swamps-out any contribution of man-made CO2.

    4. If the climate is changing, it’s gonna change, and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

    • Replies: @Wally
  21. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    In Greece’s case, I would have simply called the – Greece’s problem was foreign debt – official government debt. I would have said, this is odious debt. We’re not going to pay it. You, the IMF, knew that we couldn’t pay.

    However, the debt is about $50 billion. The Lagarde list of kleptocrats holding accounts in Switzerland just happened to be what we owe. Take that money, folks. But you’re not going to get it from us, because this was simply theft.

    But this reasoning is odious too. If the lenders knew the borrowers “could not pay” and this makes their lending theft, didn’t the borrowers know they could not pay as well?
    What are they, whining thieves?

    Forcedly ideological close aside, this was an amazing read.

    • Replies: @OutWest
  22. OutWest says:

    Greece’s government borrowed the money (great Olympics). They knew (or should have) that they couldn’t pay. However, it’s not the government people who borrowed that are hurting. I expect they’re doing just fine. The average citizen is now holding the bag. Average equals “other people” in spending other people’s money.

    • Replies: @Clearpoint
  23. @CanSpeccy

    I substantially agree though I think you omit the biggest confounding factor which is the oceans whose CO2 content is perhaps two or three times that of the atmosphere’s and display huge variations in circulation and temperature over tens, hundreds, thousands and indeed millions of years.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  24. Wally says: • Website
    @Chuck Barnard

    And there have been periods where CO2 was much higher while the temperatures were cooler.

    According to the watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) the world should be ablaze as CO2 has risen .. yet temperatures have not.

    Steepest drop in global temperature on record

    Not to mention:

    altered data
    hiding requested data
    models that do not give the results the leftists hope for
    Climate Gate email scandal
    threats against free speech & different views
    firing of non-believing academics

    It’s all about getting taxpayers money for a neo-Marxist agenda.

    • Replies: @Chuck Barnard
  25. @Wally

    It’s all about getting taxpayers money for a neo-Marxist agenda.

    It’s all about grants, fellowships, and the intoxication of power.

    Caterwauling about “marxism” is hyperbolicly stupid. I would amplify, but, jesus h mother-humping christ, it’s stupid, so I won’t. Cya.

  26. Taco Town says:

    There is no mention of Keynes or Keynesian economics anywhere in this article. How can you have a discussion like this without mentioning Keynes? The banks are only half of the problem, the other half is government’s insatiable hunger for debt fueled spending. Debt fueled because the hunger for spending exceeds what the public is willing to bear in taxation. That is why the banks must be protected at any cost.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  27. utu says:

    I have read many articles and interviews with M. Hudson in the past. I liked him because he was giving some hope that alternate approach to economy and monetary policy was possible. I haven’t ready any of his books so I do not know if he follows through with his arguments rigorously. But this interview just made me suspect that M. Hudson is really a lightweight and all the articles of his I read were just his posturing. Also I was turned off by his admission of being Trotskyist and coming form a family with adherence to Trotsky. I just do not get it. I understand how one can be a Baptist or a Methodist but I do not understand how one can be Stalinist or Trotskyist. WTF?

    • Replies: @Clearpoint
  28. @OutWest

    That’s what regime change and political corruption are all about. Politicians are brought into power who are in favor of borrowing large sums of money for projects that are needed or not needed. Saying “no, we can’t afford it” is not an option for these corrupt politicians if they want to remain in power. They operate much more as a partner in crime of the global capitalists than they do as an elected representative of the people of their country. Knowing the end game is economic conquest, and knowing that the precarious position of a country like Greece is due to likeminded corruption on both sides of the negotiating table, debt forgiveness is entirely appropriate.

  29. @utu

    We owe a great debt of gratitude to Mr . Hudson for 3 things: 1) Defining the “free market” in the spirit of the classical economists, i.e. meaning a market that is free from domination by rentiers, monopolists and banks versus the free from government interference (so that the rentiers, monopolists and banks are free to dominate) definition used by the neoclassical, neoliberal, Chicago and Austrian schools of economic thought. 2) Directing our attention to the dangers of debt and the power of compound interest, which are absolutely ignored by the neoclassical, neoliberal, Chicago, and Austrian schools. 3) Success at the top universities and in the economics profession depends not on the quality of your thinking, but on your ability to think as you are told to think. The Marxist and Trotskyist labels don’t bother me at all; nor does the fact Mr. Hudson works as an economics professor or has worked as an analyst for David Rockefeller on Wall Street. What he brings to the table IMO puts him on the side of the angels.

    • Replies: @utu
  30. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    Yes, the ocean is a huge, little understood, factor in the carbon cycle, and in the determination of atmospheric conditions.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  31. utu says:

    1) There are two types of freedom: free form and free to. Marxists like to talk about the former and liberals about the latter. This type of freedom always requires imposition of forbidden activities. The two freedoms are opposed to each other in sense of zero sum gain: More “freedom from” means less “freedom to” and vice versa.

    2) “the power of compound interest” – every child knows about it. It is trivial and a red herring. Every loan has its cost. This cost can be calculated as interest. It is just a semantic issues. The important matter how big is the cost and on what basis banks charge that cost on loans that are risk free to them because the money was created out of thin air.

    “Trotskyist labels don’t bother me at al”: Trotskyist is not a label for Hudson. His family was Trotskyist and in many situation he saw himself as Trotskyist, acting like one and attacked by others (Stalinist) because of being Trotskyist. I feel really embarrassed by it. Grown ups should not be like that. What is it about those Jewish cults like Communism, Trotskyism, Objectivism, Libertarianism, Monetarism, that they can change grownups into some ultra belligerent cub scouts?

  32. Thanks for bringing up Obama’s stand against the pitchforks. He was always the bankers’ pawn. He did nothing to help the people who voted for him, only those who financed his meteoric career.

    So, basically, the Democratic Party broke its voters into a black constituency, a women’s constituency, a LSGBQ constituency, and they’re all for Wall Street. Instead of saving the economy, Obama bailed out and saved the banks by keeping the debts in place. And once
    you have to pay that, it’s curtains. And so the end – everybody’s going to end up in Greece.

    Obama did the same with healthcare. ACA’s accomplishment was to increase the revenue stream to insurers and providers. But the increased premiums and co-pays act as a tax on everyone else. And the deductibles are as high as they ever were for the self-insured; at $7500/yr before your insurance kicks in, your average person pays out of pocket and still faces bankruptcy if they need to use it, as the cost of care continues to inflate due to subsidy.

    Social Security has had almost no COLAs for sometime now, but the Medicare premium is being boosted about 29% from $104.90 to $134 a month. This kind of inflation guarantees the impoverishment of those whose earnings are frozen at past dollar values and inflation rates. I think the average SS check is $900 something. They would be about the same as the monthly premium on ACA for an older person not yet eligible for Medicare.

    Inflation for some but not for others. For an economy, it’s the relativity that has to work, and that is the harm in bailing out banks and hoping something trickles down to workers and retired. We will, indeed, be Greece, while the next bailout will be measured in trillions instead of billions.

    Controlling costs would inconvenience someone’s money making, so that’s the last thing that will happen. That’s why I call Congress an Auction House, because that’s what they do: they auction us off. As you described it, a free market for predators.

    Very informative interview. I look forward to reading your books.

  33. Art says:

    The greatest economic crime of our time is that Wall Street is taking over and destroying Main Street. Local business is disappearing.

    Nine out of ten dollars that are spent in our towns are skimmed by Wall Street.

    Most new businesses are corporate owned by Wall Street.

    Employment and credit decisions are mostly controlled by Wall Street.

    This is all bad for America. We are just impersonal numbers to Wall Street.

    Peace — Art

    • Replies: @E. A. Costa
  34. @CanSpeccy

    Oops! Not two or three times but pteo or three hundred times. The ocean point a fortiori.

  35. @Taco Town

    Keynes would have been very unhappy at people appropriating his name for all that debt fuelled spending that wasn’t needed for specific well justified reasons such as infrastructure with a positive payoff or escaping depression when those with the spending power wouldn’t spend.

    • Replies: @Taco Town
  36. Taco Town says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    I was speaking more of what Keynes has become, not what he intended. It’s absence from the interview kind of confuses me. The banks are discussed to a large extent, but the governments borrowing from those banks is barely touched.

  37. Ivan says:

    I read that in addition to the issue of the Corn Laws, the British had their eyes on the markets in Portugal’s colonies mainly Brazil. Portugal was then obligated to the British due to the Peninsular Wars, where Britain was allied to the Portuguese. In sum, due to the fiction of – comparative advantage – the Portuguese remained – hewers of oak casks, and drawers of wine – an industry that remained comparatively technically backward, when contrasted with the textile industries that Britain specialised in, and lost control of their own colonies.

    Politics rule all. The economic theories mainly justify the political outcomes.

    • Replies: @utu
  38. utu says:

    British had an eye on Portugal and its colonies much earlier before various theories of economics were formulated. But the motives were always economical. Do you remember the movie Mission? The wiping out of Spanish Jesuit missions (reductions) put the stop to very successful and profitable plantations of yerba mate that was a serious competitor to British imports of tea from China and later from India.

    “Politics rule all. The economic theories mainly justify the political outcomes.” – Exactly!

  39. Cato says:

    I got to about the fourth paragraph, where I encountered this bit of confidently proclaimed falsehood:

    “Classical economics was all about separating the rent-extracting sectors – landlords, monopolies, and finance – from the rest of the economy. And that was unearned income. It wasn’t necessary. And the whole idea of classical economics from Quesnay’s Tableau Economique to all the way through Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill was to look at the finance sector and the landlord sector and monopolies as unnecessary. You’re going to get rid of them. You’re going to tax away all the land’s rent or else nationalize the land. And you are going to have public enterprises as basic infrastructure so that they couldn’t be monopolized.”

    Total, total, BS. These guys know nothing about the history of economics.

    • Replies: @E. A. Costa
  40. @Cato

    Stopped at the same point–skimmed the rest. These are Trotskyite or semi-Trotskyite clowns.

    Ricardo as a bank lobbyist is also droll. Actually he began as a brilliant gold trader. Seems he forgot what he was up when he became a landlord.

    For Capitalists, of course, the main problem with Ricardo is that he was entirely honest in his still brilliant structural analysis, giving the game away, as Marx saw.

    • Replies: @utu
  41. @Art

    It is called Finance Capitalism.

    Capitalism as a system is quite new–about four hundred years old, though there have been earlier limited forms, like Merchant Capitalism, Usury Capitalism and such in specific sectors.

    As a system Capitalism unfolds in three stages: (1) Agrarian Capitalism; (2) Industrial Capitalism, (3) Finance Capitalism. In each stage there is a non-dominant nucleus of the other two forms. As stages, however, Agrarian Capitalism produces the requirements for Industrial Capitalism and Industrial Capitalism produces what is required for Finance Capitalism. The dynamic of change from the first to last stage is mediated by the commoditization of production for markets, including the commoditization of labor and also by profit measured abstractly in monetary terms.

    Capital, by the way, is not synonymous with money–a very common misunderstanding.

    At any rate the United States, as Europe was in the years leading up to World War I, in now in the Finance Capital stage.

    • Replies: @Art
  42. utu says:
    @E. A. Costa

    “These are Trotskyite or semi-Trotskyite clowns.” – They are charlatans who prey on naive and well intentioned leftists and all those who are fed up with the neoliberal New World Order.

    Hudson has nothing to offer. The mutual interview between the two was like name dropping contest and Trotskyist virtue signaling. A meeting of two minor rebbes reminiscing the great Tzadiks they met in life.

    I am really disappointed because I had this hope in me that one day I am going to read Hudson’s books to get the final lowdown on economics. And now I know I would not find in them anything useful or credible. He is such a lightweight, fraud and charlatan.

    “He was assigned the English-language rights to the works of György Lukács by the author, and also the rights to Leon Trotsky’s writings and archives after his widow’s death.” – I wonder how much does it pay now the taking care of archives of great Leon Bronstein and Löwinger György Bernát one of the founders of the Frankfurt School.

  43. Sam J. says:

    I thought this was a great article. It was very interesting to hear about alternatives to the present economic system. Presently the Oligarchs own the government and make laws that funnel money to their pockets. I would bet my life the banks own damn near everything by now. If they don’t own everything then they are the most incompetent fools in history with all the cash we shoved their way. They got, we know from Rep. Ron Paul’s forced audit of the FED $16 trillion. Estimates of the total amounts a few years ago from looking at financial data is $29 trillion. At $29 Trillion and 300 million Americans we could have given a zero interest loan for every family of four of $386,666. Housing crisis solved and the economy would have roared with all that cash going into people’s pockets. Instead the banks got all the money to buy hard assets and we got the bill. We would be much better off printing money straight up and just giving it to people. There will be gasp at this idea but if printing 29 Trillion and giving it to the banks is not bad then why would bankrupting the banks and giving 29 trillion to the public be worse?

    Scott Smith a guy who ran for President in 2016 has some interesting ideas on banking and currency. He points out that when people buy bonds they can instantly monetize those in the market essentially creating more cash. Since it’s already money wouldn’t it be better to just directly print the money and have NO interest that keeps being added to the debt which is monetized anyways? Another effect of printing cash with no debt is that if your going to have inflation it will be quickly apparent. No more passing the buck with delayed bonds. You print too much and you get the bad effects, NOW.

    We need to do something different. From reading around I gather that the next step is to kick the debt problem upstairs and instead of having national currencies we will be stuck with a new global system (SDR’s) based on baskets of currencies that’s exactly the same as the old system but further removed. Better to control you with. Remember the words to that Who song? ”
    …Meet the new boss Same as the old boss…”

  44. Sam J. says:

    I not sure if Michael Hudson actually reads these comments or the article is just aggregated from elsewhere. If he does I would like to know his opinion of Scoot Smiths ideas.

    1. I noted earlier that he said we should not add debt any more when the government spends money. I do realize that the government could get carried away, as they usually do, and print to catastrophe but they borrow to catastrophe now so it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other.
    2. He says since the debt is already monetized we should pay it off within five years. Noting that the FED owns most of it and it could just be zeroed away in accounting and the rest pay off in cash over five years.
    3. His taxation idea is really unique. For revenue instead of getting most from income taxes he would get revenue from settlements. Like every time you buy something or deposit a check in the bank, etc. The value of this is it massively raises the tax base so that the amount of each transaction is minuscule. I read, “For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization” by Charles Adams a book on taxes and it talked a lot about raising the tax base in order to lower the percentage taken from each transaction and to spread out where revenues came from.

    Let’s look at the numbers he quotes.

    Payrolls total $15 trillion.
    Not much for filling a $4 trillion federal spending.

    The base for what he calls payments, (transactions), is 3,600 Trillion. Big difference. So using this big difference he would only take a tax rate of just 1/8 of a percent.

    The problem with this might be that all payments would be restructured to pay no taxes. It’s an interesting idea though.

    5.He also would stop charging interest as the money is made and backed by the taxpayers. He would only give banks a service fee.
    (I don’t agree with this. I think a small interest paid to the Federal Gov. would be helpful providing the majority of it went to the treasury and bypassed the FED and banks.) Also the problem would be banks forcing loans for fees but it’s not like they don’t do that now.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Sam J.
  45. utu says:
    @Sam J.

    Thanks for the link to Scott Smith. I would like to know about his background and whether his ideas have some precedence in literature or whether it is all self-home-made one-man form Boulder operation?

  46. Art says:
    @E. A. Costa

    Capital, by the way, is not synonymous with money–a very common misunderstanding.g.

    Capital. The future is everything. Human capital is the wherewithal and capacity to create a series of assured tomorrows. Capital is something stored that has potential, something in the ready to do work. In physical nature, capital is potential energy. If one has capital, one has control of something that can make tomorrow better. The most fundamental human capital is one’s own biological life force. The next major form of individual human capital is personal knowledge and knowhow. In Western society, our body and mind are ours, we are the owners of each. The next form of human capital is our ability to form ongoing cooperative organizations with each other (i.e., enterprises).

    The “organization itself” is a form of human capital that has the potential to advance tomorrow. Everyone in these enterprise organizations plays a significant valued role in building the future. These organizations feed us, they sustain our lives. Like our personal ownership of body and mind, we should have some personal ownership in our future producing cooperative enterprises and organizations. The organization is capital.

    • Replies: @Sam J.
  47. joe webb says:

    same old same old.

    What will work is the issue, not a rehearsal of marxist econ 101.

    lots of cliches flying around in a tornado.

    Where is the Assertion of a new policies? Not here, A nationalist economics should be discussed, as well as integration of White Internationalism…trading with the White world and cutting loose the Chinas, etc.

    Joe Webb

  48. “In Western society, our body and mind are ours, we are the owners of each.”

    John Locke’s absurdity–“You own yourself”. Come again? Who does the owning and who is the owned? Can “you” sell “yourself” to “you” and make a profit? But these are simply the logical nonsensicalities in Locke.

    Rather than concluding that human beings are NOT property, he is arguing to turn everyone into some form of same, and calling that “liberty”. Very convenient for the Classical Liberal agenda a that was developing into its full form. It still survives among certain Libertarians and Ron Paul made it a keystone of his little catechism when he ran for president before pulling out to reckon up the gold he had accumulated.

    But this is a long story.

    Capital also includes infrastructure–even Ezra Pound figured that one out. A road that lasts a hundred years is part of the capital of the society that uses it.

    As a matter of fact, modern “Capitalism” as a system is not interested in that type of Capital because its “profit” is more general and social than quick, individual gain measured in money value. The constant destruction required by Capitalism, even Schumpeter recognized, but rechristened it “creative destruction” and tried to make a virtue of it.

    Note also that Locke argues that money itself works, a separate issue from the commoditization of money through debt-credit and interest.

    The first half may be hard going for someone unfamiliar with the historical background but the best book on the subject since Marx is Ellen Meiksins Wood’s The Origin Of Capitalism (various editions). By the second half, after establishing the grounds, she is magnificent on the subject. Everything she says is implicit in Marx’s Capital, but here gets a detailed, masterly review. Don’t miss the section on Locke’s “improvement”.

    • Replies: @Art
    , @ThoughtDeviant
  49. Sam J. says:

    “…Capital, by the way, is not synonymous with money–a very common misunderstanding…”

    This is true but more and more capital is being turned into money by derivatives or monetizing of assets. So in a lot cases capital IS money.

    • Replies: @Art
  50. Sam J. says:
    @Sam J.

    One thing I really like about Scott Smith’s ideas is it takes the money creation aspect away from bankers. This is a huge societal shift in how value gets created. With banks only getting a fee the real money would be in producing something. Think if you took all the aggressive Wall Street bankers and told them the only way they could make money was to provide a service or product that people would pay for. The effects would be profound.

  51. Art says:
    @E. A. Costa

    John Locke’s absurdity–”You own yourself”. Come again? Who does the owning and who is the owned? Can “you” sell “yourself” to “you” and make a profit? But these are simply the logical nonsensicalities in Locke.

    It has been said that “once a donkey kicked a lion — the lion was dead.” John Lock was a lion among thinkers.

    Capital also includes infrastructure–even Ezra Pound figured that one out. A road that lasts a hundred years is part of the capital of the society that uses it.

    Again – “organization is capital.” What comes first – the organization of humans who made the road – or the road. Isn’t the most important “capital” the human organization that created the road? In Western culture roads are built by people who “own themselves”- just like Locke said.

    What really matters is who owns the road. Should it not be the local people who both use and created the road?

    Peace — Art

  52. Art says:
    @Sam J.

    This is true but more and more capital is being turned into money by derivatives or monetizing of assets. So in a lot cases capital IS money.

    All money is make-believe – its value is manipulated – bankers (and the governments they control) play with it to benefit themselves.

    Real stored value is in the long-term ownership of organizations (enterprises) that do things that extend our lives.

    Peace — Art

  53. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Any fan of Jubilee …. spend some time in Argentina. They do it on fairly regular schedule. Or the argument about the great German Miracle in 1948. The Swiss missed all the excitement and are doing quite nicely without miracles. When a country is firebombed into rubble, everything is reset and debt may not be the least of it — but it certainly isn’t the most of it.

    Meanwhile, I was glad to see Irving Fisher and his Debt Deflation theory mentioned. It’s not like we haven’t gone through this before. The idea that liquidating the economy — not as great as it might sound to these rebels.

    As far as the debt deflation we are having now? Like it is a given and obvious. Once again, back to Fisher — its all in the details. Overall price levels are uncharacteristically stable. It’s just details, details and details. Lets liquidate you and bail me out.

    I don’t know anything about economics other than Samuelson and personal experience in markets. My advice would be to take a refresher course in the real world — go back to work at a bank or something.

  54. Anonymous [AKA "CalpersChump"] says:

    Hit back at the system, pay off your debts and borrow no more.

    Our family is spending nothing that we absolutely don’t have to in the remainder of the Obama term.

    We are going on a major shopping spree in the Spring when Donald Trump is in the white house.

  55. As someone whose background assumptions on what is normal acceptable economic discourse were formed by the late cold war/Reagan era, I can’t get over the weirdness of our current political moment. Over at his Vox Populi blog, Teddy Beale is talking up Steve Keene, one degree of separation from Hudson, the official economist of Counterpunch leftists. Reagan Treasury official Paul Craig Roberts is sounding like a bombthrower from deep in the era when Murray Rothbard, Karl Hess, Carl Oglesby and Marty Sklar were all at the same parties. It just keeps getting weirder.

  56. @E. A. Costa

    Mr Costa,

    Can you name your five essential economic books? You seem very knowledgeable about this topic.

  57. Olorin says:

    Come back when you can distinguish between propaganda (political bullshit) and scientific consensus. And also when you have completed a 12-step program for your addiction to rhetorical hyperbole.

    I don’t disagree that there is a lot of bullshit in discussions of this topic. It’s why I left one of my former (lucrative) careers and burned every bridge.

    But there are data-based truths regarding global climatological systems and human impacts on those that are being overlooked as studiously and systematically as the left ignores population genetics.

    Let’s not make that same stupid 20th century-mindset cluster of mistakes.

    We have senses and the analytical capacities (instrumentation and computation) that have evolved far faster than our political and social systems.

    Let’s push ourselves to evolve in line with our new prosthetic capacities.

Current Commenter

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

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Michael Hudson Comments via RSS