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
The Economics of American Super Imperialism
How the US Makes Countries Pay for Its Wars
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

Economist Michael Hudson explains how American imperialism has created a global free lunch, where the US makes foreign countries pay for its wars, and even their own military occupation.

Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton discuss the economics of Washington’s empire, the role of the IMF and World Bank, attempts to create alternative financial systems like BRICS, and the new cold war on China and Russia.

PART 2 OF 2 (Interview recorded on April 13, 2020)

Part 1: “US coronavirus ‘bailout’ scam is $6 trillion giveaway to Wall St – Economist Michael Hudson explains

Michael Hudson’s website: michael-hudson.com

PDF of his book Super Imperialism: michael-hudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/superimperialism.pdf

Audio:

Transcript

(Teaser – 0:03)

MICHAEL HUDSON: The World Bank has one primary aim, and that’s to make other countries dependent on American agriculture. This is built into its articles of agreement. It can only make foreign-currency loans, so it will only make loans to countries for agricultural development, roads, if it is to promote exports.

So the United States, through the World Bank, has become I think the most dangerous, right-wing, evil organization in modern history — more evil than the IMF. That’s why it’s almost always been run by a Secretary of Defense. It has always been explicitly military. It’s the hard fist of American imperialism.

Its idea is to make Latin American, and African, and Asian countries export plantation crops , especially plantations that are U.S.- or foreign-owned. The primary directive of the World Bank to countries is: “You must not feed yourself; you must not grow your own grain or your own food; you must depend on the United States for that. And you can pay for that by exporting plantation crops.”

(Intro – 1:45)

BEN NORTON: Here at Moderate Rebels we talk a lot about imperialism. I mean it’s really the main point of this show. This program explores how US imperialism functions, how it works on the global stage, how neoliberal policies of austerity and privatization are forced at the barrel of a gun through the US military, through invasion and plunder.

We talk about it in Venezuela, Iraq, Syria and so many countries. But we often don’t talk about the specific economic dynamics of how it works through banks, loans, and bonds.

Well, today we are continuing our discussion with the economist Michael Hudson, who is really one of the best experts in the world when it comes to understanding how US imperialism functions as an economic system, not just through a system of military force. Of course the economics are maintained and undergirded by that military force. And we talk about how the military force is expressed through regime-change wars and military interventions.

But Michael Hudson also explains how the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the US financial system, banks and Wall Street all work together, hand in glove with the military to maintain that financial chokehold.

He spells this all out brilliantly in a book called Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire. He began to write that book in 1968, and then recently updated it in 2002, published again in 2003 with the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan, and kind of updated and showed how, even though the system that he detailed 50 years ago hasn’t really changed, it has shifted in some ways.

So today we’re gonna talk about how that international imperialist system dominated by the US works.

Michael Hudson, who in the first part of this talked about the scheme that is the coronavirus bailout — if you want to watch the first part you can go find that at moderaterebels.com; it’s on YouTube, Spotify, iTunes, any other platform.

Michael Hudson is an economist and he’s also a longtime Wall Street financial analyst. He is also a professor of economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, and you can find his work at michael-hudson.com, which I will link to in the show notes for this episode.

So without further ado, here is the second part of our interview with Michael Hudson.

(4:37)

MAX BLUMENTHAL: I think it’s a good transition point to talk about another kind of scam you’ve identified. There’s a really hilarious aside in the second preface to your book “Super Imperialism,” where Herman Kahn, who is, I think a founder of the Hudson Institute, which you went to work for. He was also the inspiration for the Dr. Strangelove character and Stanley Kubrick’s film.

There’s an award that the neocons give out every year named for him; Benjamin Netanyahu is a recent award winner.

But Herman Kahn was he was on a panel for one of your talks, where you laid out your theory of “Super Imperialism,” and how the United States actually gets other countries to subsidize its empire, and is able to expand and carry out this massive imperial project without having to impose austerity on its own population, as other countries have to do under IMF control.

So Herman Kahn comes up to you after the talk and says, “You actually identified the rip-off perfectly.” And your book starts selling like hotcakes in DC, I guess among people who work for the CIA, and people who work in the military-intelligence apparatus.

MICHAEL HUDSON: What he said was, “We’ve pulled off the greatest ripoff in history. We’ve gone way beyond anything that British Empire ever thought of.” He said, “That’s a success story. Most people think imperialism is bad; you’ve shown how it’s the greatest success story — we get a free lunch forever!”

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Right. So explain the ripoff you identified there, and how it is being perpetuated under the Trump administration in ways that I think are pretty amazing, including through the imposition of unprecedented sanctions on something like one-third of the world’s population.

(6:40)

ORDER IT NOW

MICHAEL HUDSON: Well I wrote “Super Imperialism” in 1972, and it was published exactly one year after President Nixon took America off gold in August of 1971. he reason he took America off gold was that the entire balance-of-payments deficit from the Korean War to the Vietnam War was military in character.

Especially in the ’60s, the money that America was spending in Vietnam and Southeast Asia had to be spent locally. And the banks were French banks, because it was French Indochina. So all the money would be sent to Paris, to the banks’ head offices, turned over from dollars into francs, and General de Gaulle would end up with these dollars. Then every month he would send the dollars and want payment in gold. And Germany would do the same thing.

So the more America fought militarily, it depleted its gold stock, until finally, in August 1971, it said, “We’ve been using gold as the key to our world power ever since World War I, when we put Europe on rations. So we’re going to stop paying gold.”

They closed the gold window. And most of the economists were all saying, “Oh my heavens, now it’s going to be a depression.” But I said, “Wait a minute, now that other countries can no longer get gold from all this military spending” — and when you talk about the balance-of-payments deficit, it’s not the trade deficit, it’s not foreign investment; it’s almost entirely military in character.

So all this money that wasspent abroad, how are we ever going to get it back? Well, these dollars we spend around the world, mainly for the 800 military bases and the other activities we have, these dollars end up in foreign central banks.

The question is, what are these foreign central banks going to do with these dollar inflows? Well we wouldn’t let foreign central banks buy American industries. We would let them buy stocks, but not become a majority owner.

A former mentor, the man who taught me all about the oil industry at Standard Oil, became undersecretary of the Treasury for international affairs. When Herman Kahn and I went to the White House, he said, “We’ve told the Saudi Arabians that they can charge whatever they want for their oil, but all the money they get, they have to recycle to the United States. Mostly they can buy Treasury bonds, so that we’ll have the money to keep on spending.” They could also buy stocks, or they can do what the Japanese did and buy junk real estate and lose their shirts.

So basically, when America spends money abroad, central banks really don’t speculate. They don’t buy companies. They buy Treasury bonds. So we run a monetary deficit; the dollars are spent abroad; the central banks lend them back to the Treasury; and that finances the budget deficit, but it also finances the balance-of-payments deficit. So we just keep giving paper IOUs, not gold

I think President George W. Bush said, “We’re never really going to repay this. They get counters, but we’re not going to repay it.” And then, as a matter of fact, you have Tom Cotton a senator from [Arkansas] saying, “Well you know China holds savings of $2 trillion or so in US Treasury bonds. Why don’t we just not pay them? They gave us the virus; let just grab it and nullify it.”

We can nullify Iranian assets, Venezuelan assets — it’s like a bank can just wipe out other deposits you have, if it wants militarily. So the United States doesn’t have any constraint on military spending, as it did uner the gold standard.

Now Herman Kahn and I on another occasion went to the Treasury Department, and we talked about what the world would look like on a gold standard. I said, “Gold is a peaceful metal. If you have to pay in gold, no country with a gold standard can afford to go to war anymore. Because a war would entail a foreign exchange payment, and you’d have to pay this foreign exchange in gold, not IOUs, and you would end up going broke pretty quickly.”

Needless to say, someone from the Defense Department said, “That’s why we’re not going to do it.”

Here’s an example: Let’s suppose that you go to the grocery store and you buy food and then sign an IOU for everything that you buy. You go to a liquor store, IOU. You buy a car, IOU.

You get everything you want just for an IOU. But when people try to collect the IOUs, you say, “That IOU isn’t for collecting from me. Trade it among yourselves. Think of it as your savings, and trade it among yourselves. Treat it as an asset, just as you treat a dollar bill saved in a cookie jar and not spent.”

Well you’d get a free ride. You’d be allowed to go and write IOUs for everything, and nobody could ever collect. That’s what the United States position is, and that’s what it wants to keep.

And that’s why China, Russia, and other countries are trying to de-dollarize, trying to get rid of the dollar. They are buying gold so that they can settle payments deficits among themselves in their own currency, or currencies of friendly countries, and avoid dollars altogether.

(12:21)

BEN NORTON: Michael, in the first part of this interview, when we were talking about the coronavirus bailout and the $6 trillion that were just basically given to Wall Street, you mentioned that basically just a con scheme. But you said, really, that a lot of people are surprised, that they don’t think the system can work this way, because it just seems so blatantly stacked against them, so blatantly unfair.

Your book Super Imperialism is so mind-blowing because, in simplistic terms to someone who is definitely a non-expert like me, it just becomes so clear that, as you put it, the US for decades, since the end of World War Two, has been really obtaining “the largest free lunch ever achieved in history,” the way you put it.

ORDER IT NOW

I’m gonna read just two paragraphs here really quickly from your book, and then maybe ask you to unpack exactly how this works. But right at the beginning — and this is the updated version of your book, and we’ll link to your book in the show notes for this show. So anyone, I would highly recommend anyone listening could go buy Super Imperialism.

MICHAEL HUDSON: I’m going to be republishing it through my own institute. It’s very hard to get the book; that’s why I’m buying the rights back. It’s really not marketed in this country very much. So at any rate it’s on my website, and you don’t have to buy the book. You can go to my website and get many of the chapters.

BEN NORTON: Excellent, well I’m gonna link to your website in the show notes that’s michael-hudson.com. And thank you for putting that up, because I’ve been reading the PDF, and it’s incredible.

So you write in the the introduction to the new updated version, which you wrote in 2002, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, you wrote:

“The Treasury bonds standard of international finance has enabled the United States to obtain the largest free lunch ever achieved in history. America has turned the international financial system upside down, whereas formerly it rested on gold, central bank reserves are now held in the form of US government IOUs, that can be run up without limit.

“In effect America has been buying up Europe, Asia, and other regions with paper credit, US Treasury IOUs that it has informed the world it has little intention of ever paying off.

“And there is little Europe or Asia can do about it except to abandon the dollar and create their own financial system.”

So this seems to me as an outsider to be totally insane, to be a total con scheme. Can you explain how that scheme works, and especially in light of neoliberal economics?

I took, just in college, basic introductory economics classes that were mandatory, especially microeconomics, and in those classes they teach you this neoliberal, libertarian form of economics, and they teach you the famous Milton Friedman quote, “There is no such thing in economics as a free lunch.” But you’re pointing out that actually, on the international stage, this whole thing is a giant free lunch for the US empire.

(15:53)

MICHAEL HUDSON: The financial economy is basically a free lunch. And if you’re going to get a free lunch, then you protect yourself by saying there is no such thing as a free lunch. Obviously it does not want to make itself visible. It wants to make itself as invisible as possible.

Most of these countries in Asia get dollars from US military spending. They say, “What are we going to do with the dollars?” They buy US Treasury bonds, which finance the military spending on the military bases that encircle them. So they’re financing their own military encirclement!

It’s a circular flow. The United States spends dollars in these countries; the local recipients turn them over for local currency; the local currency recipients, the food sellers and the manufacturers, turn the dollars over to the banks for domestic currency, which is how they operate; and the dollars are sent back to the United States; and it’s a circular flow that is basically military in character.

The gunboats don’t appear in your economics textbooks. I bet your price theory didn’t have gun boats in them, or the crime sector. And probably they didn’t have debt in it either.

So if you have economics talking as if the whole economy consists of workers spending their wages on goods and services; government doesn’t play a role except to interfere. But government is 40 percent of GDP, mainly military in character. So obviously, economics doesn’t really talk about what you think of the economy. It doesn’t talk about society.

It talks about a very narrow segment that it isolates, as if we’re talking about a small organ in the body, without seeing the body as a whole economic system, an interrelated system that is dominated and controlled by the finance and real estate sector, which also has gained control of the government.

And the finance, insurance, and military-industrial complex make themselves invisible and absent from the textbook, then people are not going to look there and ask, “How did that affect our life? How does that affect the economy?” And they’re not going to see what’s making the economy poor and pushing it into depression.

(18:11)

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well I can’t give out IOUs on everything, on my own debts, because when the debt collector comes, I don’t have gunboats; I don’t have machine guns; I don’t have any gun.

I mean if I wanted to get a gun I couldn’t get one, because they’re all bought up in Virginia, across the river, because you know everyone’s panicking. And I’m sure they’re defending themselves by like having their guns accidentally go off and shoot their dogs.

But that’s kind of what’s missing as well from this theory is that, if people try to collect their debt on the US, the US can do severe damage to them, militarily or otherwise.

Let’s game this out. I mean how do you see this playing out in Venezuela, where the Venezuelan government has tried to go around US sanctions, has tried to to work with Russia and China to sell gold; it’s had something like $5 billion of assets stolen by the US through sheer piracy in the past year.

And now the US has dispatched I think more naval ships than we’ve seen in Latin America or in South America at any time in the last 30 years.

(19:27)

MICHAEL HUDSON: Well that’s the other part of “Super Imperialism”: debt bondage. Venezuela had a US-installed dictator, a right-winger, some years ago, and changed the law in Venezuela so that Venezuela’s sovereign debt, borrowsedin dollars, is backed by the collateral of its oil reserves. And it has the largest oil reserves in South America.

So the United States wants to grab the oil reserves. Just as Vice President Cheney said we’re going into Iraq and Syria to grab the oil, America would like all these oil reserves in Venezuela.

ORDER IT NOW

How does it get them? Well, it doesn’t have to technically invade. Finance is the new mode of warfare. The US tried to grab these reserves by saying, “Let’s block Venezuela from earning the money by exporting the oil and earning the money from its US investments to pay the foreign debt. So we’re just going to grab the investment, and we’re going to select a mini dictator. We’re going to give designate Mr. Guaidó as their head of state, and say, “This oil and bank deposits don’t belong to Venezuela; we’re arbitrarily taking it away and we’re giving the oil distribution assets in North America to Guaidó. We’re going to block Venezuela from paying the debt.”

That means it’ll default on a foreign debt, so the vulture funds and bondholders can now grab Venezuelan oil, anywhere, under international law, because it is pledged as collateral for its debt, just as if you’d borrowed a mortgage debt and you’d pledged your home and the creditor could take away your home, like Obama had so many people lose their homes.

But Venezuela still is managing to scrape by. So they may need a military force to invade Venezuela, like Bush invaded Panama or Grenada. It’s an oil grab. So what finance couldn’t achieve, finally you really do need the military fist. Finance is basically backed by military, and domestically by force, by the sheriff, by the police department. It’s the force needed to kick you out of the house.

So the question is, what is the defense by the indebted people in America? Does there have to be an armed revolution here to cancel the debts? Do they have to eat the rich? That’s the question shaping today’s politics in America.

I don’t see it being solved. If it is not solved by the indebted people simply starving to death, committing suicide, getting sick or emigrating, then there will have to be a revolution. Those are the choices in America.

Venezuela said, “We’re not going to starve quietly in the dark.” So there’s a military buildup pretending that it’s all about drugs, when Venezuela is threatening to interrupt the CIA’s drug trade. I mean that’s the irony of this! It’s the CIA that’s the drug dealer, not the Venezuelan government. So we’re in the Orwellian world that works through the organs or the New York Times, the Washington Post, MSNBC, National Public Radio, the real right-wing of America.

(23:00)

MAX BLUMENTHAL: I’m so glad you boiled it down like that. Because so much of what we do at The Grayzone is to punch holes in the propaganda constructs that are used to basically provide liberal cover for what is sheer gangsterism.

MICHAEL HUDSON: It’s much more black and white than gray.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah well, we should call it The Black and White Zone.

We’re seeing it as well in Syria, where we’ve had one kind of human rights propaganda construct after another. And now at the end of the line, as the whole proxy war ends, Trump says, “We have to keep the troops there because of oil. We need them to guard the oil fields.”

So it all becomes clear. But it’s unclear to everyone who’s been confused for the past years, following the way that the war has been marketed to them through these corporate media and US government publications that you just named. It’s just, we’re there for the oil.

BEN NORTON: Michael, I mean there are so many ways we could explore this topic further, and hopefully we can have you back more often in the future, because we definitely need more economics coverage. We frequently talk about the political side of a lot of these issues of US imperialism, but of course the economic element is absolutely integral to understand what’s happening.

I’m also very interested, you mentioned before we started this interview, that your book “Super Imperialism” is very popular in China, and that even in schools there people are reading it. The question of China I think is the central question of this century — the rise of China, the so-called “threat” that China poses, in scare quotes, to the US. Of course China doesn’t threaten the American people, but rather the chokehold that the US has on the international financial system.

And we have seen under Trump — I mean it’s been happening for years. It really actually began under Obama with the “Pivot to Asia,” and that was Hillary Clinton’s State Department strategy – to move toward the encirclement of China.

But now under Trump it has become the main foreign policy bogeyman of the Trump White House. And especially now with coronavirus, every day the corporate media is full of non-stop anti-china propaganda — “China is the evil totalitarian regime that’s going to take over the world, and we have to unite with the Republicans in order to fight against China.”

And we now even see figures openly defending the “new cold war,” as they call it. They say we’re in a new Cold War, as the right-wing historian from Harvard Niall Ferguson put it in the New York Times recently.

So I’m wondering, your book I think is even more relevant now than it was when you first wrote it, it’s so, so relevant. But what about the question of China? And what about the question of this new cold war? Do you think that could challenge the US-dominated financial system that was created after World War II, using the weapons of the World Bank and the IMF, as you spell out? Are we heading maybe toward the creation of a new international financial system?

(26:24)

MICHAEL HUDSON: What makes China so threatening is that it’s following the exact, identical policies that made America rich in the 19th century. It’s a mixed economy. Its government is providing basic infrastructure at subsidized prices to lower the cost of living and doing business, so that its export industry can make money. It’s subsidizing research and development, just like the United States did in the 19th century and early 20th century.

So America basically says to the rest of the world, “Do as we say, not as we do, and not as we’ve done.”

ORDER IT NOW

China has a mixed economy that is working very well. You can just see the changes occurring there. It realizes that the United States is trying to disable it, that that the United States wants to control all the sectors of production that have monopoly pricing — information technology, microchip technology, 5G communications, military spending.

The United States wants to be able to pay for goods from the rest of the world with overpriced exports, American movies, anything that has a patent that yields a monopoly price.

America, in the 1950s tried to fight China by sanctioning grain exports to China. You mentioned sanctions earlier, the first sanctions were used against China, trying to starve them with grain. Canada broke that embargo, and China was very friendly to Canada, until Canada’s prime minister now takes his orders from a small basement office in the Pentagon, and has agreed to grab Chinese officials. Canada is not a country anymore. So China does not feel so friendly towards Canada now that it’s become a US satellite.

China realized that it can’t depend on America for anything. The US can cut it off with sanctions like it has tried to do with Iran, with Venezuela, with Cuba. So the idea of China, Russia and other countries in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization has been: “We have to be independent within ourselves, and make a Eurasian trading area, and we will take off because we are successful industrial capitalism, evolving into socialism, into a mixed economy, with the government handling all of the monopoly sectors to prevent monopoly pricing here.”

“And we don’t want American banks to come in, create paper dollars, and buy out all of our industries. We’re not going to let America do that.”

(29:29)

I have gone back to China very often. I’m a professor at Peking University, and I have honorary professorships in Wuhan.. There are a number of articles on my website from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences on de-dollarization, essentially how China can avoid the use of the dollar by becoming independent in agriculture, technology, and banking.

China’s threat of is that it will not be a victim. Victimizers always look at the victims as vicious attackers of themselves. So America says China is a vicious threat because it’s not letting us exploit them and victimize them. This is the Orwellian rhetoric of the bully. The bully always believes that the person he’s attacking is a threat. Just like in Germany, Goebbels said that their surefire way to mobilize the population behind any attack was to say, “We’re defending ourselves against foreign attack.”

So you have the American attack on China pretending to be defense against their wanting to be just as independent as the United States always has been. The United States doesn’t want any other country to have any leverage to use over the United States. The United States insists on veto power in any organization that it’ll join — the World Bank, the IMF, the United Nations.

And China essentially says, ok, this is the very definition of national independence, to be independent from other countries able to choke us, whether it’s a grain that we need, or technology, or the SWIFT interbank clearing system to make our financial system operate, or the internet system.

By waging this economic warfare against China to protect America monopolies, America is integrating China and Russia. And probably the leading Chinese nationalist in the world, the leading Russian nationalist, is Donald Trump. He’s saying, “Look boys, I know that you’re influenced by American neoliberals. I’m gonna help you. I believe that you should be independent. I’m gonna help you Chinese, Russians and Iranians to be independent. I’m going to keep pushing sanctions on agriculture to make sure that you’re able to feed yourself. I’m gonna push sanctions on technology, to make sure that you can defend yourself.” So he obviously is a Chinese and Russian agent, just like MSNBC says.

(32:09)

BEN NORTON: Yeah and Michael, this actually reminds me, I used to follow you regularly at The Real News, and I worked there for a bit, and unfortunately there was kind an internal coup there, and it has moved to the right a bit.

But the point is, a few years ago at The Real News, I remember you did an amazing debate between you and the Canadian economist Leo Panitch, and it was about the nature of the BRICS system.

This was before the series of coups that that overthrew the left in Brazil and installed the fascist government now of Jair Bolsonaro, a right-wing extremist. And at the time there was Dilma Rousseff, a progressive from the Workers’ Party. Brazil and Russia were helping to take the lead in the BRICS system. This is Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.

And of course the series of coups in Brazil, kind of ended that project of South-South regional integration. And also the rise of the right-wing, the far-right, in India with Narendra Modi.

But there was a moment there when the BRICS community, these countries were trying to build their own bank. China of course has a series of banks. You mentioned the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. So there have been these international institutions, multilateral institutions, created to kind of challenge the hegemony of the World Bank and the IMF.

I remember in that debate, Leo Panitch was arguing that, “Oh, the BRICS system and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, all these institutions are just going to be the new form of neoliberalism. They’re just going to replace the World Bank and implement many of the same policies.” You disagreed with that.

So maybe can you kind of relitigate that debate here a little bit and just kind of articulate your position for our viewers?

(34:08)

MICHAEL HUDSON: The World Bank has one primary aim, and that’s to make other countries dependent on American agriculture. This is built into its articles of agreement. It can only make foreign currency loans, so it will only make loans to countries for agricultural development, roads, if it is to promote exports.

ORDER IT NOW

So the United States, through the World Bank, has become I think the most dangerous, right-wing, evil organization in modern in history — more evil than the IMF. That’s why it’s almost always been run by a secretary of defense. It has always been explicitly military. It’s the hard fist of American imperialism.

Its idea is to make Latin American, and African, and Asian countries export plantation crops , especially plantations that are US or foreign owned. The primary directive of the World Bank to countries is: “You must not feed yourself; you must not grow your own grain or your own food; you must depend on the United States for that. And you can pay for that by exporting plantation crops that can’t be grown in temperate zones like the United States.”

So China and Russia are not really agricultural economies. The buttress of America’s trade balance has been agriculture, not industry. Obviously, we de-industrialized. Agriculture, since World War II, has been the foundation of the trade balance.

The US demands foreign dependency on its grain, technology and finance. The purpose of the World Bank is to make other countries’ economies distorted and warped to a degree that they are dependent on the United States for their trade patterns.

BEN NORTON: Well Michael, isn’t it also true though that China has massive agricultural production, and Russia produces a lot of wheat, right?

(36:14)

MICHAEL HUDSON: Sure, but it doesn’t have to base its exports on agriculture to African countries. It can afford having African countries growing their own food supply so that they won’t have to buy American food.

Imagine, if China helps other countries grow their own food and grain, then America’s trade surplus evaporates. Because that’s the main advantage that America has, agribusiness.

BEN NORTON: Yeah it’s like that famous quote: If you give a man a fish, he’ll eat for one day; if you teach a man to fish, he’ll eat for the rest of his life. And then I think Marx, didn’t Marx complicate that?

MICHAEL HUDSON: But if you lend them the money to buy a fish, then he ends up bankrupt and you get to grab up all his property.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah I mean we saw this play out clearly in Haiti.

MICHAEL HUDSON: Yeah, that’s the typical — what America has when it has a free a reign, that’s exactly the Haiti story. That’s absolutely terrible. It’s depressing to read.

I get cognitive dissonance, because it’s just so unfair. It’s so awful to read; I avert my eyes from the page.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah I mean just observing all of this is what kind of brought me to the point where I concluded that there had to be another international financial system, when I saw how Haiti was brought to its knees. First with the School of the Americas graduates staging a coup, and Bill Clinton reinstalls Jean-Bertrand Aristide. It all takes place under the guise of goodwill by Washington. But Aristide is forced to sign off, basically sign away Haiti’s domestic agricultural production capacity. And the next thing you know, their rice economy’s wiped out, and they’re importing rice from Louisiana.

And the only economy left, the only economic opportunity left, is to work in these free trade zones for US companies. That’s just the model writ large. It helped lead to the next coup, that removed Aristide, and look where Haiti is today.

MICHAEL HUDSON: Right, it means, you must not protect your own economy; only America can protect its own economy. But you must not. That’s free trade, US-style.

(38:45)

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Right, going back to the JFK Seeds of Peace program. It’s big agro subsidies, and then you bomb the Third World with cheap seeds and cheap goods, and then you have a migration crisis.

MICHAEL HUDSON: Seeds for Starvation is what the program is known as. Because by giving a low price of foreign aid to these countries, they prevented domestic agricultural development, because no farmer could compete with free crops that America was giving. The purpose of the Seeds for Starvation program was to prevent countries from feeding themselves, and to make them dependent.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah, when I lived in LA I would meet families who had initially come across the border because of the program — they would point the finger directly at Seeds for Starvation. They’d say, “We came from rural Mexico, and our livelihood was wiped out.”

So this is a long-standing program. And we’ve seen in the coronavirus bailout five times more money provided to USAID for so-called stabilization programs than for hospital workers. That’s exactly what you just described: USAID is the spearhead of these programs which aim to wipe out land reform programs, and replace them with US aid in the form of these cheap seeds and so on, cheap bananas to Burundi, and everywhere else.

So do you see, through your experience in China, that Belt and Road is a genuine alternative to this model?

(40:27)

MICHAEL HUDSON: Well they’re certainly trying to make it so. By the way, what you’ve just described, it’s not a bug; it’s a feature. When you have the same problem occurring after 50 years, it’s either insanity — and we know it’s not — or it’s the intent. You have to assume at a certain point that the results of these aid programs are the intended results. And certainly if you look at the congressional testimony, Congress knows this, but the media don’t pick it up.

In China, they’re really trying to create an alternative. They want to break free from the United States. And if Trump’s policies of “America First” continue, and as he said, “We have to win every deal,” this means that any deal we make with the foreign country, that country has to lose.

So he’s integrating the whole world, and isolating the United States. When you isolate the United States, China realizes that what will be isolated is the neoliberal philosophy that is the cover story, the junk economics that justifies these destructive policies.

BEN NORTON: Well Michael, this was I think one of our most interesting episodes. We want to more economics coverage, so hopefully we can talk more with you and get some more of your analysis.

I guess just concluding here, I mentioned that the term Cold War has been thrown around a lot. And of course, the New Cold War is going to be different from the old cold war in a lot of different ways.

ORDER IT NOW

And of course Russia is not the Soviet Union at all. Russia does not have a socialist system. China’s system as you mentioned is mixed, there are still socialist elements, but even China’s economy is not nearly as state controlled as the Soviet Union was at the peak of the Cold War. So I’m wondering, it’s pretty clear if you listen to the rhetoric coming from the Pentagon, that “great power competition,” as they refer to it, is now the undergirding philosophy of US foreign policy. What is the economics of that?

Because the economics of neoliberalism, after the destruction of the Socialist Bloc, and George H. W. Bush’s declaration of a “New World Order,” which is of course just neoliberalism and US hegemony — in that period, the clear economic philosophy, the kind of guiding foreign policy, was destruction of independent socialist-oriented states and forcible integration of those countries into the international neoliberal economy. We saw that with Iraq; we saw that with former Yugoslavia; we saw that with Libya — which is really just a failed state.

So now I think we’re in a kind of new phase. The Pentagon released two years ago its national defense security strategy saying that the new goal of the Pentagon and US foreign policy is to contain China and Russia. That is the stated, professed goal. What does that look like economically going forward?

(43:31)

MICHAEL HUDSON: I think that’s quite right. It’ll contain Russia and China, and there’s nothing that Russia and China want more than to be contained.

In other words, they’re talking about decoupling from the US economy. And the US will say, “Well we’re not going to let them have access to the US market, and we’re not going to have anything to do with them.” And Russia and China say, “Boy that’s wonderful, OK, we’re on the same wavelength there. You can contain us; we will contain you. You go your way; we’ll go our way.”

So basically the Cold War was an attempt at neoliberalism and privatization. It’s Thatcherism. It’s, “How do we make China and Russia look like Margaret Thatcher’s England, or Russia in the 1990s under Yeltsin?”

“How do we prevent other countries from protecting their industry and their financial system from the United States financial system and US exports? How do we prevent other countries from doing for themselves what America does for itself? How do we make a double standard in world finance, and world trade, and world politics?”

The result of trying to prevent other countries from doing this is simply to speed the parting guest, to accelerate their understanding that they have to make a break. They have to create their own food supply, not rely on American food exports. They have to create their own 5G system, not let America’s 5G with its spy portals built in. They have to create their own society, and go their own way.

That was China’s philosophy before the 16th century. It was always the “Central Kingdom”; it always looked at itself as being independent from the rest of the world. It’s going back to that, except it realizes that it needs raw materials from Africa and other countries.

The question is, what is Europe going to do? Is Europe going to just follow the Thatcher right-wing deflationary Eurozone policies and end up looking like Greece? Or is it going to join with Eurasia, with Russia and China, and make a whole Asiatic continent?

The Cold War really is about what is going to happen to Europe. Because we have already isolated China and Russia and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

The question is what will happen to Europe, and what will happen to Africa?

(Outro – 46:04)

BEN NORTON: Great, well I think that’s the perfect note to end on. We were speaking with the economist Michael Hudson. He is a Wall Street financial analyst and a distinguished research professor of economics at the University of Missouri – Kansas City.

He’s also the author of many books, and we were talking about Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire. He has two versions of that, and we will link to that book in the show notes of this episode.

We will also link to his website, where you can find a lot of great interviews with transcripts, his articles — and that’s michael-hudson.com.

Michael, thanks a lot. That was a really great, two-part interview. I learned a lot, and I think our viewers will benefit a lot.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah thanks a lot Michael.

MICHAEL HUDSON: Thank you. I hope we can fill out all the details in subsequent broadcasts.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Absolutely.

(Republished from Moderate Rebels by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 113 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Great interview.

    Thanks.

  2. The USA spends so much that foreigners cannot buy all our debt, so now we have the Fed buying it with fiat money. This will not end well.

    “…the United States wants to grab the oil reserves. Just as Vice President Cheney said we’re going into Iraq and Syria to grab the oil, America would like all these oil reserves in Venezuela…

    That is true. Oil was the primary reason to seize and colonize Iraq. Yes, Israel wanted it destroyed too. Just look at who is exporting Iraqi oil now.

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

    Mostly American, but other nations that played along got some of the action.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Klc Tan
  3. Kim says:

    when I saw how Haiti was brought to its knees

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    Man, does this guy ever have a dry sense of humor!

    Yes, Haiti! Dey was kangz, donchaknow?

    • Replies: @Amerimutt Golems
  4. Kim says:

    All countries that win wars impose the costs on the defeated. It has always been thus. For example doesn’t the USA have to subsidize Israel?

  5. Sean says:

    At last, an idiot’s guide to Super-imperialism. I, er, found it very helpful, but Hudson hurts his credibility when he pretends that China is some kind of international mutual aid society just because they are not part of the US system. I am afraid the aftermath of establishing close links with China such as Italy opened up by being the first to join the the belt and road initiative or Boris saying he loved China on the phone to Xi a couple of months ago have been not been reassuring.

    We will never know what China knew about the Wuhan disease or when they knew it but the current covid pandemic being caused or at least greatly exacerbated by China’s vagueness–not to say dissimulation–about the highly infectious nature of a certain pathogen means the level of trust necessary to tie an economy to China rather than the US has been shattered and will take a long time to reestablish.

    Moreover, the rich make a lot of money from their investments in and technology transfer and outsourcing to China. That US capital is the fuel for China to blast past the US in another generation of so makes one wonder if what Hudson is complaining about is US hypercapitalism that will hollow out the state that practices it. China may act differently when it has the power, but the evidence so far hardly suggests it.

    I would also note the Vulture funds like Elliot capital notorious for buying written off debt owed by Argentina ect and demanding payment are the same ones doing domestic US corporate raids and forcing CEO to increase shareholder value by asset stripping and getting replacement workers from India

    • Troll: Biff, bluedog
    • Replies: @Current History
  6. Carlos217 says:

    China has the population advantage and its markets are not saturated.

    If US tries to pull a stunt post covid 19 to isolate China, the Chinese could freeze out the US, but not the rest of the world.

    The Chinese market is bigger and more attractive, money talks

    • Replies: @annamaria
  7. gotmituns says:

    The Economics of American Super Imperialism
    ———————————————————
    Read Gen. Smedley Butler’s little book,”War is a Racket.” That’ll tell you all you have to know about imperialism.

    • Agree: Agent76
  8. Max worried we’re going to treat the foreigners the way medieval peasants treated his ancestors?

    • Troll: Biff
  9. Biff says:

    Tom Cotton a senator from [Arkansas] saying, “Well you know China holds savings of $2 trillion or so in US Treasury bonds. Why don’t we just not pay them? They gave us the virus; let just grab it and nullify it.”

    The very fact that the U.S. dollar is virtual paper or faith Based means that once that faith is gone; the dollar is in some serious trouble. The easiest way for people to lose faith in it, is what Cotton boy is advocating – what he is saying is “Buy all you want, since they are worthless because we no longer back them” We’re talking instant toxicity on a global level.

    Com’on Tom, give it a whirl.

  10. antibeast says:

    They closed the gold window. And most of the economists were all saying, “Oh my heavens, now it’s going to be a depression.” But I said, “Wait a minute, now that other countries can no longer get gold from all this military spending” — and when you talk about the balance-of-payments deficit, it’s not the trade deficit, it’s not foreign investment; it’s almost entirely military in character.

    Most of these countries in Asia get dollars from US military spending. They say, “What are we going to do with the dollars?” They buy US Treasury bonds, which finance the military spending on the military bases that encircle them. So they’re financing their own military encirclement!

    It’s a circular flow. The United States spends dollars in these countries; the local recipients turn them over for local currency; the local currency recipients, the food sellers and the manufacturers, turn the dollars over to the banks for domestic currency, which is how they operate; and the dollars are sent back to the United States; and it’s a circular flow that is basically military in character.

    Sorry but Michael Hudson is wrong. This is political rhetoric not economic analysis. Ever heard of Japan, Inc.? Mr. Hudson seems to believe that US spending on its military bases in Japan accounts for the balance-of-payments deficit with that East Asian country. Not true at all. It’s the trade deficit in the form of Toyotas, Hondas, Acuras, Mazdas, Nissans, etc. that account for the bulk of the trade deficit between the USA and Japan, not the tens of billion dollars spent on approximately 100,000 US military/civilian personnel and their dependents in Japan.

    The Treasury bonds standard of international finance has enabled the United States to obtain the largest free lunch ever achieved in history. America has turned the international financial system upside down, whereas formerly it rested on gold, central bank reserves are now held in the form of US government IOUs, that can be run up without limit. In effect America has been buying up Europe, Asia, and other regions with paper credit, US Treasury IOUs that it has informed the world it has little intention of ever paying off. And there is little Europe or Asia can do about it except to abandon the dollar and create their own financial system..

    US Treasuries are indeed the “gold standard” in the USD international financial system. That’s why export economies such as industrial powerhouses (Germany, Japan, China, etc.) do buy US Treasuries with their trade surplus dollars, as do OPEC countries with their Petrodollars. But foreign holdings of US Treasuries account for only about $6T which is 16% of the $23T in US public debt while the rest are owned by private or public entities in the USA. These US Treasuries are traded in the secondary markets because they are highly liquid financial assets which are redeemed at the US Treasury upon maturity. Europe has already created the Euro which is an alternative reserve currency to the USD.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  11. annamaria says:
    @Carlos217

    The “democratic” clowns in the EU and US waffle righteously about bad undemocratic China while Assange — the true defender of democracy in the western world — is locked in a high-security prison in the UK for truth-telling. https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3080529/least-12-hong-kong-opposition-veterans-arrested-police-over

    “The multiple and coordinated arrests of pro-democracy figures in Hong Kong on Saturday demand close scrutiny,” said Virginie Battu-Henriksson, an EU spokeswoman for foreign affairs. “An independent judicial system, operating free of political influence and consideration, is a cornerstone of Hong Kong’s autonomy under the one country, two systems principle and is protected by the Basic Law.”

    Has the EU spokeswoman checked how many people lost their eyes and lives during Gilets Jaunes protests in France? How about the absence of “an independent judicial system, operating free of political influence and consideration” in the case of Julian Assange? The EU “democrats” to China: ‘Law for thee but not for me.’

    The US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo: “Arrests of pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong are deeply concerning — politicized law enforcement is inconsistent with universal values of freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly.”

    Mr. Pompeo, look at the politicization of law enforcement by the US against Julian Assange. Mr. Pompeo, you are making yourself into a laughing stock, again.
    https://www.rt.com/news/486993-assange-extradition-hearing-postponed-covid19/
    https://consortiumnews.com/2020/04/26/assange-extradition-espionage-is-the-charge-but-hes-really-accused-of-sedition/
    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30383-4/fulltext

    On Nov 22, 2019, we, a group of more than 60 medical doctors, wrote to the UK Home Secretary to express our serious concerns about the physical and mental health of Julian Assange. In our letter, we documented a history of denial of access to health care and prolonged psychological torture. We requested that Assange be transferred from Belmarsh prison to a university teaching hospital for medical assessment and treatment.

    The case of Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, relates to law, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, journalism, publishing, and politics.

  12. Jake says:

    Empires forcing those they’ve conquered to pay for their having been conquered and administrated by the Empire is far from new. Americans have a great deal of trouble accepting that Uncle Sam does the same raping to pay for its previous rapes because we also have been taught that the English also somehow were immaculately conceived and so did not rape and plunder and then rape more to pay for both previous rape and future rape.

    • Replies: @The_seventh_shape
  13. @Kim

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    Man, does this guy ever have a dry sense of humor!

    Yes, Haiti! Dey was kangz, donchaknow?

    Hudson raises lots of valid points but he sadly doesn’t factor HBD in his analyses.

    Haiti’s woes began when it got of the French. I kid you not today they eat mud cakes living on just over US$2 per day. In comparison, each person in equally majority-black the Bahamas in the same region is 37 times richer. The difference is solely down to white expats who set up the Bahamas tourism and offshore banking sectors.

    • Replies: @Kim
    , @Erzberger
  14. Oh dear. A tech glitch made me murder the Queen’s mother tongue.

  15. Thekid says:

    Canada is not a country anymore. So China does not feel so friendly towards Canada now that it’s become a US satellite.

    Mr. Hudson is exactly correct on this point. Being ‘Canadian’, I’ve known this for years. I’m sure most people outside Canada know this. Ironically, most of the people who don’t realize this are ‘Canadians’ themselves.

    • Replies: @mediolanum
  16. @Sean

    Wasn’t one of the justifications (beside the obvious one of profit) for shutting-down American factories and means of production and shipping them to China was that once Chinese citizens became wealthy they’d magically throw off Communism and become a Democratic society? Wasn’t that the tiny fig leaf industrialist and their political apologists hid behind when they justified the closing of factories in the American towns that had relied on those factories for the work to support the town’s familys for generations?

    I’ve seen the well off Chinese tourists in Paris standing in line (a line made up only of Chinese) outside the Prada store waiting their turn to buy their thousand dollar purse; meanwhile China remains as communist as ever.

    If this latest Pandemic exported from China doesn’t cause a shake up in the world’s relationship with China (the same place that gave the world the Black Death that killed off half of Europe in the 1300’s) then nothing, short of China declaring war on Japan, will.

    The Chinese play the intelligent, strategic, slow game ( they are currently gathering all of Africa’s resources for example) while US policy lurches about like an epileptic from election to another; just compare Trump’s and Obama’s US policy towards Iran.

    China will become the world’s dominate power by the end of this century unless the West unites against a China that it becoming more powerful with each passing day. The West can start its rebalance with China with a group demand that China (who has the money) pays all the West’s financial costs stemming from their exported pandemic. If China refuses this demand the West should simply stop buying all products made in China once it has first quickly reestablished its own key industries, like pharmaceuticals, that are currently in the hands of China.

    This Pandemic is the world’s great chance of a lifetime to justifiably turn current Chinese policy on its head.

    • Replies: @Gyre07
    , @denk
    , @bluedog
  17. A123 says:

    Multinational organizations owned and operated by the SJW Globalist 1% Elites act *against* the Citizens of the U.S., not for them. The IMF has long been an Elite Globalist institution dominated by Germany: (1)

    The head of the IMF has traditionally been a European since the IMF was created in 1945.

    Mutti Mullah Merkel wields the IMF as an instrument of power trying to suppress democracy. She successfully used German Austerity economics to break elected governments in Cyprus and Germany. Will Germany’s IMF 1% Elites be able to break Italy’s democracy?

    Attempts at misdirection, such as blaming the U.S. will not work. The scourge of Globalist Germany’s super SJW imperialism via IMF Austerity is real. And, the villain is das Fuhrer Merkel.

    PEACE 😷
    _______

    (1) https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49833220

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  18. You do know the American dairy farmer has never recovered from Russian sanctions. The “trade -whatever- it – is” with has damaged the pork and grain farmers bottom-line. But yeah, blame farmers. God only knows how with all his educated professionals and chosen people out there, it is the lowly farmers owns all that property. The horrors! It’s just not fair.

    PS. How is all that Reagan-economics’ agriculture efficiency and economy of scale working out for your grocery store supplies? Don’t worry they will all be plowed under in soon to be fallow fields. Milton Friedman was yet another privileged, academic quack.

    • Replies: @bluedog
  19. barr says:

    Trump-Pomepo team with inserted or placed advisors inside are helping craft an argument that US never left the Iran nuclear deal so that the administration can destroy the deal which US openly telegraphed 2 yrs ago to the world that it was withdrawing from the deal .

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/world/middleeast/trump-iran-nuclear-deal.html

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/26/world/middleeast/us-iran-nuclear-deal-pompeo.html

    The interesting argument if succeeds in acceptance by US citizen, America could always claim that it has always been against sanction wars and regime changes operations particularly against Cuba ,Iran,Syria and Russia.

  20. Trinity says:

    When was the last time America fought a war that wasn’t a war for Israel or Zionists? “American Imperialism?” Right.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  21. Kim says:
    @Amerimutt Golems

    We don’t even have to go to the Bahamas to make the comparison. On the same island as Haiti there is the nation of the Dominican Republic. Essentially Latin with some black admixture. Not remotely the sh1th0le that Haiti is.

    But the DomRep has a lot of problems with Haitian illegal immigration and crime. Must be the US’ fault.

  22. Gyre07 says:
    @Current History

    I guess an alternative to your binary vision is that the US could actually start to act as a moral player on the world stage rather than the temperamental tyrant who alienates everybody. But that would require an entire empire built on corruption to decide to reform itself. Jack the Ripper experiencing an epiphany leading to an intentional personality shift (after realizing that he was hated and feared) has never been a sequel for a reason.

    • Replies: @Sean
  23. Agent76 says:

    Jul 28, 2019 “United States” to Imperial America: Our Hidden Empire

    The global expanse of US military bases is well-known; but it’s actual territorial empire is largely hidden. The true map of America is not taught in our schools.

    Sep 17, 2019 Catherine Austin Fitts Explains the Financial Coup D’état

    Catherine Austin Fitts has been following the story of the black budget, the missing trillions, and the back door in the US Treasury for decades.

  24. Anonymous[127] • Disclaimer says:

    What’s wrong with the United States using all the means at it’s disposal to leverage and strip power from other countries in world? Then use that power for our own benefit?

    Call the United States corrupt if you want. Are the African nations not corrupt? Is any government in the world not corrupt? Well, Godfree will say China isn’t but we can laugh at that!

    To sit in judgement of the World Bank tells me maybe you have a better idea. Get it up and running, buddy.

    • Replies: @Kim
    , @denk
  25. Anonymous[432] • Disclaimer says:
    @A123

    Certainly I can’t be the only one who notices this particular character’s posting agenda here is entirely jewish in nature.

    • LOL: Trinity
    • Replies: @A123
  26. Wally says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    said:
    “Oil was the primary reason to seize and colonize Iraq.”‘

    – Nope. The big Iraqi oil contracts generally did not go to US companies, as shown in your own link.

    – You’re just reciting the laughable ‘No Blood For Oil‘ nonsense that the Israelis were so careful to nurture as a distraction.

    the United States wants to grab the oil reserves. Just as Vice President Cheney said we’re going into Iraq and Syria to grab the oil, America would like all these oil reserves in Venezuela…

    – “Wants to grab”?
    Please show us the oil reserves that the US has ‘grabbed’.

    • Replies: @Herald
    , @bluedog
  27. Usura says:

    From the first installment:

    The important thing to realize about free-market economics and libertarianism, is libertarians advocate central planning; the Chicago School of monetarists advocate central planning; the free marketers want central planning. The banks are the planners, not the government. They want to exclude the government from planning, except to the extent that they can take over the government, as Trump has done, and plan all of the income to be transferred to themselves from the rest of the economy.

    Indeed! Mises walked out on this group at the Mt. Pelerin conference in 1947 , famously calling them “all a bunch of socialists”, “all” meaning Friedman and Hayek who were in attendance, along with many others. The Mises/Rothbard/Hoppe wing is not monetarist, and frequently critique the Friedman/Sowell/Koch industries camp from the right. This is intended as an embellishment of Hudson’s point, not a refutation.

    So the United States, through the World Bank, has become I think the most dangerous, right-wing, evil organization in modern history — more evil than the IMF. That’s why it’s almost always been run by a Secretary of Defense. It has always been explicitly military. It’s the hard fist of American imperialism.

    I am hardly an expert on the World Bank, but it has had thirteen presidents (including acting presidents) in its history, and only two served as Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, and Paul Wolfowitz. You might also count John McCloy, who was an Assistant Secretary of War under Roosevelt and Truman. But that’s three out of thirteen, hardly “always”. However, Lewis Preston was president from ’91-95, and was a former marine, as was Barber Conable, who served from ’86-’91. Eugene Black’s tenure was from ’49-’63 and he was apparently very influential in the creation of World Bank policy; he had served in the Navy during WWI. So the point is well taken. The rest have been mainly high ranking executives from large banks and investment firms. A notable exception is the second Obama appointee Jim Yong Kim, who was a doctor and president of Dartmouth college.

    I think President George W. Bush said, “We’re never really going to repay this. They get counters, but we’re not going to repay it.” And then, as a matter of fact, you have Tom Cotton a senator from [Arkansas] saying, “Well you know China holds savings of $2 trillion or so in US Treasury bonds. Why don’t we just not pay them? They gave us the virus; let just grab it and nullify it.”

    “This oil and bank deposits don’t belong to Venezuela; we’re arbitrarily taking it away and we’re giving the oil distribution assets in North America to Guaidó. We’re going to block Venezuela from paying the debt.”

    Can someone elaborate on what he means by “distribution assets” here? Is it: “The USA has the most reliable and consumptive market [in this case for oil] on earth, and if you want to sell things in it, that comes at a price, and that price is your military encirclement and compliance with World Bank policy. If you don’t comply, prepare for a collapse of your industries through restriction of access to our market and/or sanctions.” Do I understand the leverage correctly?

    I mean if I wanted to get a gun I couldn’t get one, because they’re all bought up in Virginia, across the river, because you know everyone’s panicking. And I’m sure they’re defending themselves by like having their guns accidentally go off and shoot their dogs

    An outrageously imbecilic aside.However, I’ve always appreciated people like Hudson and Chomsky for talking to whomever wants to listen, regardless of the interviewer’s cringe-worthy prejudice.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
    , @Kim
    , @onebornfree
  28. A123 says:
    @Anonymous

    I am Christian.

    Why do violent Muslims like yourself always accuse the Truth of being Jewish?

    PEACE 😷

    • LOL: annamaria
    • Replies: @Trinity
    , @Per/Norway
  29. Sean says:
    @Gyre07

    Hudson emphasises finance over productive capacity in key areas. According to him the answer to everything is the debts being written off.

    THE government of China began issuing bonds to foreign investors and governments for infrastructure work to modernize the country. In April 1938, the Nationalist government of China began to issue U.S.-dollar denominated bonds to finance the war against Japan’s brutal invasion. As part of its wartime financial aid, the U.S. government further provided a $500 million credit to China in March 1942, shipping gold there and helping to stabilize the currency. In return, it appears that the U.S. government redeemed some of these dollar-denominated bonds. But China doesn’t appear to have repaid this debt either.Today, the Chinese bonds held by U.S. investors may be worth as much as $750 billion.

    Japan and China are now economical and political pals, Japan can feel secure getting close to China because Japan is defended by the US at great cost to US taxpayers, while at the same time calls for to Japan to cease its protectionism are nullified by them emphasising how they are facing a regional threat from burgeoning China. While a parasitic class of US super rich are indeed prospering it is just as much at the expense of America and average Americans as resource rich underdeveloped countries. Hence the White Death, and the relative decline of US power.

    • Replies: @GeeBee
  30. Mefobills says:
    @antibeast

    Sorry but Michael Hudson is wrong. This is political rhetoric not economic analysis. Ever heard of Japan, Inc.? Mr. Hudson seems to believe that US spending on its military bases in Japan accounts for the balance-of-payments deficit with that East Asian country

    He’s not wrong… the quote is in context of the years prior to 1971. Imbalance of trade was due to military spending. The rest of the trade pattern was in balance.

    After the TBill economy came into being, some countries became more mercantile. Japan and Germany especially exported goods to acquire dollars to then acquire TBills. Having TBills then shored up their FX position. These countries having FX could then always have access to energy, especially oil, and survive any sort of bear-raiders who would try to short their currency.

    Wealth is more than just money, it is also capital equipment in the form of industry, and know how. Japan being an island economy must import raw materials to make finished goods, to then take the increment of production.

    Japan and Germany wisely worked within the Tbill system as those were the only cards in their hands. You don’t play, and there is a military base on your soil, or you get locked out of access to raw materials. Their mercantilism has the knock on effect of destroying U.S. mainstreet labor and goods producers.

    TBills today reflect more than just military balance of payments, they also reflect petrodollar accumulations as well as FX, and are being held in bank reserve loops, being held in shadow banks, etc.

    China and wall street gambit also took advantage of TBill economy, where China recycled dollars won in mercantile trade imbalance back to the U.S., thus screwing over main-street labor and producers. This accelerated de-industrialization of American heart-land.

    Military spending on some 800 overseas bases is funded by deficit spending and recycled dollars, not with goods exchange.

    A gold trading standard as in post Bretton Woods to 1971, (not gold standard) would prevent mercantilism AND prevent spending dollars on foreign bases and military adventurism/wars.

    • Replies: @antibeast
  31. zard says:

    To understand the plight for all of Humanity today, one must take an impartial look at history in understanding the shunned truth about both World Wars.Archives from censored aspects of human history for educational purposes not shown in the facet of society. From all categories such as Science, War, Political, Media, Medicine etc.

    “The Impartial Truth” (ImpartialTruth.com) is a web portal to historical and current Truth. The main aim of the project is to preserve and provide public with videos, documentaries, articles and opinions from various sources within one web platform.
    History is written by victors. We are here to show you the other side of it – The Impartial Truth.
    https://www.impartialtruth.com/

  32. Mefobills says:
    @Trinity

    When was the last time America fought a war that wasn’t a war for Israel or Zionists? “American Imperialism?” Right

    Hudson won’t touch the third rail… or the Jewish question. Get over it. There are others, like you who can do that for him.

    How many books would he sell if he directly exposed Jewish usury operations? He does it obliquely instead, and it is up to you to decode.

    If you have a parasite in your brain making you malfunction, are you responsible for your actions? Or is the parasite responsible?

  33. Trinity says:
    @A123

    Yeah and I am Elvis Presley.

    • Replies: @A123
  34. Kouros says:

    What Europe (Germany/France) will do is indeed essential, see a history of that here: Brendan Simms – Europe – The Struggle for Supremacy.

    While European Corporate Elites would stay happily in the US orbit, politicians , especially up-and coming, might have other things in mind. and this is still something of beauty, there is no two party system in any country in Europe, that it is easily to control.

    It is true that Macron and En Marche shows how the bankers can create from thin air (are used with that) a candidate and a party, but even in this case due to political considerations (and not only), given the very competitive nature of politics in Europe, the US lead is not guaranteed.

    And without Europe on its side, the US will go bust.

  35. Mefobills says:
    @Usura

    The Mises/Rothbard/Hoppe wing is not monetarist

    I haven’t seen any indication of that. Mises wing doesn’t really understand credit or money and how it should channel… Mises is silent on state credit, or demeans it.

    An economy needs both money and credit. Money floats and is not under time pressure, and can be used for savings and to pay interest. Money reflects past accumulations of wealth.

    Credit pops into existence with a debt instrument. Properly used, credit channels into industry and production, and is not used for speculation. Credit improves the future. Money has to be available to pay the interest on Credit. (Making credit or money have exponential claims on the future with usury is a separate issue.)

    Lolbertarianism in all its guises is junk economics. Junk economics cannot discern when a money or credit system is being mal-adapted for sordid gain. It also has no mechanisms to understand rents, unearned income and usury.

    • Replies: @Usura
  36. A123 says:
    @Trinity

    I am Elvis Presley.

    I find your most recent claim to be highly dubious. If you are Elvis:

    — Why are you posting as Trinty?
    — And, why aren’t you dead?

    PEACE 😷

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Trinity
  37. It’s a pleasure to listen Michael Hudson!

  38. Actually, the future is quite simple to understand: things will only escalate from here.

    If China does somehow succeed in their de-dollarizing and with their BRI, thus very seriously threatening the zionist-anglo power elites, those elites (with their various economic/poltical tricks and traps exhausted, and no effective conventional military option available), will simply go full-on “Samson Option” and nuke the living shit out of China, regardless of the consequences. These assholes at the top live by that simple rule:

    Either we win, or everybody loses. (Everybody except, of course, those lovely elites in their concrete bunker hidey-holes in southern Patagonia, New Zealand, etc.)

    Samson Option. It’s real. It’s ugly. It’s pure Talmud.

    (And it increasingly appears they actually believe they can get away with it…….)

  39. Karl Marx said the rich would get richer and richer, and then parasitize each other, so that pretty soon there are so few rich people controlling so much loot that it wouldn’t take but a few hours work to hang every single one of them from the lampposts.

    I concur. The lamppost thing is my policy proposal.

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/04/26/maybe-karl-marx-was-right-after-all/

    Read the whole thing. He starts out bashing Marx. And then in the end, he realizes Marx was right.

    Of course he was right. You libertarian idiots don’t hate the rich enough and therefore are a danger to society.

  40. gT says:

    Every country needs to trade. Generally a reserve currency is needed to conduct the trade, else barter or gold is required. Post WWII the dollar was the global reserve currency, as the US was the biggest economy out there, with the most gold as well. Even after the dollar was taken off the gold standard, it remained the reserve currency, in no small part because Saudi Arabia (OPEC) decided that oil needs to be purchased in dollars (PetroDollar).

    Everyone needs oil, so everyone needed dollars, so those paper iou’s were put to good use on the world stage by everyone using it to trade with to get oil and other resources. And of course the dollar was backed by the US military, and any attempt to endanger the US trade position or the petro dollar was soon squashed by the US military, among other means.

    But now here comes the rub. The US was in a good position, did it really have to send all its manufacturing off to China. Ok, just giving China paper iou’s and getting manufactured goods back in exchange is nice, but the US by so doing created a monster in China and weaken itself considerably from a debt and a manufacturing capability perspective.

    And at the same time the US has been losing control of the petrodollar because some countries are now selling their oil for gold or whatever they want and the US military can’t be used against those countries in case the US military bites off more than it can chew. Other people have increased their defensive capability.

    So now the US citizens are feeling the pinch and are bitching a lot. The US shot itself in the foot and empowered a behemoth. But why that behemoth? It didn’t owe China anything, manufacturing could have been moved to India, Africa or South America, or spread between all of those including China. The general US policy was always to prevent anyone from becoming too powerful and so threatening to the US, yet China was empowered off the charts. Why? Some (((agenda))) we are missing here perhaps?

    The argument can be used that China was empowered to be used as a buffer against the USSR, but the USSR collapsed in the early 1990’s, and China was still being empowered since then up until recently.

  41. Dutch Boy says:

    Any time they want to send a little of that American imperialist free lunch moola in the direction of the American working class, we’re game. It must be on the other end of the stick from the one we’re getting.

  42. anon[228] • Disclaimer says:
    @A123

    Why Ben Guiron isn’t dead yet? Why does he show up in US as Wolfowitz, Solarz, Greenblatt ,Dine, Dennis Ross, Kristol ,Levy,and the entire panel on Fox and FDD/PNAC?

  43. Jake says:

    “So the question is, what is the defense by the indebted people in America? Does there have to be an armed revolution here to cancel the debts? Do they have to eat the rich? That’s the question shaping today’s politics in America.

    I don’t see it being solved. If it is not solved by the indebted people simply starving to death, committing suicide, getting sick or emigrating, then there will have to be a revolution. Those are the choices in America.”

    The indebted in American are primarily the white middle class. The game played by the Elites is always tied up with PC; the Elites always act to give stuff to blacks and a few other non-whites, and the Elites do not give their stuff.

    Of course, the black middle class also is indebted and also pays for the things that allegedly uplift the poor.

    The Elites are counting on blacks always falling f0r the con game and on whites always having bleeding hearts for blacks, which is necessary for the con game.

    I have no doubt that the Elites of the Anglo-Zionist Empire would dearly love to see the white middle class significantly reduced in number and opportunities. Until whites stop bowing before the myths of England and the British Empire and to WASP culture, they will not be able to rebel.

  44. Mefobills says:

    Every country needs to trade. Generally a reserve currency is needed to conduct the trade, else barter or gold is required.

    All foreign trade is only barter. This iron rule of economics is ignored or subverted for an “in-group” to take rents.

    Finance capitalism aka the “international” wants a cut of every international transaction, hence they want to pass hypnosis that there must be a reserve currency, or some sort of money unit they control.

    Keyne’s Bancor system was thwarted at Bretton Wood’s by the usual (((suspects))). The gold hoards were in the U.S., and their U.S. golem was under control. Rothschild still had his gold stores.

    The Bancor is not money, but instead is an accounting device used to mark trade flows. If one country gets out of balance (with goods flow), then it signals to adjust exchange rates. Mercantilism is also punished. The China/Wall Street gambit of offshoring American industry would have been impossible with a Bancor System marking trade.

    The post Bretton Woods gold trading system worked ok at marking goods flow (until 1971), but you don’t really need gold to do international trade.

    Schacht’s trading banks were another method to do international trade. NSDAP Germany was attacked in large measure for the same reasons that China is being attacked now. They both used industrial capitalism/american system of economy which channels its money into production and not speculation.

    The speculators want their cut.

    Germany had removed themselves from the “international” system of British/Jewish finance. International finance operates with a conceit. That conceit: “they” must own the money power, money is to be international, goods trade is to have a monetary price, and imbalances are to be settled with money flow. Additional hypnosis is that that nation states are to be subordinate to international financiers.

  45. Herald says:
    @Wally

    Please show us the oil reserves that the US has ‘grabbed’.

    It’s grabbed all the oil in Iraq. No matter what company is fronting as seller, the US will get its cut.

    • Agree: bluedog
  46. Jake says:

    This assertion can never be repeated too many times: ” Victimizers always look at the victims as vicious attackers of themselves.”

    Yes, it can be and is misused, but that is the case with every expression of truth.

  47. Jake says:

    All kinds of people will balk at this statement: “MICHAEL HUDSON: The World Bank has one primary aim, and that’s to make other countries dependent on American agriculture. ”

    Their instinctual rejection is bound up in their knowing that the American family farmer has been nearly exterminated while more and more food stuffs are imported into the US.

    The truth of the assertion is this: The World Bank has as a primary aim making other countries dependent upon Agri-business conglomerates that intend to own all parts of food production and distribution, which then are weaponized.

  48. The ZUS is a predator nation ran by diabolical psycopaths.

  49. Mefobills says:

    Actually, the future is quite simple to understand: things will only escalate from here.

    If China does somehow succeed in their de-dollarizing and with their BRI, thus very seriously threatening the zionist-anglo power elites, those elites (with their various economic/poltical tricks and traps exhausted

    Yes, they will escalate, but it will be for naught.

    China and Russia have already ring-fenced Zionist elites and globo-homo. The war has already been won, but our Zionist elites haven’t gotten the memo. BRI will assure China’s access to markets and raw materials. Trade can be done overland throughout Eurasia with rail and not by ship. China gets energy with overland pipelines from Russia and is not completely dependent on middle east shipping via tankers.

    In other words, all the pillars of international Zion are being undermined. Dollar as Reserve, Atlantacist methods, Rim Theory… none of it is working anymore.

    Military projection? Good luck penetrating Russia and China’s close-in area denial. Is the West going to project military troops long distance when there is no chance of overcoming their close in air-space? America couldn’t even control Syrian air space once the Russian’s showed up. It was a small contingent of Russian aerospace forces operating in Syria, operating with high precision and tempo. Any military strategist with two brain cells to rub together knows that the golem will not be able to penetrate… Russia/China air space is sealed off.

    Even Sampson option will fail, as Putin has already said he will target their nerve centers and bunkers with nukes or hypersonics.

    National populism is on the rise everywhere, as nation-states are asserting the sovereignty.

    You cannot rig-the-world forever.

    The U.S. needs to un-rig itself, and return to its roots … which is the American System of Economy (a mixed economy type that China adopted.) To un-rig itself is to eject the speculators, and that also means dealing with our Jewish problem. Jews are foot-soldiers for mammon.

    The problem is internal… it is not China, nor is it Russia.

    • Agree: antibeast, annamaria
  50. America doesn’t have to ‘grab the oil’ physically from Iraq.

    Iraq has been strong-armed into a system where it sells the oil on the world market and the proceeds are held by the American banking system. America then remits some of it to Iraq and holds back the bulk of it as leverage.

    America decides if and when Iraq will see any of ‘its’ money. Iraq knows that America can seize the billions of dollars owed to the Iraqi state on the flimsiest of pretexts, and militarily bomb them back into the stone age just to rub it in. It’s a master/slave relationship.

    This is why Iran and Venezuela are resisting the same yoke America would like to place on them.

  51. GeeBee says:
    @Sean

    ‘because Japan is defended by the US at great cost to US taxpayers,’

    I had to laugh at this. The USA is little more than a gang of ‘protection racketeers’ offering entire countries – Japan in your example – ‘protection’ from the very gang that exploits their victims. How, pray tell, does the USA offer anything in the way of ‘protection’ to Japan, other than from the USA itself? And ‘at great cost to US taxpayers’ – another fine joke sir.

  52. Trinity says:
    @A123

    I never left the building. Thank you, thank you very much.

  53. anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:

    Saddam Hussein and Khaddafi were both trying to bypass the dollar as the primary currency and both ended up dead. Message sent. If one breaks they all might so it’s important to keep everyone in line. At some point in time it’ll be impossible to continue to impose the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. However and whenever that happens there’ll be some very bad times ahead.

  54. Anon[694] • Disclaimer says:

    I agree that the US is definitely trying to establish a JWO through financial and military intervention. The agribusiness angle is new to me but it makes sense. As Henry Ford said in his book The International Jew, published in 1920, finance is not national but international, and Jews have been moving their money across borders/oceans to help them control governments, instigate wars to profit themselves for at least a thousand years. With the US, the Zionists have struck gold and basically now controls the lone superpower in the world; through it they plan to gain total control of the world via US financial and military power, any government that stands in their way will be brought down through a combination of economic sanctions, threat of military intervention and media propaganda.

    Sadly I fail to see how China could achieve true independence from the US. As we saw with Covid-19, the Chinese economy is extremely trade dependent. China is almost completely dependent on foreign oil, import most of their raw materials, and generate most of their wealth through export of finished goods. Moreover, most of their industries from auto to ship building, high tech goods, home appliances, gadgets, clothes, sneakers, medicine, medical supplies etc. are all based on foreign (US, European, Japanese/Korean) designs and technology. With minor exceptions like Huawei, Chinese domestic firms have not been able to establish any successful brands outside of China with homegrown innovation.

    I think a complete decoupling btwn China and the US will be good for both sides. We need to produce more of what we consume, they need to consume more of what they produce. It is also good for the world to have an alternative to the JWO. Europe would be wise to side with China-Russia-Iran. JWO means not only complete subservience to the tribe, but to accept their depraved decadent culture of globohomo, unscrupulousness and identity politics.

    • Replies: @antibeast
    , @annamaria
  55. Trinity says:

    To all able bodied young White males and White females out there, DO NOT JOIN THE “AMERICAN” MILITARY. To all able bodied White Southerners, YOU are SECOND CLASS citizens in YOUR OWN damn country, SO WHY IN THE HELL DO YOU FIGHT FOR A COUNTRY THAT DESPISES YOU? MOST of the people in the military are White males from the South, and the second most would probably be White males from the Midwest, and THE LEAST amount of least amount of people who serve in the ENLISTED ranks are Jews. Look at that White people, you are being used as farm animals to fight wars for Israel thousands of miles away, while you get treated like second class citizens in the country your forefathers built. RETARDED? You are taught to hate Muslims in the Middle East but you are taught that you must love those being brought to destroy Europe and America. RETARDED?

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @redmudhooch
    , @Corvinus
  56. American Super Imperialism has a problem.

    America can no longer count on a coalition of allies. Countries like Canada, Australia and most of continental Europe are suffering fatigue from the imperial wars of conquest. Any moral authority America once had is long gone, and the enthusiasm for believing obvious lies as pretexts for war is spent.

    The debacles in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and Libya have left a bad taste.

    Within America there is a generation who will not hate the Russians, Chinese, Venezuelans, Iranians or any other designated enemy. Their attention is on their own house.

    American Super Imperialism still has some boots on the ground, but it cannot count on their hearts and minds.

    • Agree: Mefobills
  57. Anon[694] • Disclaimer says:
    @Trinity

    Right on. Zionists have gained control of our military through the evangelical Christians, as exemplified by useful idiots like Mike Pence. This is one reason I support the left’s attack on evangelical Christianity and the whole USA! USA! chanting patriotism in our military and football games. Our military and patriotism have been hijacked. Patriotism through fake consevatives like Mike Pence, Dan Crenshaw, Charlie Kirk, Lindsay Graham, Marco Rubio has come to mean love of Israel and the destruction of the real America through globohomo.

  58. Mefobills says:

    Right on. Zionists have gained control of our military through the evangelical Christians, as exemplified by useful idiots like Mike Pence.

    Zionism and Jewish method is to invert reality, and usually make a profit while doing it!

    Zionist Christianity is Judaizer religion. All Judaizer sects emphasize the old testament. To do this means to ignore or subvert the doctrine of super-session.

    Super-session means that new testament supersedes old testament. Old testament is a only a guide… in my opinion, it should be removed from the Bible and put on a shelf only for reference. The god of the old testament is also very different in character from the new testament god.

    In Christianity, super-session is operative, and hence any Judaizer sect… by definition is false.

    White western European’s (especially men) live in inverted clown world. In clown world, you fight for your oppressors.

  59. Kim says:
    @Usura

    whomever wants to listen

    Should be “whoever wants to listen”.

    There is a finite (time-marked) verb, “wants”. It has to have a subject.

    • Thanks: Usura
  60. Kim says:
    @Anonymous

    What’s wrong with the United States using all the means at it’s disposal to leverage and strip power from other countries in world? Then use that power for our own benefit?

    Of course you are broadly right to the extent that this is how the world works. Everyone is always at war (in resource and political competition) and it truly is a dog eat dog world. In such a world, our primary duty is first to ourselves, then to our family, then to our friends and so on, and continuing outwards in ever widening circles.

    The problem in your statement comes when you identify the interests of the United States with your interests. The United States only tangentially fights wars for your benefit, and the benefits that flow from those wars to you and yours are nowadays only slight and always decreasing. If you die or are crippled in those wars, the benefits to you are not worth the risks.

    Of course, that is not to say that China does not want to destroy you. Of course it does.

    But in short, my point is that we should be careful when using the words “we” and “our” and should avoid identifying our interest with tose of our cruel, ruthless, selfish, and psychopathic rullers. Rather, we should bear in mind what Tonto famously said, “What do you mean “we”, Paleface?”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  61. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Usura

    “Indeed! Mises walked out on this group at the Mt. Pelerin conference in 1947 , famously calling them “all a bunch of socialists”, “all” meaning Friedman and Hayek who were in attendance, along with many others.”

    Yes. Thanks. I was wondering if anyone else would notice. I myself have also previously pointed out Hudsons ignorance concerning Mises and Friedman, who he conveniently lumps together, and therefor brands the entire Austrian school as monetarists essentially no different from Chicago school economists like Friedman, when in reality they are almost complete philosophical opposites, Mises [and Rothbard] being anti- government run/controlled central banks, [and therefore anti the so called “private”Fed] , while the Chicago school is very much in favor of central banks like the Fed.

    But to give Hudson some credit, where credit is due , I remind myself that he is, after all, like most here, just another know it all, know-nothing Marxist dimbulb infatuated with his fantasy big daddy government running/controlling the entire economy.

    And so it goes……

    Regards, onebornfree

    • LOL: bluedog
    • Replies: @Mefobills
  62. Erzberger says:
    @Amerimutt Golems

    ‘The difference is solely down to white expats who set up the Bahamas tourism and offshore banking sectors.’

    Do you mean the descendants of the Loyalists who fled to the Bahamas, among other destinations, from the American Revolution? they are not called ‘expats’ but Bahamians

  63. Anon[397] • Disclaimer says:

    2018-05-13 an astrologer AKA future teller posted on line about the future of America:

    2004-2023:California forest fire, west drought, same sex marriage go legal, play boy run the white house.
    2020: pandemic, famine
    2024~2040: money and fame suddenly go away. China ask for the debt.
    2024: eclipse track mark the place of earthquake/volcano in US, or war, even a nuclear war.

    in the end:
    disease, financial lose, drugs, venereal disease, bloody war… sick man of North America

  64. @Trinity

    To all able bodied White Southerners, YOU are SECOND CLASS citizens in YOUR OWN damn country, SO WHY IN THE HELL DO YOU FIGHT FOR A COUNTRY THAT DESPISES YOU? MOST of the people in the military are White males from the South, and the second most would probably be White males from the Midwest

    Cause Merica is a 3rd world country, specially the South, Appalachia. Many join because they are poor, military pays for good schooling. Its called the poverty draft. Its why establishment, both Dem and Repub cower in fear at the mention of universal college/trade schools. That would hurt enlistment numbers.

    Many people here too dumb to process simple things like this. Or are paid not to, and to simply scream “Da Jews!!” when presented with facts. Its an easy life for your types. Trolling the web 24/7, pushing easily debunked garbage, not like most white southerners who have to do real work for a living. This interview was packed with indisputable facts.

    • LOL: Biff
    • Troll: Trinity
  65. denk says:
    @Current History

    This Pandemic is the world’s great chance of a lifetime to justifiably turn current Chinese policy on its head

    Yet another ‘advisor’ with 20/20 hindsight.
    What do you think [[[they]]] launched this caper for ?

    Candidate Trump told us upfront…
    ‘I want a complete de-coupling’ from the chcoms’.

    P.S.
    You should worry ?
    Leave it to the ‘experts’…
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/peter-navarro-trump-trade-china-214772

  66. Usura says:
    @Mefobills

    I haven’t seen any indication of that.

    Well, Rothbard, the founder of the libertarian movement, by the end of his career advocated strictly no governmental involvement in controlling money supply, and Hoppe, his assistant and successor, argues for the same. Both regard Mises as the most important source of their doctrine. Both were/are severe critics of Milton Friedman and monetarism, as was Mises himself, as any cursory research into these matters would reveal. Both have been thrown out of the modern libertarian establishment. I think it’s to your and others benefit to understand these distinctions. It’s Koch money/Cato/Chicago School/M. Friedman/Hayek/Ayn Rand/Hoover Institute vs. Rothbard/Hoppe/D. Friedman The former wing is co-opted and neutralized by zionist neocons, and the latter are explicitly anti-zionist and anarchic.

    Mises is silent on state credit, or demeans it.

    Would be interesting to get your take on this passage from Human Action:

    The idea which generated what is called qualitative credit control is to channel the additiona1 credit in such a way as to concentrate the alleged blessings of credit expansion upon certain groups and to withhold them from other groups. The credits should not go to the stock exchange, it is argued, and should not make stock prices soar. They should rather benefit the “legitimate productive activity” of the processing industries, of mining, of “legitimate commerce” and, first of all, of farming. Other advocates of qualitative credit control want to prevent the additional credits from being used for investment in fixed capital and thus immobilized. They are to be used, instead, for the production of liquid goods. According to these plans the authorities give the banks concrete directions concerning the types of loans they should grant or are forbidden to grant. However, all such schemes are vain. Discrimination in lending is no substitute for checks placed on credit expansion, the only means that could really prevent a rise in stock exchange quotations and an expansion of investment in fixed capital. The mode in which the additional amount of credit finds its way into the loan market is only of secondary importance. What matters is that there is an inflow of newly created credit. If the banks grant more credits to the farmers, the farmers are in a position to repay loans received from other sources and to pay cash for their purchases. If they grant more credits to business as circulating capital, they free funds which were previously tied up for this use. In any case they create an abundance of disposable money for which its owners try to find the most profit- able investment. Very promptly these funds find outlets in the stock exchange or in fixed investment. The notion that it is possible to pursue a credit expansion without making stock prices rise and fixed investment expand is absurd.

    -Human Action, Currency and Credit Manipulation, 5. Credit Expansion

    Properly used, credit channels into industry and production, and is not used for speculation.

    Are industry and production neatly distinguishable from speculation? Is speculation not in some cases a way industry advances? I also suspect libertarians would take issue with how heavy a load the qualifier “properly used” carries in your argument.

    Lolbertarianism in all its guises is junk economics. Junk economics cannot discern when a money or credit system is being mal-adapted for sordid gain. It also has no mechanisms to understand rents, unearned income and usury.

    What is sordid as distinguished from legitimate gain? How do we distinguish unearned income from earned?

    The claim that libertarians have “no mechanisms to understand rents” is also false on the face of it; their mechanism is property rights, and rent is an extension of the bartering of private property, or so the theory goes.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  67. Mefobills says:
    @onebornfree

    Mises was a dimbulb himself, or supremely confused.

    Here is a laugher from page 71, Theory of Money and Credit:

    State Activity in the monetary sphere was originally restricted to the manufacture of coins. To supply ingots…. degree of fineness…

    During the 2000 year history of gold coins, humans confused the King’s legal Stamp with Gold by weight Value. It was always the Kings stamp, or the legal nature, that gave money its power. Clipped coins would circulate at par, would they not? The King recalled coins by demonetizing, did he not? Clipped or not, as long as they were accepted for mediating goods transactions, they were money. As long as they were accepted for taxes they were money.

    Nowhere in Theory of Money and Credit is there any talk about England’s Talley Stick System, which was made of wood. I doubt Mises could understand the concept, but Talleys could be a hey I owe you talley mark, a record of debt if issued by individuals. One party is a creditor and one party is a debtor. Or, if talley’s were issued by the King, they would become legal money, as everybody used them to transact. Talley’s were the kings IOU to the population (to pay for palace services rendered) and had force of law behind them.

    Hudson has gone back further in time, and destroyed the myth of “market money.” To be fair to Mises there was no way he could know that money originated in the Temples as a legal construct and not from markets. Temples in those days were an adjunct of the government. Gold by weight in the Temples was related to barley weights, and barley was money.

    Theory of Money and Credit was circa 1912, and even then it was understood that Numa Pompilius of Rome issued bronze disks, which had a stamped value much higher than their metal content.

    Rome got its start with legal fiat money. Money has always been a legal construct.

    Hudson’s argument is that Lolbertarians are monetarists, which they are. They don’t understand credit, and spend inordinate amount of thinking time on “value.” Value is subjective at best. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

    Price Value is related to the total stock of money and credit relative to goods production.

    Sorry if you are butt hurt that all money and money types are related to the law, and hence government. Gravity also makes you fall down and bump your head.

    In general, monetarists make claims that money is a creature of the market and not the sovereign, and they deny any positive role that state credit can have to an economy.

    • Agree: Erebus
    • Thanks: Biff
    • Replies: @dvorak
  68. Anonymous[127] • Disclaimer says:
    @Kim

    I agree with you. The national interest is not necessarily my interest. Yet the fact is I live in the United States. I have to believe our country isn’t a hopeless charade. Although at times it can feel that way.

    I write this while we are wearing face masks, standing 6ft apart, receiving massive government assistance. The future of many small businesses are in jeopardy. People are sliding down the economic ladder. Good people many, who lived outside their means, are in for a serious wakeup call.

    I cannot know what the national landscape will look like in 6 months.

    Right now, all the free time is a great chance to start doing things you may have been putting off. We could all use more exercise. Better sleep. Pay better attention to our consumption. Read, hike, concentrate our energy on personal improvement. We can become better versions of ourselves, and be more thoroughly prepared for what’s ahead.

    I got off subject. I apologize. I just don’t see any reason right now to question the role of the World Bank. Questions and action is needed closer to home.

    This article does about as much for me as knowing how much ice cream Nancy Pelosi has stashed in her $25K freezer.

    Good luck and I wish everyone well.

  69. denk says:

    CV19 bio attack.

    FUKUS, Oz, Germany, India….demanding reparation, shades of eight nations alliance.

    [MORE]

    Jp follows US lead, de-coupling from China top priority.

    FUKUS/OZ show of force in SCS,

    Skirmishes escalating bet VN/CHINA,

    Mounting tension at Indo/Sino border,

    Myanmese army shelling Chinese border town…..

    Two major space launch flops in Apr….

    The Chinese had a very ominous start in 2020, with their CNY plan wrecked by CV19, looks like its just the beginning ….

  70. Great interview and sad but so far effective concept. Reminds me of an art exhibition I did while back based on bombing of Serbia 1999. Exhibition was called “How to find cheap advertising space”. The economics of US imperialism is effective way to find cheap (low cost) advertising space.
    1. Bring country to ruins. De-evaluate it’s property by bombing it;
    2. Place your advertising on the now low-cost real estate and/or buy real estate for nothing.
    3. Then implement your policies of austerity, privatization and short-term “intoxication”. The more you do it, the larger your real estate portfolio gets and larger your fake followers count gets. Your “credit score” improves. We can print some more money and build skyscrapers.

  71. Mefobills says:
    @Usura

    What is sordid as distinguished from legitimate gain? How do we distinguish unearned income from earned?

    Classical Economics is the only doctrine that is able to answer your questions. Hudson is a classical economist.

    Your assignment is to start reading. Hudson has many books, and is a good place to start. Rents are not property rights, nor is it an extension of bartering on private property. The word itself was redefined at the beginning of the industrial revolution.

    Rent in classical theory comes from Rentier, a french term. Rentiers are people who raised rents on property to then siphon away profits from industrial production. In English it was called rent-racking.

    In England, it was the propertied class that were descendants of Norman conquest. Ergo, rentiers are people who owned the property and raised rents to then suck wealth and income toward themselves, while sitting on their ass. Landlord actions had no correlation to production and were actually negative to production.

    This is why talking to a Lolberatarian is so difficult, because even the definitions are out of alignment. Different universes so to speak.

    It would require a Trivium method of debate, to then firmly define terms before discussion, and this blog is not a venue for that kind of discussion. In the Greek Trivium they would sometimes spend weeks just defining terms.

    Sordid gain is unearned income, similar to rents.

    • Replies: @Usura
    , @GeeBee
  72. denk says:
    @Anonymous

    What’s wrong with the United States using all the means at it’s disposal to leverage and strip power from other countries in world? Then use that power for our own benefit?

    You mean it aint the Jews ?

    • LOL: Trinity
  73. antibeast says:
    @Mefobills

    He’s not wrong… the quote is in context of the years prior to 1971. Imbalance of trade was due to military spending. The rest of the trade pattern was in balance.

    But 1971 is almost 50 years ago!!! A lot has happened since then with the outsourcing of manufacturing and professional services industries which has hallowed out the US economy.

    After the TBill economy came into being, some countries became more mercantile. Japan and Germany especially exported goods to acquire dollars to then acquire TBills. Having TBills then shored up their FX position. These countries having FX could then always have access to energy, especially oil, and survive any sort of bear-raiders who would try to short their currency.

    Japan and Germany wisely worked within the Tbill system as those were the only cards in their hands. You don’t play, and there is a military base on your soil, or you get locked out of access to raw materials. Their mercantilism has the knock on effect of destroying U.S. mainstreet labor and goods producers.

    Yes, I agree. That was my point which Michael Hudson didn’t even address in his interview. The bulk of the US trade deficit are in manufactured goods from industrial powerhouses (Germany, Japan, South Korea, China) as well as in energy commodities from OPEC, Canada, Mexico, etc. Defense spending accounts for a big part of US government deficit spending but only a small portion of the trade deficit. To address this balance-of-payments problem, the US had to export its public debt in the form of US Treasuries. So Hudson is partly correct in saying that foreign creditors are responsible for buying up US Treasuries which pays for US defense spending. But he’s wrong to say that they pay for ALL US defense spending because foreign creditors hold only 16% of US Treasuries. Besides, he’s also wrong to say that the US Government has not paid its foreign creditors. The US T-Bills are as good as cash because they behave like bearer instruments which mature in less than one year. T-Bills are sold at discount and redeemed at face value while the longer term maturities such as T-Notes and T-Bonds are traded in secondary markets by both domestic and foreign creditors.

    TBills today reflect more than just military balance of payments, they also reflect petrodollar accumulations as well as FX, and are being held in bank reserve loops, being held in shadow banks, etc.

    Correct. To be more precise, US Treasuries (USTs) include short-term (1 year or less) T-Bills, medium-term T-Notes (1-10 years) and long-term T-Bonds (30-year). So offshore USTs reflects accumulations of petrodollar, eurodollar, dollar reserves (Central Bank), financial derivatives (shadow banking), etc.

    China and wall street gambit also took advantage of TBill economy, where China recycled dollars won in mercantile trade imbalance back to the U.S., thus screwing over main-street labor and producers. This accelerated de-industrialization of American heart-land.

    China officially joined the USD-based global economy upon its accession to the WTO in 2001. Prior to that, offshore tax havens such as HK played a big role in foreign trade/investment to/from China. But long before China entered the fray, USA had been building the global economy via the WB/IMF, GATT/WTO, NAFTA/USMCA, etc.

    Military spending on some 800 overseas bases is funded by deficit spending and recycled dollars, not with goods exchange.

    That’s the price that the USA has to pay for its Empire.

    A gold trading standard as in post Bretton Woods to 1971, (not gold standard) would prevent mercantilism AND prevent spending dollars on foreign bases and military adventurism/wars.

    The gold standard is a medieval construct which will give way to a digital standard.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
    , @Mefobills
  74. antibeast says:
    @Anon

    Sadly I fail to see how China could achieve true independence from the US. As we saw with Covid-19, the Chinese economy is extremely trade dependent. China is almost completely dependent on foreign oil, import most of their raw materials, and generate most of their wealth through export of finished goods. Moreover, most of their industries from auto to ship building, high tech goods, home appliances, gadgets, clothes, sneakers, medicine, medical supplies etc. are all based on foreign (US, European, Japanese/Korean) designs and technology. With minor exceptions like Huawei, Chinese domestic firms have not been able to establish any successful brands outside of China with homegrown innovation.

    That’s a myth.

    Chinese exports to the USA account for less than 3% of its GDP, with two-thirds of those exports being US/foreign goods mislabeled as Chinese goods. So your statement that “most of their industries from auto to ship building, high tech goods, home appliances, gadgets, clothes, sneakers, medicine, medical supplies etc. are all based on foreign (US, European, Japanese/Korean) designs and technology” is true only for export industries, many of which supply the US market, which has been declining over the last ten years as those export industries relocate to lower-cost countries in Southeast Asia, India, Mexico, Latin America and Africa. Chinese industrial, technology and consumer firms have been expanding globally for the past twenty years but not to the USA. China hardly sells to the USA with the exception of a few intrepid firms like Huawei. Just because Chinese firms don’t sell to the USA doesn’t mean they don’t sell to the rest of the world.

    Just because Nike/Adidas, Apple, Samsung, Dell/HP, etc. manufacture their products in China doesn’t mean that Chinese firms can’t design, market and manufacture their own shoes, smartphones, PCs, etc. using their own brands, designs, channels and technology. Those consumer goods, industrial commodities and tech products that are manufactured in China are easy to replicate/supplant because they’re mostly run-of-the-mill products which doesn’t require high-falutin’ tech unlike China’s defense, science, space industries which are 100% indigenous. How hard is it to create industrial technology to manufacture shoes, toys, smartphones, TVs, PCs, etc. compared to creating industrial technology for hypersonic missiles, fifth-generation fighter jets, supercomputers, quantum satellites, etc.? There is no European or Asian countries that has come close to China’s capabilities in these truly hi-tech defense, science and space industries.

    China doesn’t the USA. Period.

  75. Rahan says:

    Concerning counterweights to China and Russia: if too much stress is put of Europe, in the state it’s in now, about making a hard choice, it will split down the middle, with the GloboHomo half going to the Anglospherical side, and the macho kleptocrat half going to the Eurasian side.

    No one can afford a collapsed Europe, though, the whole planet needs an EU that at least pretends to be functional well enough to be a huge separate market.

    Thus, I think that the same way the US “inherited” the mantle of “Ruler of the Waves” from Britannia, it is now going to inherit Britain’s “special relationship” with India.

    I think India proper, and part of Greater India (the civilizational area) is going to increasingly merge with the Anglosphere, North America very much included. Especially now that Chinese workers and students are going to be increasingly repackaged into “dirty commie spies”, Hindu workers and students as a demographic are going to take up the market slack, and this will be an important part of the “blood brotherhood” between South Asia and the Anglosphere.

    Japan has already been working with India to counter China in Africa, with Japan providing the hi tech and India–the grunts, and now if you transform it into an expanded structure of Anglosphere+India+Japan, then THIS is your post-Western post-Democratic mega civilization that will be the counterweight to Greater Eurasia, with Europe possibly pretending to be playing a balancing act in the middle…

    • Replies: @denk
  76. @Jake

    Yes, it’s called a protection racket. A popular way of making a living with gangsters the world over.

  77. Corvinus says:
    @Trinity

    Actually, you give horrific advice. American white men and women will continue to join the military and fight for our nation.

    • Replies: @Trinity
    , @Trinity
  78. Trinity says:
    @Corvinus

    How many days did you serve in the Israeli army, troll? Seems like my comment struck a nerve with you, Shlomo, because you continue to troll my one comment and this is the first time that I have responded to your smelly ass. Be gone, hasbara troll. Oh and by the way, something I have been meaning to ask you. Why is your moniker, “Corvinus,” so similar to (((coronavirus?))) Now get lost, creep. Oops, I just scrolled the comments, I had you confused with another Israeli or hasbara troll. Anyhow, you can still get lost.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  79. Trinity says:
    @Corvinus

    America is NOT your nation, Shlomo.

  80. denk says:
    @Rahan

    Not too sure about your cryptic post.

    Are you saying the Russia/China alliance needs to be countered by the civilized Anglo/India ‘democracies’ ??

    https://www.countercurrents.org/miller120207.htm

  81. Corvinus says:
    @Trinity

    “Seems like my comment struck a nerve with you, Shlomo, because you continue to troll my one comment and this is the first time that I have responded to your smelly ass.”

    It struck a nerve in that you had to be corrected.

    “I had you confused with another Israeli or hasbara troll. Anyhow, you can still get lost.”

    That’s your ad hominem button. It’s very easy for you to push it. Anyone who disagrees with you, you automatically label them in that fashion. In that way, you don’t have to think.

    “America is NOT your nation, Shlomo.”

    America is OUR nation.

    • Replies: @Trinity
  82. bluedog says:
    @Current History

    China already is a power an economic power which will only become stronger and in many fields,we pissed away our inheritance on wars and the MIC, sold our manufacturing for pennies on the dollar run our debt to the moon and then blame China for all our problems including the virus.And now the stupid asses both in government and those that hang out on message boards think that seeing the orange headed one in the oval keeps calling it the China virus that some how China should pay for it.
    Now I wonder what these fools would think if Vietnam, Cambodia Syria,Libya Afghanistan,Iraq and a host of others sued the U.S. for the wars they brought to those lands and the destruction it caused.!!!!

    • Replies: @Current History
  83. bluedog says:
    @Old and Grumpy

    Ah another one singing the song of the lazy farmer who is taken care of from the cradle to the grave,dump your milk you still get paid for it,your crop rots in the ground don’t worry uncle Sam will have a check in the mail for you just tell us how much you want.Farmers love debt for tax write offs don’t you dare mention taxes to them for they will have a heart attack,then when they hit a little hard luck and are in debt clear to their ass they howl “we feed the world GIVE us some more free money” and the sad part is that the government does.Oh and just who instigated those sanctions not being intelligent to know that counter sanctions would be coming back so just run and vote for the orange headed fool in the oval office again!!!

  84. Trinity says:
    @Corvinus

    NOPE. America is MY nation. Now take a hike, Shlomo.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  85. Mefobills says:
    @antibeast

    Once again, we are mostly in agreement, it is only details …

    I often gloss over details so the average viewer can get the bigger picture, and not become MEGO.

    My eyes glaze over.

    We can go into details about things if you want, but the average viewer will be lost in MEGO.

    They are simply not informed or advanced enough, which is OK – everybody is at a different stage of development.

  86. bluedog says:
    @Wally

    Indeed as usual the man was right and your wrong,the major oil contracts went to American firms in both oil and gas and very rich contracts they were,after looking it up and digging into it as the head of Iraq stated IT WAS ALL ABOUT OIL,and it was and is the major reason that the refuse to get out!!

  87. Mefobills says:
    @antibeast

    A digital bancor standard would work well.

    Yes, gold is a relic. Hudson should never call it a gold standard, but instead a gold TRADING standard. It confuses people when bad language is used.

    https://www.unz.com/mhudson/the-economics-of-american-super-imperialism/#comment-3863380

    Any digital standard has to adhere to monetary science.

    Any goods in transit between nations is only barter. Ergo goods have to be matched with goods.

    When you drill down, you find humans who don’t want to adhere to known monetary science, so they can leverage for selfish gains.

    • Replies: @antibeast
  88. Corvinus says:
    @Trinity

    “America is MY nation.”

    No, it’s OUR nation. I do not why you would be challenging an immutable fact. You’re insistence to the contrary demonstrates anti-White hostility. Surprising, because I thought you championed the cause of Whiteness…

    • Replies: @annamaria
  89. annamaria says:
    @Anon

    “As Henry Ford said in his book The International Jew, published in 1920, finance is not national but international…”
    — Yes. And this is why the concept of patriotism is dead in the zionized US. The country has been hollowed by Cheney-AIPAC cabal.

  90. @Thekid

    Whenever I’ve tried to reinforce this point in discussions online or just with friends, I’ve had my message ‘disappeared’ or just ignored in person. It’s so obvious to me. We lost our independence in the 50s as the US began to assemble its international empire. Lost our autonomy in ever way to the Americans. The Canadian elites are a weak bunch who willingly turned over their country for empire after confederation and then, when the brits faltered, eagerly joined the new kids on the block. The basic reason why Canada is simply ignored in most of the rest of the world. Nobody cares about us because we don’t seem to care very much about ourselves. Well, some of us are patriots but not enough to make much of a difference.

  91. @A123

    a judeoxtian is as Christian as Khamenei is😉

  92. antibeast says:
    @Mefobills

    Yes, gold is a relic. Hudson should never call it a gold standard, but instead a gold TRADING standard. It confuses people when bad language is used.

    Gold might make a comeback as a store-of-value but not as medium of exchange because the volume of international trade today is too high for a gold trading standard to work. Incidentally, both China and Russia have begun stockpiling gold as part of their foreign reserves. The USD is not a good store of value because the petrodollar will eventually disappear once an alternative means of exchange for global oil trade is found.

    A digital bancor standard would work well. Any digital standard has to adhere to monetary science. Any goods in transit between nations is only barter. Ergo goods have to be matched with goods.

    INSTEX is an example of a digital bancor standard which is designed to bypass the USD and SWIFT for bilateral trade between the EU and Iran. Although ostensibly meant to defy US sanctions against Iran, INSTEX is the first step to a digital means of exchange for international trade bypassing the petrodollar. Remember that currency reserves are no longer necessary for a digital means of exchange because state-of-the-art information technology now allows real-time user authentication, transaction validation and predictive matching of trade flows based on digital data. In the old days of manual trading based on the gold standard, bearer instruments backed by gold reserves served as the means of exchange. Due to the inherent delays in processing transactions as well as incomplete information from the marketplace, a certain amount of gold reserves was necessary to mitigate the financial risks caused by the stochastic nature and speculative character of international finance for foreign trade.

    In other words, if you don’t know how much is this year’s foreign trade, then you would want to allocate a certain amount of reserves from last year’s foreign trade. But if you know in advance how much your current foreign trade is at a given point in time, then you could allocate the exact amount of reserves to match your current foreign trade. That real-time capability now exists in the form of digital means of exchange using state-of-the-art information technology. A digital means of exchange turns the stochastic nature and speculative character of international finance into a real-time, deterministic system for foreign trade, thus obviating the need for foreign reserves. Remember that in the old days, the term “foreign reserves” implied the storage or hoarding of gold reserves to back bearer instruments used for foreign trade. The meaning of that term changed to imply currency reserves after the USD (and all other currencies) abandoned the gold standard. Of course, Central Banks still store and hoard gold reserves not as a medium of exchange but as a store-of-value. This is also another reason why a digital means of exchange would eventually replace the petrodollar for global oil trade because oil is not a good store-of-value unlike gold. Nobody wants to hoard or store oil as a store-of-value which explains why foreign Central Banks buy US Treasuries as part of their foreign reserves.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
    , @Mefobills
  93. denk says:

    Haiti

    Opportunities abound,,..

    The Street, an investment Web site, published an article misleadingly entitled, “An opportunity to heal Haiti,” that lays out how U.S. corporations can cash in on the catastrophe. “Here are some companies,” they write, “that could potentially benefit: General Electric (GE), Caterpillar (CAT), Deere (DE), Fluor (FLR), Jacobs Engineering (JEC).”64 The Rand Corporation’s James Dobbins wrote in the New York Times, “This disaster is an opportunity to accelerate oft-delayed reforms.”65

    https://isreview.org/issue/70/imperialism-human-face

  94. Usura says:
    @Mefobills

    Your assignment is to start reading. Hudson has many books

    Starting A. Del Mar now but M. Hudson is on the list.

    Hudson is a classical economist.

    Maybe, but it’s a fact he’s a former Wall Street analyst, like many in the MMT crowd.

    Rents are not property rights, nor is it an extension of bartering on private property.

    Rent in classical theory comes from Rentier, a french term. Rentiers are people who raised rents on property to then siphon away profits from industrial production. In English it was called rent-racking.
    In England, it was the propertied class that were descendants of Norman conquest. Ergo, rentiers are people who owned the property and raised rents to then suck wealth and income toward themselves, while sitting on their ass. Landlord actions had no correlation to production and were actually negative to production.

    I have no reason to doubt your interpretation of the history, but I’ve yet to hear why, on your/Hudson’s view, rents are de-facto illegitimate.
    Consider: if I own a piece of land with many almond trees, but am now too old to farm, and my progeny are employed elsewhere, why is it “sordid gain” for me to rent that land to someone willing and able to continue almond production? Why is that “unnearned” income when I put decades of my life into developing the capital stock to make it profitable to rent in the first place? If I don’t rent, the field might just lay there, taking the almond trees out of production, hurting industry.
    Of course I might decide to raise the rents once I see how well my renter is doing, but the point at which that becomes extractive to industry only the renter, the one now balancing the books, can determine. Right? Perhaps this isn’t the type of scenario you’re referring to, and that’s fine, but I don’t think we’ve yet heard from you how we’re supposed to easily distinguish cases like this from clearly extractive cases like the ones you mention, and importantly, who will do the deciding once we implement your policies.

    It would require a Trivium method of debate, to then firmly define terms before discussion, and this blog is not a venue for that kind of discussion

    Well, why not? The comments section at Unz is as valuable as the articles published, and you clearly have a lot of time to post.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  95. GeeBee says:
    @Mefobills

    ‘ Rentiers are people who raised rents on property to then siphon away profits from industrial production.’

    And it wasn’t merely raising actual rents, as in charging a monthly/annual rent on propery used for production. The Marquesses of Bute, for example, found themselves enormously rich on account of the fact that the family’s landholdings in South Wales just happened to sit atop some of the richest coalfields in Britain, at the time the Industrial Revolution was getting underway. The family were the Crichton-Stuarts (whose ancestors were the once-reigning Stuart royal dynasty of Scotland and later of all of Great Britain) and had acquired Cardiff Castle, in the centre of the Welsh capital, plus much of the surrounding land in the 18th century. The result was that from about the mid-nineteenth-century the 3rd Marquess of Bute became the richest man in the world.

    Nor was their land in South Wales the family’s main ‘seat’ (to use British aristocratic parlance). He was born at their principal seat, Mount Stuart, on the Scottish Isle of Bute, part of the island chain known as the Inner Hebrides.

    These old, great English aristocratic families saw themselves originally as the upholders of the paternalistic ‘feudal socialism’ (as Karl Marx described it), and it was not until they became seduced by ‘the money power’ from around the sixteenth-century that they gradually exchanged this vitally important role for something rather different, and indeed became just another bunch of self-interested rentiers. This was a very gradual process, however, so much so that within living memory – and in some cases still today – the great landed estates upheld this paternalistic and beneficial role in society. Not for nothing was that ghastly fraud Anthony Linton Blair determined to do away with the hereditary peers in the House of Lords, which he almost succeeded in doing in 1999 (about a hundred hereditary peers remain in the British Upper House).

    As Olive Cook remarked upon this phenomenon, in her The English Country House (1974, pp 107/8):

    There is no lack of evidence for the practical application of this new philosophy. It was with an eye to material benefits that many landowners became promoters of the emigration movement. They did not themselves become colonists; their object was to create a permanent market beyond the Atlantic for English goods in exchange for the products of the New World. The institution of the money-market, after an Act of Parliament had legalised the lending of money at interest, was but one sign of the times. The notion of using money to beget money appealed to merchants and shopkeepers; but it also encouraged a new and eventually disastrous tendency in landowners – to live from investments instead of from the judicious management of their estates. Men who looked upon property as a source of profit and not, as they had hitherto done, as a means of maintaining a given state of society, embraced every opportunity of increasing their land, buying up needy squires, a process analogous to the absorption of small businesses by large, which has contributed to the malaise of the modern industrial world. The dukes of Bedford added manor to manor, acre to acre until they were so ‘spacious in the possession of dirt’ that most of Bedfordshire seemed to be theirs.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  96. Mefobills says:
    @antibeast

    A digital means of exchange turns the stochastic nature and speculative character of international finance into a real-time, deterministic system for foreign trade,

    I’m suggesting that the speculative character is due to finance flows co-mingling with goods as trade. In other words, even a digital system will have to break these categories apart (goods vs finance). Goods are in the “now” and finance, especially credit has a “future” orientation.

    Schacht’s trading banks acted as “credit” which stimulated future production (credit has a future time orientation) in overseas suppliers. Then later when goods transited, each nation was paid in their national purchasing power. The future time orientation was dealt with, and any debts/credits that were built up, were sequestered to the trading banks… not distributed into a supposedly “free” market. Any excess claims for creditors or debtors could be worked out by legal authorities at the national level. Money’s true nature is law.

    If a coming digital trading system has no way of assigning a time variable then it will be inadequate. If a digital system on-sells debt instruments into a market it won’t work because debts will mount. You don’t want the future to pay for trade deficits…. humans being corrupt and greedy will be happy to screw the future. Trading nations will have to adhere to international rules, making internationalists happy. (Never let your national money extend past your law.)

    A nationalist system for a pluralistic world would require international trade to have both credit and something like money (to operate in the now). While purchasing power internal to an economy requires both credit and money. These iron rules of economics cannot be abrogated regardless of being dazzled by complexity of a digital system.

    With regards to transaction security, the Singapore conference is interesting. You probably already know all of this, as block-chain would make finance authentication secure and work in real time.

    https://pingalasoftware.com/events/blockchain-conference-workshop-singapore

    • Replies: @antibeast
  97. Mefobills says:
    @antibeast

    With regards to a gold trading standard.

    Gold would consumate imbalances in good flow.

    Trading nation X goods – Trading Nation Y goods = Gold flow. If the entire world is in balance, then there is no gold flow to signal exchange rate adustment.

    There enough gold for a trading gold standard that relates only to international goods flow.

    The reason Russia and China are buying gold, is to stuff it in their bank reserve loops, help to fend off any bear raiders, or possibly to put it into a future basket.

    In other words, don’t let volume of goods flow, or co-mingling of finance to fool you.

    A trading gold standard is not a national gold standard.

  98. Mefobills says:
    @GeeBee

    That’s very interesting history.

    Landlords were taking ground-rent, and merchants were shilling for usury on money.

    Hermes was the Greek God of Merchants. Hermeticism is closely related to Talmudism and Cabala. The merchant class cannot be allowed to rule… this is why we need Kings who have some feeling for the common weal.

    Taking of ground-rent also ties into American history, where English immigrants were often debt slaves. No doubt prices were driven high to pay for ground rent.

    As an American living in England (military), I sometimes drove a Bedford diesel truck. Any relation? (I liked those trucks! lightweight and fast.)

    • Replies: @GeeBee
  99. Mefobills says:
    @Usura

    No, this venue does not lead itself to book length debates, which is why you have to educate yourself.

    I am pointing you in a direction. Del Mar is excellent, and then move on to classical economics. You can do it. It is hard, but we need people like you.

    You know enough now, to know that you don’t know. People don’t like being told what I am telling you, and I don’t intend to hurt your feelings. Everybody is at different stages of development.

    Personally I would love to teach in the Trivium manner and point students in the way of self discovery.

    With regards to this:

    Consider: if I own a piece of land with many almond trees, but am now too old to farm, and my progeny are employed elsewhere, why is it “sordid gain” for me to rent that land to someone willing and able to continue almond production? Why is that “unnearned” income when I put decades of my life into developing the capital stock to make it profitable to rent in the first place?

    That is not sordid gain, and you should be rewarded for your efforts at “real” production and improving the future.

    Georgist taxation methods deal with the above… so you may want to comprehend fiscal policy too, as it is the flip side of monetary policy.

    Also, I won’t be posting as much in future – to assume I have infinite time is an assumption. I am taking a coronavirus vacation.

  100. Wow, the most powerful and enlightening publication on the topic i’ve seen anywhere, ever.
    Makes you wonder about economists and econometrists. Types like Alan Greenspan and Larry Summers can be regarded as architects, everybody knows that. But i always regarded Milton Friedman as a more benevolent and agreeable guy. Was he into this schema as well, and that early on? Must have been, with so much expert knowledge you can only pretend to be blind for all the implications and aftermaths.

  101. GeeBee says:
    @Mefobills

    It is indeed interesting history, in that very few people understand the crucial relationship between the aristocratic landed estates and the ordinary people who formed the bulk of the rural population. It is too easy – especially for a ‘townee’ living in urban Britain – to turn a blind eye to this seemingly irrelevant component of British social history, and gaily to go off and become a ‘Trot’ or some other misguided species of ‘communist’. The fact is that for anyone familiar with British aristocracy, the concept of noblesse oblige was fundamentally important.

    It tallies with your very valid point about the necessity for ‘strong kings’ who have, as you put it, ‘some feeling for the common weal’ precisely in order to ensure that the merchant class is denied control of a country. This is of course why we are constantly brainwashed into regarding their scam of ‘democracy’, (which, alas, has all too successfully persuaded the masses that they, ‘the people’, are ‘sovereign’, when of course the exact opposite is true) as being a sacrosanct part of ‘Western’ life. I think it was Mark Twain who remarked that if voting made any difference they wouldn’t allow it. ‘They’, in this case, being of course the triumphant ‘merchant’ class (and we all know who that is don’t we boys and girls?).

    In this regard, I was commissioned to write, around two years ago, a monograph on the subject of National Socialism, by a website that has since been ‘de-platformed’. My finished work ran to around 40k words, and was, I’m happy to report, well received. In it, I was keen to stress the key political bifurcation – arguably the only meaningful such division – that lies between ‘Traditionalism’ and ‘Modernism’. I lifted my quote in the post you replied to about English country estates straight from my monograph. It was directly preceded by this:

    ‘The ‘Modernist’ phenomenon is one that can first be discerned in England during the reign of Elizabeth I (1558 – 1603), and which gathered pace as the 17th-century progressed, culminating in the English Civil War of 1642-51. Writing of these initially English political divisions, political philosopher Anthony Ludovici identified their origins (in his A Defence of Conservatism, 1927) as ultimately arising from the growing bifurcation of rural and urban life in England:

    And it is not astonishing therefore that at the time of the Great Rebellion [the English Civil War or ‘Cromwellian Revolution’] the first great national division that occurred on a great political issue, the Tory-Rural-Agricultural party should have found itself arrayed in the protection and defence of the Crown, against the Whig-Urban-Commercial Trading party. True, Tory and Whig, as the designation of the two leading parties in the state, were not yet known; but in the two sides that fought about the person of the King [Charles I], the temperament and aims of these parties were already plainly discernible.

    Charles I, as I have pointed out, was probably the first Tory, and the greatest Conservative. He believed in securing the personal freedom and happiness of the people. He protected the people not only against the rapacity of their employers in trade and manufacture, but also against oppression of the mighty and the great.

    It was this traditional order, with the Crown at its apex, which in that Civil War stood against ‘bourgeoisie revolution’ (a Modernist phenomenon), based as it was on the new ideas of money and mercantilism. Money, for the first time in the West, came to be seen not only as an end in itself, but also as a commodity; something to be traded, loaned at interest and speculated upon. Agricultural estates and businesses soon followed suit, being bought and sold at profit, or used to build up business and farming ‘empires’.

    The growing primacy of money inevitably led to it replacing the traditional ways by which a man’s worth might be measured, which is to say by the cardinal virtues of goodness, truth, duty, honour and self-sacrifice. A man’s ‘worth’ was now instead considered to be no more than the balance he could boast of at the bank. Having first reared its ugly head in seventeenth century England, this same phenomenon of Modernism would convulse first France, in 1789, and then spread like wildfire over 19th century Europe. These revolutions have shaped the modern world, and although ostensibly in the name of “the people,” they can be discerned as attempts to empower the merchant on the ruins of throne and altar.’

    OK, I’m back to the present again! The key phrase that I employed above, in order to make the crucial point about the triumph of Modernism and thus the merchant class, was that of ‘the ruins of throne and altar’, which I confess I slightly plagiarised from Oswald Spengler, who wrote:

    The economic tendency became uppermost in the stealthy form of revolution typical of the century, which is called democracy and demonstrates itself periodically, in revolts by ballot or barricaded on the part of the masses. In England, the Free Trade doctrine of the Manchester School was applied by the trades unions to the form of goods called ‘labour,’ and eventually received theoretical formulation in the Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels. And so was completed the dethronement of politics by economics, of the State by the counting-house.

    Anyhow, enough of this for the present and on to the important matter of Bedford trucks! I was interested to learn that you’d been stationed in England while serving with the USAF. Mildenhall or Lakenheath perchance? I used to live not far from there. Those trucks were indeed made in the county of Bedfordshire, whose county town is Bedford. I don’t think that the Russell family (the Dukes of Bedford, whose ‘seat’ is at Woburn Abbey in Bedfordhire) had anything to do with their production, however. It is interesting that many people accuse the English aristocracy of being idle because they didn’t have jobs. Ha! I know quite a few titled owners of landed estates and I wouldn’t swap places with them for all the tea in China. They work far harder than the great majority of conventionally emplyed people.

    John Bedford (the 13th Duke) wrote that his grandfather had told him that it was wrong for someone in their position to take up employment, as it would inevitably cause a conflict of interest, or at best a compromise, between their duty to their estates and their tenantry on the one hand, and their ‘job’ on the other. As the 11th Duke was such a stickler for tradition therefore, I feel it is most unlikely that he would have allowed hiself to engage in such a venture as manufacturing trucks!

    • Agree: Lurker
    • Replies: @Mefobills
  102. Mefobills says:
    @GeeBee

    Very interesting.

    This period informs our modern world. I tend to follow the Jew from Spain in 1492 to Amsterdam, and then the subsequent 200 years to invasion of England. King Edward is spinning in his grave.

    E Michael Jones goes into how the landed gentry were attacked during this same period here:

    https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/02/04/e-michael-jones-on-jews-and-usury-part-2/

    The attack method was to induce gentry into monetary debts, and then said debts would compound. To discharge the debt obligation, land and real wealth would transfer in what I call the “harvest phase.”

    The synthesis of this period, since it informs our modern world, is perhaps the most important slice of history anywhere and anytime.

    Mildenhall….good guess. About 5 years in the 80’s.

  103. antibeast says:
    @Mefobills

    I’m suggesting that the speculative character is due to finance flows co-mingling with goods as trade. In other words, even a digital system will have to break these categories apart (goods vs finance). Goods are in the “now” and finance, especially credit has a “future” orientation.

    It’s done today at the national level in the balance-of-payments equation via current account (trade) vs capital account (investment).

    Schacht’s trading banks acted as “credit” which stimulated future production (credit has a future time orientation) in overseas suppliers. Then later when goods transited, each nation was paid in their national purchasing power. The future time orientation was dealt with, and any debts/credits that were built up, were sequestered to the trading banks… not distributed into a supposedly “free” market. Any excess claims for creditors or debtors could be worked out by legal authorities at the national level. Money’s true nature is law.

    China’s Eximbank acts as a financial intermediary for international trade at the national level similar to Schacht’s trading banks where trade financing is extended to cover exports/imports from/to China as well as extend “credit” in the form of low-interest bank loans to cover the balance-of-payments deficit of foreign Central Banks. That’s already working today but only for bilateral trade between China and its trading partners in the developing world. What you’re referring to is the USA neoliberal model where Wall Street banks offer debt financing to cover the balance-of-payments deficit of the USA as well as buy US public debt to cover deficit spending of the US government. These debt instruments are then traded in capital markets all over the world.

    If a coming digital trading system has no way of assigning a time variable then it will be inadequate. If a digital system on-sells debt instruments into a market it won’t work because debts will mount. You don’t want the future to pay for trade deficits…. humans being corrupt and greedy will be happy to screw the future. Trading nations will have to adhere to international rules, making internationalists happy. (Never let your national money extend past your law.)

    An international digital trading/settlement system would work by creating a real-time, deterministic network of digitally authenticated parties/counter-parties which would eliminate unauthorized third-parties from the global shadow banking industry. In addition, trade financing in the form of an internal “credit” endogenous to this international system would eliminate “dark pools” of speculative capital traded in OTC markets exogenous to the system. What’s lacking today is economic policy not information technology which already exists today as a digital mechanism to implement the new international digital trading/settlement system.

    A nationalist system for a pluralistic world would require international trade to have both credit and something like money (to operate in the now). While purchasing power internal to an economy requires both credit and money. These iron rules of economics cannot be abrogated regardless of being dazzled by complexity of a digital system.

    The international system for foreign trade would complement the national system for domestic trade. The international trade finance bank would issue letters of credit (LC) as well as extend bank loans to cover balance-of-payments deficits while the national trade credit system would monetize account receivables/account payables (AR/AP) similar to MEFOBILLS. The national domestic banking system would then reconcile the LCs with the ARs/APs in addition to extending commercial loans for working capital.

    With regards to transaction security, the Singapore conference is interesting. You probably already know all of this, as block-chain would make finance authentication secure and work in real time.

    Yes. Blockchain technology allows for identity verification and transaction validation in a distributed manner which makes it ideal for an international trade/settlement system. In addition, blockchain technology enables “smart contracts” which embed the algorithms into the debt instruments themselves. So the blockchain-based system becomes an automated network of distributed notes which carries out identity verification and transaction validation in a real-time deterministic manner. The human element is removed which obviates the need for speculative capital.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  104. Mefobills says:
    @antibeast

    What you’re referring to is the USA neoliberal model where Wall Street banks offer debt financing to cover the balance-of-payments deficit of the USA as well as buy US public debt to cover deficit spending of the US government. These debt instruments are then traded in capital markets all over the world.

    NO. Schact’s trading banks had debt instruments that were housed/stored in the trading bank, and not on-sold into markets. I am not referring to neoliberalism, but the opposite.

    international system would eliminate “dark pools” of speculative capital traded in OTC markets exogenous to the system.

    Stop being dazzled by dark pools or speculative capital, as if that is the root problem. These are only knock on effects of known iron rules of economics being abrogated. Keep your eye on the ball.
    All foreign trade is only barter! Any future system that does not isolate goods flow from finance is in abeyance of iron laws, whether or not it goes after dark pools (a subordinate effect).

    The international system for foreign trade would complement the national system for domestic trade. The international trade finance bank would issue letters of credit (LC) as well as extend bank loans to cover balance-of-payments deficits while the national trade credit system would monetize account receivables/account payables

    If you are a thought leader for the above letters of credit system, then pay close attention to where the paper is distributed, and whether or not a NATIONAL legal authority has been capitulated to erase, convert, and have general control over said paper.

    Iron law again: Money’s true nature is law, and never let you money extend past your law. If you have “international system” then there must be an “international body” to deal with credit/debt formation, and creditors like their credit (debt instruments) to grow exponentially with usury. People have not changed and they want a free lunch.

    • Replies: @antibeast
  105. @Mefobills

    This is the most basic of truths, yet the most under-recognized today because of the very temporary success the John 8:44″children of the devil”, the Jews, are having in their perpetual war on the teachings and followers of God Incarnate Jesus:

    Zionist Christianity is Judaizer religion. All Judaizer sects emphasize the old testament. To do this means to ignore or subvert the doctrine of super-session.

    Super-session means that new testament supersedes old testament. Old testament is a only a guide… in my opinion, it should be removed from the Bible and put on a shelf only for reference. The god of the old testament is also very different in character from the new testament (G)od.

    In Christianity, super-session is operative, and hence any Judaizer sect… by definition is false.

  106. Klc Tan says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    US dollar is backed by the Saudi. Protection racket is forced on the Saudi to accept payment for Saudi oil in dollars. If Saudi does not comply, then Saudi is not protected from US aggression.

    US wants to grab all the oil in the world to control oil supply and dictate payment for oil in dollars.

    This is called dollar hegemony.

  107. antibeast says:
    @Mefobills

    Stop being dazzled by dark pools or speculative capital, as if that is the root problem. These are only knock on effects of known iron rules of economics being abrogated. Keep your eye on the ball All foreign trade is only barter! Any future system that does not isolate goods flow from finance is in abeyance of iron laws, whether or not it goes after dark pools (a subordinate effect).

    Not all foreign trade is barter which implies bilateral trade of good/services from party A to/from party B because in most cases there are third-parties who act as middle-men between the two counter-parties A and B.

    Take the oil market as an example: China buys oil from and sells products to Saudi Arabia. The barter system would then compute China’s net exports (exports – imports) which would imply cash flows from Saudi Arabia into China for a positive balance-of-trade. But what if an oil trader from Singapore buys a futures contract from Saudi Arabia to buy its oil at $25 per barrel in six months time instead of $20 per barrel today. Six months later, the price of oil rises to $30 per barrel which allows the Singapore oil trader to exercise the rights to buy Saudi oil at $25 (as per contract) and resell that oil to China at $30 per barrel. The barter system would not work in this case because the oil trade involves a third-party.

    If you are a thought leader for the above letters of credit system, then pay close attention to where the paper is distributed, and whether or not a NATIONAL legal authority has been capitulated to erase, convert, and have general control over said paper.

    Iron law again: Money’s true nature is law, and never let you money extend past your law. If you have “international system” then there must be an “international body” to deal with credit/debt formation, and creditors like their credit (debt instruments) to grow exponentially with usury. People have not changed and they want a free lunch.

    If all foreign trade was restricted to bilateral trade over limited periods then a barter system would suffice. But in most cases, foreign trade involves multiple parties over extended periods. So both the number of third-parties and the time periods involved make a barter system unsuitable. What is needed is a distributed system that can handle multi-party transactions over extended periods. This automated system itself should be able to inject credit as needed to underwrite futures contracts to minimize inventory risk based on stochastic characteristics of market supply/demand, thus obviating the need for third-party speculative capital.

    There is no “international body” dealing with credit/debt formation for highly speculative trading in the international markets for commodities, currencies, equities, debts, derivatives, etc. What the world has today are “dark pools” of speculative capital sloshing around international markets, unregulated by any LEGAL authority, whether national or international, which has turned neo-liberal finance capitalism into the biggest lawless casino in world history.

  108. dvorak says:
    @Mefobills

    If if Austrians have to be corrected on the origin of money (debt, not barter), it doesn’t follow that a metallic or crypto standard is not the best way to do ‘money’. It doesn’t follow that fractional reserve lending is legitimate.

  109. Mefobills says:

    Yes it is a lawless casino, based on the premise that markets are god and perfect predictors of price.

    The casino uses Federal Reserve notes as its “credit,” thus saddling the American taxpayer as guarantors, and trapping them in Triffin’s dilemma.

    The automated system you talk about needs “Credit” and that will most likely be denominated in FRN’s.

    Some sort of “credit” that is international and relates to goods only brings us back to the unit of account.

    The “credit” is whose unit of account?

    • Replies: @antibeast
  110. @bluedog

    Now I wonder what these fools would think if Vietnam, Cambodia Syria,Libya Afghanistan,Iraq and a host of others sued the U.S. for the wars they brought to those lands and the destruction it caused.!!!!

    You have a valid point about the injustices but you can forget about the suing. What world court is going to force the USA to do or pay anything?

    The reality of the situation is that those countries you mentioned have no way of forcing the USA to do anything; the USA won’t drop to its knees if Viet Nam, Cambodia, Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan threaten to stop, or even actually stop buying American made goods and services.

    If the Chinese cannot sell their goods to the West they’ll be up shit creek. The Chinese have one million people entering the job market every month, their whole system is based on exports, without buyers (i.e. the West) they’re screwed.

    On a side note: I was in Viet Nam in Jan./Feb. of 2004 and was stunned by how much the Vietnamese were genuinely happy to know that I was an American. I thought that they would hate me, so it was bizarre as to how much more excited they were to meet me compared to my Basque girlfriend or any of the other Europeans I happened to be with.

    In Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon), on New Years day while on my way to a huge water park, I saw on the outskirts of town a giant Ford Corporation automobile/truck plant and I thought of my four uncles, three of them teenagers straight out of high school, who as foot soldiers fought in the Viet Nam War (called the “American War” by the Vietnamese to distinguish it from the earlier “French War”) and then returned to the soon-to-be-n0-more coal-mining and steel mill work of Pennsylvania, and I wondered what they would have thought if they had seen this thriving American manufacturing behemoth in the capital of this still Communist country they had been sent to fight in in order to defeat Communism – you know, the Domino Theory and all of that.

    On another side note: I’ll also never forget the large Mulatto woman I saw sitting, defeated, on a curb in Ho Chi Min City. She was obviously the poor and miserable daughter of a black American GI who pumped his seed inside some Vietnamese woman in the 60’s or 70’s. You could tell just by looking at her that she lived a life of racial discrimination and hardship, a life where 99% of everyone who laid eyes on her immediately judged her negatively.

  111. Nathan Rothschild understood this well in the 19th C when leaving the gold standard was unthinkable. No country could go to war without a loan from him. Certainly, going to war with a gold standard more or less bankrupted Britain in WW1.

  112. antibeast says:
    @Mefobills

    Yes it is a lawless casino, based on the premise that markets are god and perfect predictors of price.

    Finance capitalism controls the lawless casino by manipulating the supply/demand characteristics of international markets, thus making sure that the “House” always wins.

    The casino uses Federal Reserve notes as its “credit,” thus saddling the American taxpayer as guarantors, and trapping them in Triffin’s dilemma.

    The USD in the form of Federal Reserve Notes acts as “cash” while the US Treasuries (UST) act as “credit” to the system. According to Triffin’s dilemma, the USA had to sustain perennial trade deficits to fund USD outflows for trade surplus countries who then buy UST with those surplus USD.

    Note that the USD (Federal Reserve Notes) are not payable by the US government because they’re private money payable by the privately-owned Federal Reserve System. Before Nixon nixed the gold standard, foreign Central Banks could go to the Fed to exchange their USD (FRN) with gold. Now they just buy UST with their USD instead. As the US government is liable for its public debt (UST), the UST effectively replaced the gold standard. In other words, the USD (FRN) is private money issued by the privately-owned Fed but backed by the public debts (UST) of the US government.

    The automated system you talk about needs “Credit” and that will most likely be denominated in FRN’s. Some sort of “credit” that is international and relates to goods only brings us back to the unit of account. The “credit” is whose unit of account?

    Not necessarily denominated in a national currency. An international currency such as Keynes’ Bancor, IMF’s SDR or a digital crytocurrency would work well as the unit of exchange for an international trade/settlement system where trade credits would be endogenous as opposed to being exogenous to the system.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 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
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Michael Hudson Comments via RSS