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 Great Debt Debate: Michael Hudson vs. Thomas Piketty
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


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

The debate was monitored by Lynn Parramore, and introduced by David Graeber’s widow, Nika.


Nika: Hi, I’m Nika. I’m David’s wife. This is an event in the honor of the first anniversary of David Graeber’s passing, and then the spirits of his rejection of academic arrogance, and our urgent need to get out of the crisis we are in. We set up the Art Project, so welcome to the first one of the series.

Today, we are talking about “What is debt.” The next one will be about the nature of money. David was probably the most famous anthropologist of our times, and the best selling author. Even still, he had fold in his computer called “Nightmare,” in which he dumped all bills, bureaucratic papers, invoices, and papers of his academic achievements. He regards the idea of isolated individual as a myth.

What interested David much more was dialogue. He believed that it is only in dialogue in the clash of opinions, where answers are formed, and how human consciousness is born. We humans, according to David, are the product of our social relationship. That’s why it was so important for him to be involved in the situation in which people think and act collectively.

The David Graeber Foundation will follow the same path. We have several projects lined up from collective editing of his archives, to publishing The Anthology of The Fight Club, starting from the first debate between David Graeber and Peter Thiel. As Fight Club official cheerleader, I urge our fighters to be emotional, provocative, and bold, because the questions that we’ll discuss concern us all.

If enough of us will change the way we think about what debt means, then the social design of our society will change along with this. This is just that, as David described, a revolution is a change of common sense and the collective imagination. David argued that the main achievement of the Paris Commune, despite its defeat, was the transformation of the common sense in about how we live together.

Most of what we consider ordinary in our city’s public transportation, street lights, public schools, late hours, work days, and even what they’re not yet achieved – equal pay for women and men – originated in the Paris Commune. It was then considered to be social madness. The same can be said about occupy, those 10 anniversary we celebrated now, just as we celebrate David’s life. Occupy, didn’t take over any territory.

It didn’t have leaders in government, but it did change the public discourse. It’s become important to talk about equality, poverty and debt. After occupy, we’ve all looked at the world differently. Speaking on that, the position of our fighters today are radically different. I want to express my immense gratitude to Thomas Piketty, who replied to my email, although we didn’t know each other, and agreed to participate in this debate.

I also want to think Michael Hudson, who came up with the many of the ideas that David Graeber built upon in his book, 5,000 Years of Debt. I really hope that this debate can radically change the way we think about the world, and what else could be more exciting. I pass to Lynn Parramore, whom I thank you for agreeing to moderate his discussion.

Moderator: Well, it’s my great pleasure and it’s wonderful to welcome everyone from all over the world. We share some commonalities in our human experience, and one of them is that we tend to come into the world, most of us, [00:04:00] under-capitalized for the experience. In a sense, most of us are united in debt, and that’s why it’s especially exciting to have two such brilliant thinkers help us unpack this difficult subject from the suitcase, where we like to push away into the back of the closet.

Today, I’m very delighted to welcome my friend, Michael Hudson. He is a distinguished professor of economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. He’s also a researcher at the Levy Institute at Bard. He’s a former Wall Street analyst and a frequent commenter on economic matters and his historical matters. He’s written extensively about debt.

As you just heard from Nika, his work was a great inspiration for David Graeber. He can also tell you more about the ancient Sumerians than you ever dreamed of knowing. Hopefully, we can get to hear a little bit about that today. Welcome Professor Hudson. Welcome also too Thomas [00:05:00] Piketty. He is the professor at the EHESS in the Paris School of Economics. He’s also the co-director of the World Inequality Lab.

You know him for going viral with his books telling us why most of us don’t have any money. Of course, there was his smash hit Capitalism in the Twenty-First Century. More recently, which you must get, if you haven’t read it, Capitalism and Ideology. [00:05:30] Welcome to you, Professor Piketty. We’ll start out having each of you tell us your thoughts about debt. Your position on the topic, and you’ll have about five minutes each. I think we’ll start with you Professor Hudson.

Michael Hudson: I thought we were going to let Tom go first. Otherwise, it’s going to be what I agree with that he wrote, to set up where I go from there. So let him say what he wrote.

Moderator: That’s fine with me. Thomas, would you like to go first?

Thomas Piketty: Yes, whatever, it’s fine. Let me say a few words. First, let me thank you for organizing this. When I received Nika’s email, I felt very emotional because I remember very well the discussion we had with David Graeber back in 2013 in Paris, which was right after my book Capital in the Twenty-First Century was first published in French.


It was not yet available in English, so David had not read it, but I had read his book and that as The First 5,000 Years, and this was for me, this was really a very powerful reading. This made me think a lot, maybe this was not so visible in Capital in The Twenty-First Century, because I had written it actually before I could read David’s book, but, to me, this was really a major a major contribution. [00:07:00]

What about that? Let me simply say that in the future there will be again other debt consolidation, massive debt consolidation. There are long cycles about that which, of course, David talks about we go back to ancient history or to Sumerians times as Michael has been working on. You have this long-run cycle, but you also have more short-run history of debt consolidation and more medium-run history if you want.

I think it’s very important to remember that there are two modern episode which I find particularly striking in terms of getting debt back to zero, at least considering a big part of debt. The French Revolution, of course, is a very important example. This was a time when, basically, the political system did not manage to make pay those who should have paid for the public spending.

There was a flight toward debt because people who should have paid the tax managed somehow to escape. The solution was The French Revolution, the end of fiscal privileges of the aristocracy or consolidation of debt through partly through inflation, partly through taxation. That’s one modern episode. The also modern episode which I want to refer to is, of course, after World War II, after in 1945, 1950 most rich economies had public debt, which were enormous even bigger than today.

They made the choices, a political choice through, a very conflictual social movement, political fight. In the end, the choice was made collectively not to repay this debt. This happens in various ways – inflation in some cases, but some countries like Germany in particular, which is viewed today as very conservative in terms of economic doctrine and ideology and which, in many ways, is very conservative.

We’ll see after the election in a few days, but it’s still going to be quite conservative, probably, in any case. But in fact, after World War II developed, applied a solution to get rid of the debt of the past, through monetary reform, and through progressive taxation of very high wealth holders in order to, in effect, compensate the lower wealth holders for the loss of holdings that was implied by military reform.

In the end this was certainly not a perfect system, but as compared to all the ways of getting rid of past debt, it was certainly one of the most equitable or at least unequitable way to address the problem. I think we will have also episodes like this future, so nobody knows the form it will take, the kind of political mobilization. Occupy was an important episode. There are other social movement, tax reforms, if you think of the Yellow Vest movement in France a couple of years ago, which was a major tax revolt to get rid of what I think was a very unequal project to raise the carbon tax that fell basically on the poorest group in society.

There will be a need to address climate challenges, but also all sorts of social and developmental challenges. Societies will have to find ways of getting rid of their debt. Right now, we have this illusion that we can just take it, and the central bank offer and forget about it. I think it will be more conflictual and less peaceful than this, because it’s always a matter in the end of redefining a power relation between different social groups, so it cannot be completely peaceful. It involves a conflicting social interest.

It involves different groups of people with different agendas. In many ways, we are in a situation which is not, I think completely different from the one at the time of The French revolution. Those who should pay have somehow managed to design a legal system and the political system so that they can escape taxation. At the same time, middle class and lower class people are fed up of paying the bill for them. The solution is more and more debt.

At some point, something else will have to happen. I think it will have to be roughly the same solution as it was 200 years ago, which is the end of physical privileges of a small group in the population that has managed to escape taxation for too long. That’s the initial perspective on debt. Of course, I’d be very interested to hear Michael continue the discussion.

Moderator: Thank you. Michael, the floor is yours.

Michael: Well, I certainly appreciated the book that you published on the accumulation of wealth, and how it’s concentrated in the hands of the 1%. I think everybody knew intuitively that this was the case, but economists being who they are, they don’t really accept something until it’s all there in statistics. You did just a wonderful job in tying together all of these statistics, and showing how the degree to which wealth the 1% have concentrated wealth in every country.

You also made what I think is the most important point, where you said, “What’s caused this?” You came up with the broad answer that I agree with. You said that financial returns exceed the overall rate of growth, and if financial returns exceed the overall rate of growth, of course, you’re going to have the rich getting richer and richer. The reason where we have a different approach is, how do you explain all of this?

Well, when your book came out, a number of writers said, “Well, this is the Marx of the 20th century.” You showed that there was an abrupt turning point in 1980 and everything changed. I think the 1% looked at your statistics as a success story. They said, “Yes, we’re really doing better than everybody else.” The head of Goldman Sachs said, “That’s because we’re so productive” – at making money, that is.


I think the reason your book was praised so much in the West is that you didn’t come up with a threatening political solution. When they said, “This was the Marx book, the Marx of modern times.” That meant “Don’t read Marx, read this book.” I suspect that after you put all of this enormous good work into the statistics that you did on wealth and income, I think the publisher probably said, “Well, what are your solutions?”

Well, you just came up with the solution that you said in the book: to tax income and wealth. This is not a threatening solution because there’s no way that you’re going to tax wealth, as long as you have offshore banking centers to conceal wealth. As long as you have what the oil industry put in place a 100 years ago, the flags of convenience pretending to make their income abroad in zero-tax enclaves.

The fact is, the 1% don’t really make much income. Their ideal, if you’re a billionaire, you want to do what half of American corporations do: You don’t make [00:15:30] a penny of taxable income. That’s the problem. I want to go into what your book was not about. I’m not criticizing you for not writing a different book, but it’s what I write about: what is it that has created this wealth and income disparity, and why has it widened so much since 1980?

The most obvious reason is that interest rates reached a peak of 20% in 1980, and they’ve gone down ever since. In the late 1970s my old boss’s boss at Chase Manhattan, Paul Volcker said, “Let’s raise interest rates very high, because the 99% are getting too much income. Their wages are going up. Let’s raise interest to slow the economy, and that will prevent wages from going up.” He did, and that was a large reason why Carter lost the election to Ronald Reagan.

Interest rates went down from 20% to almost 0% today. The result was the largest bond market boom in history. Bonds went way up in price. The economy was flooded with bank credit, and most of this credit, apart from going into the bond market, went into real estate. There is a symbiosis between finance and real estate, and also between finance and raw materials like oil and gas and minerals extraction, natural resource rent, land rent, and also monopoly rent.

Most of the monopoly rent has come from the privatization that you had from Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and the whole neoliberalism. If you look at how did this 1% get most of this wealth? Well, if you look at the Forbes list of the billionaires in almost every country, they got wealth in the old-fashioned way: from taking it from the public domain. In other words, privatization.

You have the largest privatization and transfer of wealth from the public sector to the private sector in history, and specifically selloffs to the financial sector. And all of a sudden, instead of infrastructure, public health, other basic needs being provided at subsidized rates to the population, you have a privatized owners financed by the banks, raising the prices they charge to whatever they can get, without any market borrowing power.

In the United States, the government is not even allowed to bargain with the pharmaceutical companies for the drug prices. There’s been a huge monopolization, a huge privatization, a huge flooding of the economy with credit, and one person’s credit is somebody else’s debt. You’ve described the 1% wealth in the form of savings, but I focus on the other side of the balance sheet. This 1% finds its counterpart in the debts of the 99%.

The 1% have got wealthy by indebting the 99% for housing that has soared in price, 20% just in the last year in the United States, and also for medical care, utilities and education. The economy has been forced increasingly into debt just to function without wages and living standards rising.

How can one solve this? Taxation will not be enough. The only way that you can actually reverse this concentration of wealth is to begin wiping out the debt. If you leave the debt in place of the 99%, then you’re going to leave the 1% savings all in place. These savings are largely tax-exempt. Basically, I think you’ve left out the government’s role in this wealth creation of the 1%. Finance has indeed grown faster than the economy, and finance and real estate have merged into the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate sector, the FIRE sector.

High finance has absorbed the oil industry, the mining industry, and it’s absorbed most of the government. Financial wealth has become the economy’s central planner. It’s not planned in Washington or Paris or London. It’s planned in Wall Street, the City of London and the Paris Bourse. The economy is being managed financially, and the object of financial management is to make capital gains.

As your statistics point out, capital gains are really what explains [00:20:30] the increase in wealth. You don’t get rich by saving out of earnings and income. Rent is for paying interest. Income is for paying interest. You get rich off the government subsidizing an enormous increase in the value of stocks and bonds by the central banks.

The reason that inequality is occurring is that the largest public utility of all, money creation and banking, is left in private hands. Privatized banking in the West is very different from what government banking is in say, China. Government banking would create credit for public uses, for what the economy needs to grow. In the United States and throughout the West, banks create credit to slow the economy from growing, they make loans not to create new means of production and new factories. They make loans against property already in place – mainly to buy real estate already in place. Some 80% of bank loans in America and Europe are for real estate.


Banks make loans for corporate takeovers to buy other companies. They don’t make loans to build new factories, which is what government money creation in China would do. As long as you leave banking and credit in private hands, you’re going to have banks creating their product: debt. The more debt they create, the more debt service that borrowers, the 99%, have to pay the banks in order to obtain a house. or an education. or medical care, or just to break even.

The more money they pay the financial sector, the less they have to pay for goods and services. As the economy polarizes between the 1% and the 99%, the economy as a whole, shrinks, because more and more of its income is spent not on production and consumption, it’s spent just on debt service. My solution is to restore banking and credit to public hands to prevent the lending that simply finances asset-price inflation.

Second, you talked about taxing. Some taxes are more important than others. As long as the banks and the financial sector write the tax codes, as long as the government lawmakers are basically employees of the financial sector that finances their political campaigns, you’re not going to be able to tax them, or to close down the fictitious transfer pricing that corporations use to pretend not to make money except in artificial enclaves without an income tax.

You have to tax the source of the money that pays interest to the banks. That source is mainly economic rent. It’s primarily land rent. If you would tax on the increase in land values, if you’d have a land tax, which is what the whole 19th century was about – Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and even Marx. You would not have this increased rent being paid to the financial sector to be monopolized by the 1%.

You’d have to change the way in which the tax code is based, away from earned income and wealth. But that is really not very practical in today’s political situation. You’d have to have a land tax and a natural resource tax to get rid of monopoly rent. You also have to return basic key infrastructure to the public domain, where it was before 1980, so that basic needs can be supplied at low prices, not creating monopoly rent for the 1%.

You have to realize that financiers use this wealth to take over the economy. This has to be reversed, because once you have wealth taking the form of financial claims and loans to other people as debt, you have compound interest. Any rate of interest is a doubling time, and compound interest is always going to grow faster than the economy’s real growth. The way to prevent this isn’t simply to lower the interest rate, which has been done today, to 0.1%. The only solution is to wipe out the overall debts that are stopping economic growth

These debts are the savings of the 1%. The good thing about canceling debts is, you cancel the savings of the 1%. As long as you leave these savings in place, there’s not going to be a solution.

Moderator: Thank you so much, Michael. Thomas, feel free to respond to this idea of canceling debt.

Thomas: Yes, I don’t feel we have any major disagreement about everything you just said, Michael. Let me say also regarding my book Capital in the 21st Century. It’s book that has lots of limitations. On many issues I’ve tried to make progress since then. This was written 10 years ago. I wrote Capital and Ideology much more recently, which I think addresses some of the shortcomings, but still this book has also a lot of limitation.

I’m trying to make progress all the time. I certainly don’t pretend that all the answers are in one book. That being said, I think many things that you’ve mentioned, again, I fully agree with that. As I said, the consolidation of debt is very important because, as you very well said, the part of the increase in private wealth at the top was really made through privatization of public assets and increased public debt.

There’s one statistic that I stress a lot. If you look at the net wealth of the public sector, the net wealth of the government – government assets minus government debt – it used to be in the 1970s that net public wealth was between 20% and 30% of total national wealth. Net private wealth was bigger, like 70% or 80%, but still, net public wealth was 20%, 30% in [00:27:00] Germany, in the US, in France, in Britain and in Japan.

That was a central part of everything that was to be owned in terms of marketable assets in society belonging to the public domain – say, around one quarter or between one quarter and one third. Today, three, four decades later, it is close to zero or actually negative in the US or the UK. In the sense that the public debt is bigger than the public assets, because many public assets were privatized while public debt increased.

In effect, there was transfer of public wealth to private wealth holders. That’s a very important evolution. The most extreme case, of course, will be Russia and post-communist countries, where you just transfer all the public wealth and you make oligarchs out of nothing. In fact, all countries have had these trajectories over the recent decade. That’s really an important part of the stories that I’ve been trying to tell.

Again, I don’t think we have any disagreement on this. At a even broader level, it’s all about power and political institutions. As you said, as long as the system of political finance and parties, companies, media and think tanks are largely controlled by large wealth holders, our collective ability to change the distribution of wealth and through taxation or debt consolidation, or whatever the method is, is going to be limited.

It’ll take a major political fight to challenge the political rules of the game and the political institutions to change this. The good news is that it has always been like this. Sometimes it has worked in the past, but it has worked. I mentioned the French Revolution. Of course, that’s a huge popular mobilization. Also in the 20th century, I mentioned after World War II, after World War I.


Well, let’s be clear, it’s only because there was a very powerful labor movement, a socialist movement, and a communist counter-model in the East, which in the end put pressure on the governing elite in the West. So they had to accept a number of decisions, which were limited in scope, but still which transformed the economic and social system in very substantial way as compared to the pre-World War I and 19th century economic system.

It’s only through this enormous political mobilization and collective organization – the same as in the past. Just one last point: You mentioned the case of China and I think the Chinese control model can contribute maybe in the future also to put pressure on the West to change. Also at this stage, the big difference with the Soviet control model is that the Soviet control model had a narrative and a proximity between socialist and communist patterns or labor movements. So in effect, the elite in the West felt threatened by this control model, and this contributed to reinforce, to some extent and until a certain point, the labor movement in the West – until the final fall of the Soviet Union.

Which of course impacted capitalist ideology, and everything we’ve seen since then. Regarding the Chinese model, you mentioned the fact that the banking system is working a bit more to the service of the real economy and infrastructure and investments, than the banking system in the West. By and large, the Chinese model looks more and more like a perfect digital dictatorship, and nobody really wants to [chuckles] copy this, apart from other government elite, who would like to keep their population quiet and restrict movement as efficiently as the Beijing regime is doing.

No collective movement in the world wants to look like this, so this also limits the pressure that this control model can put on the West. At the end of the day I think this can be one of the forces that still can induce change. For instance, when we talk about the taxation of multinational in 2021, which what has been decided by rich countries, it is very limited. They claim they have solved the problem of multinational taxation, but it’s a bit ridiculous how little they have done.

The minimum tax rate of 15% is ridiculously small. Also, rich countries are sharing between themselves the tax base, currently in tax havens. Countries in the Global South basically don’t get anything. I think that’s an area in which the pressure of the Chinese control model in the future may contribute to induce rich countries to have a bit more inclusive attitude toward the South.

If they don’t do it, China will [finance the investment and the infrastructure investment that is needed in Africa and in South Asia. At some point, fully Western countries will realize this, or they will just lose any capacity to influence the world. This is getting us very far from the initial discussion, but I hope this is still more or less relevant.

Moderator: Michael, feel free to respond.

Michael: Well, it would not surprise me if we ended up in agreement with what to do. I realize that you wrote your book about your topic, and I wrote my book about what to do about it. I just want to point out, where I think we do have a disagreement. My point is that compound interest is always going to grow faster than the economy’s real ability to grow. In the end, debts can’t be paid. Right now, you see a lot of third-world debts.

If Third World debtor countries have to pay their foreign debts as the world economy slows down, they’re going to be subjected to austerity, to the World Bank’s and IMF’s austerity program, and they’re going to be kept in poverty. Is that really right that they should be kept in poverty just to enrich the bondholders of the 1%? The 1% will say, “Yes, that’s why we’re the 1%, so that we can impoverish other people. That’s our liberty. Our liberty is the right to impoverish other people, and reduce them to dependency.”

That will happen if you do not write down the debts. It’s already happening in the United States with the student debt crisis. Students have to pay so much money, as they fall behind on their student debts that they can’t afford to take out mortgages to buy homes. You’re having the homeownership rates plunge in the United States. That’s the result of leaving debts in place.

The mortgage debts are causing shrinkage, so there is no way to get out of this economic polarization without a debt breakdown. But that’s something that is still too radical. When I was referring to what China’s doing, I’m referring to what it’s doing today and tomorrow about the real estate company, Evergrande. China has a choice: Is it going to leave Evergrande’s real estate debts in place, with Evergrande as a real estate company that’s 2% to 3% of the entire Chinese economy.

If it pays the foreign creditors and the domestic 1% of China, it’s going to impoverish the employees of Evergrande, it’s going to make housing prices more and more expensive in China. China’s had a debt-financed housing boom. If you leave the debts in place, then you’re going to impoverish China. Obviously, China is going to say, “We’re not going to put the creditors first, we’re not going to do what the West does.” The West advocates the sanctity of debt service, and says, “Debts that you owe are sacred. It’s worse sacrificing the economy, it’s worth plunging the economy into poverty in order to preserve the wealth of the 1%.”

I think China is going to make the opposite decision and say, “We’re not going to commit political suicide. It’s a socialist economy. When it comes to debt and credit, it has kept its banking in the public domain. The People’s Bank of China is the creditor, it can afford to write down the debt without having any political backlash, because it’s canceling debts owed to itself. That is the great advantage of keeping money and credit as a public utility.


As for private bondholders, China’s going to say, “Well, sorry, bondholders, you made loans to a company that was way over-leveraged. Already, the American bond rating companies have reduced their bond rating to junk. You knew what you were buying. If you continued to hold bonds that Fitch and other bond raters like Moody’s all said were junk, and you lose your money? Well, you took the risk, you got a high rate of interest, now you’re paying the price.” That’s how markets work.

That really is the argument. Obviously, what I’m suggesting is a radical step, just as you’re suggesting of taxing wealth would require the radical step of closing down offshore banking standards of simply negating it, if banks would erase all of the deposits they have from the offshore banking centers. In the Cayman Islands, Panama, Liberia and all the places that began to be set up by the mining companies, the [00:38:00] oil companies and those that were set up beginning in the 1960s, essentially, by the CIA to finance the Vietnam War by making America, like England, the home for criminal capital and flight capital.

All this flight capital and the kleptocracy that you mentioned in Russia, all this really should be wiped out. If you leave this capital, if you leave this 1% in place, the economy is going to be sacrificed and shrinking. Is it worth shrinking the economy just to leave the 1% in place? If you challenge them, that’s pretty radical. That’s really what I think Marx would say today.

Moderator: Thank you. I wanted to just pitch a question to you all before we turn it over to some questions from the audience. You’ve both mentioned, it’s not the elephant in the room, it’s the Tyrannosaurus Rex in the room. I think – Thomas, as you put it, those who should pay, design the system. You both have commented [00:39:00] on this enormous problem that we have.

Every time we have good ideas, ranging from just a tiny little tax on the rich, to the more radical ideas that Michael was suggesting, we run up against this Tyrannosaurus Rex. Where do you all see the most effective pressure points coming from right now, in terms of getting anything accomplished on debt? Where is the effective mobilization potentially coming from that you see developing now?

Thomas: Maybe, let me first say, we need regular debt consolidation. I don’t think at all this is radical or too radical. If anything, I think this is not radical enough, because I think in addition to debt consolidation, we need also to redistribute the assets, to redistribute wealth. When I’m talking about taxing wealth, it’s also redistributing wealth, giving wealth to people who don’t own anything. It’s not only concerning their debt, it’s also giving them positive ownership rights in companies, in housing. Yes, I think there’s really no disagreement on this.

Now, what about the pressures that will come? Well, two things. First, I think the real problem is the system of free capital flow. We have created an international legal system where, in effect, we have almost circularized right to accumulate wealth in a country using the public infrastructure, your education system, any system of a country.

You can push on a button, transfer your assets in another jurisdiction, and nobody knows where you are, nobody. There’s nothing natural in the system. It was made by your set of international treaties, a particular legal system. Individual countries have to get rid of that. Then, so in the case of Europe, you cannot wait to get rid of that. Individual countries have to say, “Okay, I’m not against the separation of investment and capital goods, but it has to come with government taxation, with government regulation, government rules. It cannot just be like this. You push on a button, we don’t know where you are. This has to go.”

Some proposals that was made by Bernie Sanders in the presidential campaign in the US, early last year, it seems like ages ago. But that was only 18 months ago. When he said, “If you want to escape my federal wealth tax, you can go away, but then you will have to pay your 40% exit tax. You will have to keep 40% of your assets in the US if you want to go ahead.” That’s clearly a big change as compared to free capital flow. But that’s the change we need to consider. How is this going to happen? Well, first, we need to realize that the free capital flows treaty agreement, which came a lot, actually, in fact, from Europe in the 1980s, but also from Washington, of course, it was a co-production. It’s up to individual countries to escape that.

Another source of change and pressure, I think, is climate change. It is going to put a strong pressure in the sense that, I think when people see more and more catastrophic climatic events, attitudes toward globalization and toward inequality in general can change very quickly, because at some point, people will not find it funny at all to have all these billionaires giving lessons using their private jets, doing space tourism, et cetera.

At some point, I think nobody’s going to find this funny at all, and that can be a very quick and fast complete change in attitude. Then, I think the Chinese control model with all its good and bad (very bad sometimes) aspects can also be a factor of change.

Moderator: Thank you. Michael, would you like to respond to that?

Michael: Yes, I don’t see a change within the existing system. I guess that makes me radical. Thomas did not mention the main point that he made in his book, which was, his number one suggestion was tax inherited wealth, because most wealth is inherited. That’s one of the things that he’s found. Absolutely right. Great idea.

Saint-Simon, the great French economist had this idea on the very first book he wrote around 1806. It made him very unpopular, and he soon realized that there was no way of doing that. From Saint-Simon on, to the entire 19th century of British political and French political economy, they all agreed, with Smith and the others, there’s the rentier landlord class. The 1% in their day were the landlords.


You have to tax away the land rent and make that the public tax based, not taxes on consumer goods, not taxes on capital, because you want good capital investment, you want fortunes to be made in a good way that add to the economy’s productivity. You don’t want them to be made in a predatory way. The whole fight was to tax economic rent, and to recognize that most income is unearned.

When you talk about the income disparity, almost all this disparity is unearned income, it’s economic rent. Is not income that’s made by increasing production or increasing living standards. It’s just predatory rent-seeking from special privileges that the wealthy have gain from government. But today it’s not the landlord class anymore as it was in the 19th century. It’s the financial class, the raw-materials class.

Without dealing with this structure, the economic system is going to shrink and shrink. We’ve seen this before. We saw it in Rome, the same polarization and concentration of wealth in the Roman Empire. Well, the last stage of that was feudalism. We’re back to what Rosa Luxemburg said, “The choice is between socialism and barbarism.” There’s no other way to do it. You can’t solve the problems within the existing system, because it’s controlled by the 1%.

Moderator: Thank you, Michael. I’d like to toss out a couple of questions from the audience now. We have a question about energy. One viewer asked, “Isn’t energy as much a source of value as land? Should we have progressive taxes on energy use as well/or instead of land value tax?”

Michael: First of all, land doesn’t have any cost-value, nor does energy have any. We’re talking about economic rent. The financial sectors uses part of its income to subsidize economic schools and universities to change the vocabulary. Our vocabulary is different from the realistic vocabulary that we had in the 19th century. Land doesn’t really have a value, nature creates it.

Value is created by people working and creating it. Nature provides the land, and the public sectors spending on infrastructure creates the rent of location, which increases land prices. Nature provides the oil. Economic rent is what we’re talking about. This economic rent of land, oil and minerals and monopolies belongs in the public domain, so that you don’t have to have an income tax or excise taxes and value-added taxes on labor and industry.

You should tax the rentier free lunch, not labor in industry. That’s what a free market meant in the 19th century, and that meaning has been inverted. Today, a free market has the right for the rentiers to avoid taxes and shift the entire tax base on to labor and industry. They do this by twisting around and perverting the English language. They get rid of the analytic language that you need to even explain how most income and most wealth is unearthed.

Moderator: How about you, Thomas, do you think that we need to clarify how we talk about and define value?

Thomas: Well, in the case of energy, first we have to clarify the fact that there are some sources of energy which create negative value because of global climate change, and climate warming, also – a negative external effect of using some energy. We have to make some of the energy sources just illegal. We have to keep some of the oil in the ground. We have to stop looking for new oil and gas.

The solution to some of the energy questions we have is just to make illegal the use of certain energy and to move to other energy. That’s part of the answer. Now, if we have done that, and we deal with energy that don’t have much bigger negative impact on mankind than the positive productive impact, then redistribution of wealth must be about all forms of wealth.

Whether it’s rent, or energy, or financial assets or housing, we need to have a permanent circulation of wealth and power.. Taxation of wealth will be a permanent, progressive tax on net wealth, which, in effect, will wipe out all the biggest wealth right away – say up to 90% tax per year for millionaire. There will still be some people who own $100,000, some people who own $1 million or $2 million, but there will be a permanent circulation of wealth holdings within this limited wealth grabbers that will still exist. This should be for all forms of wealth, whether it’s land, or housing, or whatever is your region.

Moderator: Thank you. We seem to have quite a number of students in the audience today. We have a question about student debt, and what types of resistance students could make to change the social relationship [00:50:00] of debt that they get forced into. Do you have any suggestions or rhetorical points that students need to engage with in order to gain support for a debt jubilee on their debts?

Michael: I wish there were. I don’t see any because you have a President of the United States who wrote the law saying, “You’re not allowed to wipe out student debt as a result of bankruptcy.” Basically, the American philosophy is that the way to prevent an independent middle class from developing is to keep them so deeply indebted that they have to go to work and go into debt or forego a costly education, not be hired and starve.

They’re afraid of losing their jobs. They can’t afford to buy homes of their own. The purpose of student debt is to make them dependent. Under socialism and in Europe, China and the older countries, education was free. The whole idea was that it’s what you need in order to grow. But the finance-capitalist system is not industrial capitalism anymore. It is financial capitalism, and that’s very different.


You’ll use a basic need as a means of saying, “Your money, or your life. If you don’t pay us, then, you’ll have to forego your education.” The price of getting access to a labor force is to go so deeply into debt that you’re going to have to work for a living, and you’re going to have to work for what we pay you. There’s a class war on, and you’ve got to realize that.

There’s very little you can do simply as individual students, apart from stopping paying the debt and make the government throw 20 million of you in jail. They can’t do that. The only thing to do, I guess, would be a strike. But meanwhile, they’re going to try to go after your credit rating. They’re going to try to fight you. You have to back politicians who are willing to change this, and unfortunately, there’s no party that’s in favor of canceling student debt or any debt in the United States, because the political parties are subsidized by the banking in the financial sector. I don’t see a way out.

Moderator: Thomas?

Thomas: I agree with Michael that with this government and with this president in the US, it’s probably going to be difficult to get a lot going. But and I also agree that the entire political system in the US in a way is so corrupt by money and the way campaigns are financed, and the way media also are financed and are biased in the way they covers of different possible candidates.

This makes it very difficult. That being said, again, if we go back to 18 months ago, there were candidates in the democratic primary which together, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, I mean they put don’t put them exactly together, of course, but they add the short share of the vote, and on the issue of student debt, I think different things could have happened with a different president and a different majority.

I think it’s important also to be helpful and to try to prepare what would be a more successful coalition, or more successful political campaign in the future. It’s important to always remember that, as Michael was saying, “The true source of economic prosperity is not financial capitalism. It is investment in education, investment in the real economy, in infrastructure.”

In the middle of the 20th century, in the 1950s, 1960s the US had a situation of economic dominance over the rest of the world. It was not through extreme financial inequality. You had a 90% income-tax rate after Roosevelt, but you had a big age educational advance. At that time you had 90% of a cohort will go to high school in the US in 1950s and 1960s.

At the same time, it was 20 or 30% in Germany or in France. This was this educational advance which made prosperity historically. We seem to have forgotten this in the US following since the 1980s, but so we have to manage to put this back on this agenda. But of course, that’s that’s not easy.

Moderator: Well, thank you very much to of our speakers today. I think you’ve helped open our minds and think about this topic a little more clearly, even though we’re still not exactly sure how to overcome these tremendous forces that are working against us to find solutions that, really, at the end of the day, I don’t think anything either one of you has said is truly radical in the sense of history.

As human beings, we have approached and confronted these problems before, and there have been good practical solutions that both of you have offered. I wanted to just turn the floor over to Professor Steve Keen now. Again, thank you everyone for participating in this conversation today.

Steve Keen: Thank you for our speakers and thank you for the audience as well. I’m sorry that there was only one hour. There have been over 70 questions asked, we’d be here for three hours trying to answer them. I want to particularly thank Thomas for being part of this debate, because one thing Michael and I’ve experienced so frequently is that we can’t get anybody in the establishment to join into discussion with us who areoutside the establishment.

I really respect you and honor you for doing that. It also shows the tremendous contribution that David made by being somebody who can talk to everybody. Everybody enjoys talking to David. We hope we can maintain that through the idea of forthcoming debates, and we look forward to seeing you all there in the future installments, in The Fight Club. Thank you everybody. Thank you.

Thomas: Okay, thank you. Thanks a lot for the invitation.

Steve: Bye.

Thomas: Bye-bye

Michael: Bye all.

[00:56:22] [END OF AUDIO]

• Category: Economics • Tags: Debt, Inequality, Piketty 
Hide 120 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Rubicon says:

    Once again, Dr. Michael Hudson blows a neo-liberal out of the water!!

  2. Rubicon says:

    If only the American citizens understood what Dr. Michael Hudson is saying about neo-liberalism, they would have a far greater understanding to *why* people are paid so poorly; millions are homeless; insurance, health care, mortgage/rental payments, auto/home & education have skyrocketed, leaving them heavily in debt.

    But, it seems the obvious, is beyond millions of American citizens.
    What a tragedy!

  3. nsa says:

    This article is impenetrable econ gibberish. Making a living the honest way (manufacturing something, repairing something, growing something) is a mug’s game. Cultural icon Thrumpstein showed everyone what 21st century capitalism is all about……MAKING DEALS. You make a deal with me for a container of cheap crap sunglasses……I make a deal with you for a gyppo reverse mortgage. See how it works…..we both get filthy rich making deals just like Donnie Trumpstein. And if a deal doesn’t work out, you stiff your creditors and suppliers, declare bankruptcy, and go on to the next great bigly deal. It’s all explained in that epic econometric tome that is studied in all academic citadels across the fruited plain….. “The Art of the Deal”. Hudson and Piketty should just start making lots of deals and get filthy rich joining the rest of Amelika getting rich making lots of deals. Folks no longer need to take in each other’s laundry to get rich…they just need to make lots of deals.

    • Replies: @Anon
  4. I would say 1973 is when it all started to go sideways.

  5. I like these debates, but they miss the elephant in the room: Jewish power. Even Marx wrote about the connection between Jewish power and capitalism in “Zur Judenfrage”.

    There needs to be a debate between ome of the above with E. Michael Jones. THE books “Barren Metal” or “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and its Impact on World History” are both much better in identifying the root causes of the problem than Hudson or Piketty.

    I think Hudson is way more on target than Piketty, but he is no e. michael Jones either. Piketty, ultimately, is shallow. I think he wrote hos books just to make money off of the people who are concerned with these issues. He identifies the problems, so many readers can relate to the book, but then offers a superficial solution which does not fix anything, and does not really address the problem even.

    • Agree: Nancy
  6. d dan says:

    Unfortunately, financial and economic reforms can NOT come before political reform. They can’t even run in parallel to political reform, they have to be AFTER political reform.

    None of the solutions discussed and proposed here about debt, wealth redistribution and taxation will gain any traction in the current political environment. Even if some solutions are partially adopted, if would almost certainly be done for the wrong reasons, like attempting to bribe special interest groups for votes or to harm the political opponents.

    In that sense, the discussion here is putting the cart in front of the horse for the problems facing the Western world.

    • Agree: W
    • Replies: @Montmorency
    , @rgl
  7. I am a supporter of Hudson on this.

    Financial accumulation is a dynamic system. So is money creation. I am a control engineer, and used tools from that field in my phd, which might be of interest:

    On the Dynamics of Money Circulation, Creation and Debt
    – a Control Systems Approach

    See especially chapter 7, with reform ideas.

    • Replies: @Levtraro
    , @Old Brown Fool
  8. @d dan

    financial and economic reforms can NOT come before political reform

    There is no reform possible on a fundamentally corrupted system.
    The financial ponzi scheme with its fiat money basis has to collapse. Until we go back to gold/gold standard things will keep going from bad to worse.

    • Agree: Realist, rgl, RoatanBill
  9. onebornfree says: • Website

    Article summary: two Marxists and worshipers of the state discuss what to do about wealth disparity, government debt etc.


    Their solutions ? More government (of course! 😆)

    Neither one understand that it’s the government that caused the economic consequences they both complain about.

    Neither one understands that “privatization” has nothing to do with “private ownership”, and that the Fed, for just one example, is ” in business” purely because it has a fully government protected (Federal Reserve Act 1913) legalised _monopoly_ on the creation of its fake, (and entirely unconstitutional) “money”.

    Neither of them understand that _more_ government will not solve any of the problems they see, and that “Everything government touches turns to crap”( Ringo Starr).

    Nor do they understand that:

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

    So obviously, any government enforced “solutions” put forward by these two silly fantasists ( or others put forward by other, similar fantasists/believers in the curative power of the state), will only make wealth disparity and debt distortions even worse than they are now.

    This “just” in:

    There are NO government solutions, to _any problem in this world. Never has been, never will be.

    Governments _caused_ the financial problems Hudson and Piketty complain abou- it will never solve them.

    “Government doesn’t work” Harry Browne

    “Regards”, onebornfree

  10. Sean says:

    Piketty is a big, big name, all credit to him for participating. Hudson was at his best here in my opinion.

  11. This thread is called ‘The Great Debate’ ??

    I mean, it’s Joseph Stalin Vs Leon Trotsky (ie: hardly a clash of diametrically opposed ideologies).

    Why doesn’t Piketty or Hudson challenge someone like Peter Schiff to a debate ?

    Oh, I forgot. I already suggested to Michael Hudson that he should debate Peter Schiff.
    But he immediately chickened out.

    No doubt the coward Piketty would do likewise.

    Piketty, if you’re reading this, prove me wrong.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  12. Louis et Marie solution would be the best solution for the 1% and their supporters because they are not going to grow hearts which would be fond of humanity. I foresee guillotines being elected all over this land and across the world. Cest la vie!

  13. Levtraro says:
    @Trond Andresen

    I read the Summary of your dissertation. I think you are right in your metaphor of the macroeconomy as an organism with nodes and connections that represent money flows. The metaphor opens the door to borrow results from mathematical biology, particular models of growth to discover micro foundations of macro. I have (unpublished) statistical results that support the use of the metaphor for the macroeconomy by analyzing the effect of debt on growth, which turns out to follow a Gompertzian process, exactly like the growth of tumours (which btw detour blood and resources from healthy organs to their own malicuous growth). I a not a supporter of MMT, I think MMT is true but trivial, i.e. tautological, but nonetheless I wil try to find the time to read your dissertation.

    • Replies: @Trond Andresen
  14. So, how many angels fit on the head of a pin?

    Two economists having a dialog is the equivalent of two priests discussing their religion. There’s no reality, no truth to be discovered in economics since it’s all just opinion. Economists are the priests for the church the bankers built.

    When one starts off with fraudulent currency instead of actual money, there’s little point in discussing how to proceed with the Ponzi scheme to try to make it look legitimate and last as long as possible. The solution is to get rid of the currency and return to real money where no entity can finagle trillions into existence at their whim.

    As long as fiat currency is declared the only legal tender with guns backing up that fraud, there can be no truth revealed by the frauds in the economics “profession”. Economists are part of the problem and in no way can they be part of the solution.

    Never expect the people who caused a problem to solve it.
    Albert Einstein

  15. Tjoe says:

    There is an extremely good book called “Truth in Money”, first published in 1982, that makes the argument that the “creation” of money by debt, specifically the principle portion, follows the growth curve of compounding interest since 1913. They prove the simple graph, at 6% interest, compounded yearly, almost perfectly predicts M3, the money supply, historically and into the future. AND….that the growth is unstoppable…..has to go on or the debt money system fails (think Weimar Republic).

    The graph is telling at 100 years (to 2013) and downright scary after that, growing faster and faster each year.

    Think about it. The system of making the principle portion of the debt is in place but there is no corresponding system to “make” the interest portion, we are left in the marketplace to fight for those moneys.

    Recently, I refinanced my house for lower interest. The first 15 years of the prior loan payments had a whooping 80% that went to pay interest….only just under 20% actually paid principle. This is the mechanism for wealth transfer to the banker and it’s worsening fast. Go to a compound interest calculator and put 6% in for 110 years (to 2023) to see how fast the interest portion rises each year. That is money you and I owe that has no corresponding system (besides collection of tax) to “MAKE” the money to pay it. Without the graph, the growth of debt principle AND compounding interest is only words….not so obvious. And it will be clear why M3 was stopped… was going to scare the shi out of the world that uses dollars.

    This is the stuff that pogroms have been made of.

  16. I didn’t read the entirety of the article.

    The portion I read is so riddled with financial illiteracy that there are just too many fallacies to address.

    Let me start with this one from Michael Hudson:

    In the late 1970s my old boss’s boss at Chase Manhattan, Paul Volcker said, “Let’s raise interest rates very high, because the 99% are getting too much income.
    Their wages are going up. Let’s raise interest to slow the economy, and that will prevent wages from going up.

    WRONG !!

    The overwhelming reason Volcker raised the Fed Funds Rate to 20 % was to BREAK THE BACK OF INFLATION.

    Inflation in the U.S was (from memory) running around 12-13% in 1979/80.

    So, the purchasing power of the USD was losing 12-13% with each passing year.

    If you got 10% interest in your savings account, you were still going backwards by 3% each year in real terms.
    In fact, you were doing worse than that because you were paying tax on interest income received.

    So, this encouraged speculation in hard assets like real estate and most certainly in precious metals.
    Silver had a near ten fold increase in the few years leading up to January 1980. Gold increased from USD $35/oz to around $850/oz from August 1971 (when Nixon took the U.S off the gold standard), to Jan 1980.

    Why was inflation this high, you ask ?
    As Milton Friedman said: ‘Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon’.

    Simply put, the U.S was printing too much money.

    Nowhere near as much as they are now of course, but inflation appears lower today because the U.S government ‘cooks the books’. (If inflation was measured the same way today as it was 40 years ago, the ACTUAL inflation rate would be at least as much).

    Anyway, with inflation so high 40 years ago, people dumped their fast depreciating USD as soon as they got them – thus greatly increasing the velocity of money (which in turn made inflation worse, thus perpetuating the cycle).

    Holders of USD (and other fiat currencies), dumped them in exchange for REAL MONEY. ie: Gold – a form of money that cannot be printed.

    So, if inflation was running at 12-13%, why the overkill and raise the Fed Funds Rate to 20%.

    Why not just raise it to 14% or 14.5%, thus offering investors a 1 -1.5% real rate of return ?

    The fact is, people were panicked and there was a real possibility that the USD could go the way of Weimar Germany and become worthless. Even with a Fed Funds Rate of 20%, many were more concerned that there would be no return of their money (U.S defaults on its obligations), rather than the rate of return.

    So Volcker had to offer a rate that was well and truly ahead of the official rate of inflation.

    It was a close run thing and may not have worked. But, rightly or wrongly, investors viewed the incoming administration of Ronald Reagan as economically competent and bailed out of gold and speculation, instead opting for U.S Treasuries.

    Now, in relation to this remark also by Hudson:

    I think the 1% looked at your statistics as a success story. They said, “Yes, we’re really doing better than everybody else.” The head of Goldman Sachs said, “That’s because we’re so productive” – at making money, that is.

    Hudson glosses over WHY Goldman Sachs-of-Shit are still around today.

    When the 2008/09 GFC hit, Goldman Sachs would have gone bust absent the taxpayer bailout.

    Then Congressman Dr Ron Paul, in true Libertarian style, was screaming from the rooftops that there should be NO TAXPAYER BAILOUT.

    That’s the essence of true Capitalism. You reap what you sow. Goldman Sachs-0f-shit had engaged in reckless activities and they deserved to go bust.

    So did J.P Morgan, Citigroup, General Motors and all the rest. ALL OF THEM WOULD HAVE GONE BANKRUPT if true Capitalism had been the order of the day.

    Instead, what America had/has is a situation where Profits are Privatised and Losses are Socialised.

    Some call this Crony Capitalism but that’s besmirching capitalism..

    Much more accurate to call it Crony Corporatism.

    So, what if we let the banks and G.M fail, wouldn’t the U.S have been left without much of a car industry and wouldn’t the country collapse without a banking industry ?

    That’s the biggest lie of all peddled by the Zio-owned MSM.

    NO !!
    Said companies would’ve gone into Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.
    Said businesses would still have remained in operation, and the economy would’ve functioned with scarcely a hiccup, as creditors were paid off and the business was RESTRUCTURED.

    Yes, reckless investors that bought Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and G.M stock would have lost all their money. (Mostly high end fat cats so not likely to have affected the bulk of Americans on Main Street).

    Do any of you know how many times airline companies (many of which still operate today), have gone bankrupt ? (Answer: A hell of a lot them).

    They merely went through bankruptcy, came under new management or their assets were purchased by another airline that wasn’t profligate (thus gaining market share and being rewarded for their prudent stewardship), and life would’ve gone on.

    As usual, Piketty and Hudson and their ilk just resort to obfuscation and diversion and blame the woes of society on some other scapegoat.

    So fellow UR readers, are you in for a REAL DEBATE ?

    If so, pressure Ron Unz to arrange a debate between Peter Schiff (representing Libertarians and the Austrian Economic School) Vs Piketty or Hudson.

    To make it a fair fight, let’s make it Schiff Vs Hudson, Piketty and a dozen other Marxists (not that it really makes a difference – because Schiff will just as easily shred the collective).

    • Thanks: RichardDuck, W
    • Replies: @Nancy
    , @Mr. Grey
  17. Levtraro says:

    Whether based on fiat or actual money, an economy has real processes happening to it that are explainable with mathematical models. For instance, debt has aggregate consequences on the whole economy whether when functioning with fiat or with actual money. Perhaps what you want to say is replace economists and their ideological baggage with objetive natural scientists and/or with rigorous mathematicians?

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
    , @Mefobills
  18. Meanwhile, for those of you who think I’m exaggerating about the USD money ‘printing on steroids’ that’s going on now (which is orders of magnitude worse than what happened in the 1970’s), check out the growth in the U.S M1 money supply:

    For those not in the know, M1 = (broadly speaking), the Coins and Notes in circulation PLUS Demand and Savings deposits PLUS OCD’s (other checkable deposits).

    The graph above only goes to the end of 2020, and thus shows that most of the damage was done under the Socialist Donald Trump.

    Yes MAGAts, and other Trump groupies, Trump was a committed fiscally reckless socialist that just happened to run on a Republican ticket.

    Of course, Sleepy Joe Biden has taken the reins where Donald J Chump left off and is continuing with the profligacy.

    Bottom Line: The USD, and the House of Cards that masquerades as the U.S economy, is done for.

    It’s going down for the count and, like the 1970’s, that money is going into gold and silver (only more so).

    For those that haven’t bailed out of their USD denominated investments (stocks, bonds, real estate etc), best to do so before your goose is cooked.

    • Agree: ruralguy, vox4non
  19. No one discusses serious reforms that everyone will support:

    1. Roll back student loan debt interest to 1%; now 4-7%. The banks borrow at that rate from the Fed. The program should help students, not generate profits.

    2. Roll back credit card interest to a max of 12%. It currently averages around 20%, blatant usury.

    3. Limit absurd bank fees, like $30 for late payments and bounced checks. Limit those to $5.

    4. Limit credit card transaction fees to 1% (like Australia does) not 3% in the USA that gouges business and boosts prices.

    Probably 90% of Americans support these ideas, the other 1% are bankers or wealthy investors, and 9% crazed libertarians who believe in free-market looting. I doubt even the so called progressives in Congress would even promote these common sense reforms since our “democratic” system is horribly corrupt.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
    , @showmethereal
  20. Weaver says:

    I prefer having the federal government fully exit education, closing the Department of Education, and just passing out UBI instead. Replace the income tax with a VAT. Pay out UBI. Close the Federal Reserve. Ban the federal government from being able to take on debt.

    It should be possible to get Americans hooked on UBI once given a taste. Cancelling debt helps those who had access to that debt, which is unfair. UBI directly pays every American.

    An alternative idea is to increase education tax credits, but there’s risk of introducing inefficiency, such as overpriced schools offering low value courses, overpriced due to low value. Currently, schools seem overpriced in at least some fields. Perhaps medical school should be free.

    • Replies: @rgl
  21. Nancy says:

    Bravo, Tjoe!! You’ve dont the near impoissble…. clear communication, so even the ‘common man’ may begin to see the light. Thanks.

  22. Nancy says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    So it seems China is handling the Evergrande debacle the right way…. the ‘squealing Termite Soros, et al’ investors will lose, bondholders will take a ‘haircut’, and government will back up the home owners and suppliers/producers. A truly capitalist… or more so… country?

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  23. ruralguy says:

    I started reading this 8000 word transcript, but realized it’s a beautiful Sunday morning and I’m reading a conversation between two Soviet-style Marxists. Michael Hudson’s father was a Trotskyist trade unionist and Michael Hudson has the distinction of owning the English rights to some of Trotsky’s works. He apparently took Trotsky’s philosophy seriously. It’s hard to take serious people who are serious about Soviet-style governments. Piketty rehashes the same tired Soviet-style Marxist theory. Of course, neither of them would dream of living in the Marxists paradises .

    • Agree: Wade Hampton
    • Replies: @Mefobills
  24. @Levtraro

    All US currency represents a debt instrument. That’s a fact. Debt can never be money. That’s a fact. When an economy is based upon the continued and expanding issuance of debt, sooner or later things blow up. That’s where we are now; in the process of blowing up fiat currencies world wide due to debt that can never be honestly repaid.

    When the frauds known as economists pontificate about economic activity, they are never going to blame the real culprit leading to all the issues we see today. If the US were based upon the use of real money, commodity money, there couldn’t be $28 Trillion of debt because that amount of gov’t debt would have consumed all the real money leading to an obvious slowdown in economic activity as spending increased. It is the fiat that is the basis for the world’s economic issues and all but a handful of economists champion fiat currency creation either via a central bank or directly by a treasury department. Almost none want a sound money policy.

    The modeling is a precursor to gov’t and banking criminals controlling economies via policies written into law. That’s where we are now. To assume that a bunch of phonies pretending to know how an economy is supposed to work should produce a model of their assumptions is just a con game. Garbage in equals garbage out. There is no possible model that can or should be used to control the millions of inputs people generate known as a free market, not a modeled market.

    Economists from every possible school of thought are all bullshit artists. They can’t prove a damned thing and hence shouldn’t be listened to. Their discipline should be wiped out as phrenology was wiped out. There is no need for an economist when real sound money is used.

    • Agree: Brad Anbro
    • Replies: @Brad Anbro
    , @Levtraro
  25. rgl says:
    @d dan

    You pretty much summed up what I was going to post. So I suppose it is a given that I agree with everything you say.

    The cart will always be in front of the horse, because as you say, the political must address the financial. This, also as you say, won’t happen because the political is an integral part of the financial.

    I’ve stated before that no politician will willingly debark the gravy train. It is simply too lucrative. Politicians are elected by money. They are controlled by money – one only has to peruse congress and realize how many of them critters *were not* millionaires before they became legislators.

    I wonder how much moola Pelosi acquired over the years by ‘legislating financial bills’?

    They write bills for the rich, the corporations, and those that seek influence – very often to the detriment of the greater society.

    At this point in history, they hold all the cards. They are the gatekeepers of prosperity, and everyday jane/john doe are not allowed inside.

    Reform can only be forced from the bottom. The ‘bottom’ however is simply too concerned about their next meal, or that a doctors visit that may bankrupt them. The 1% have very effectively cowed the remaining 99.

    • Replies: @Nancy
    , @Nancy
  26. rgl says:

    All admirable ideas. Any ideas on who will implement?

    • Replies: @Weaver
  27. Mefobills says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    Oh, I forgot. I already suggested to Michael Hudson that he should debate Peter Schiff.
    But he immediately chickened out.

    No doubt the coward Piketty would do likewise.

    Piketty, if you’re reading this, prove me wrong.

    You are a liar and a P.O.S.

    Hudson didn’t chicken out and answered your charge:

    Well, as Mefobills says, the problem is vocabulary — what language to speak.
    The words of libertarians exclude serious discussion and analysis of reality. They establish a parallel universe that is so unrealistic that a reasonable person must stop and spend all the time unpacking just the first paragraph of circular reasoning.
    One needn’t get fleas in the process of explaining why not to go to fleabag hotels.

    Fleas like you, and Schiff, who live at the fleabag hotel, live in an alternate reality. You use words that have inverted from their original meaning, and make a-priori assertions that are easily disproved.

    I’ve spent a lot of time and effort debating people like you and other LoL’s and it always ends the same way, with you ignoring very salient points, and then going back to your old patterns.

    This process is called demoralization. Your brain is a wasteland full of false narrative, what Hudson calls an exclusion of and analysis of reality.

    In the end, the debate with Schiff would go the same way as a debate with you, a waste of breath and effort. If a brain is myelin sheathed beyond a certain extent, it cannot re-learn. The whole house of cards falls down. Weaklings cannot face the shortcomings of their narrative, of their ideology.

    Hudson is making traction in two ways: 1) He has direct influence on the thinking of the Chinese leadership, especially through Peking University.

    2) He writes books, so that Truth Seekers, who have brains that are not demoralized, can then learn the new language, and try to understand the fabric of reality.

    Your reality is a parallel universe, a bull shit zone, and even worse – you preen as if you are the arbiter of all knowledge and morality. You actually throw up road blocks to prevent truth seekers from gaining the narrative they need to navigate.

    Your intellectual side-kick and contemporary, One-born-Free dumb is equally demoralized and unable to learn. He also is stuck in flea-bag hotel.

    You want to attract others to your hotel, where they check in but can never leave.

    • Agree: Rubicon, dogbumbreath
    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
    , @ia
  28. The Quisling Shit Lib mafia outfit running America is not a transnational “Empire.’

    There is no empire. An attempt to create a new one will be attempted after the unambiguous defeat and humiliation the civilians that interact with the Shit Lib media.

    They showed their hand during Russiagate and now the same authorities have their underlings begging Russia to allow the use of their territory to keep selling Drone Strikes and Bomber flights to bomb the brown people in Afghanistan.

    The pay 2 play rackets they call national security are in the zone of surrealism.

  29. Anonymous[735] • Disclaimer says:

    The financiers, bankers , money loaners knew money was as addictive as good Dope. Except money could be available to the whole world and be Legal. These soulless f…kers knew this 100 years/ 1000 years ago and the USA was the perfect huckleberry. I can say this, We can say this, but the Economists can Not and will never – say this. How many honest bankers or economists have been assassinated for even thinking this – probably hundreds. And speaking of good Dope – just look at the Big Pharma scam that has been in place for a 100 years. They have killed more Americans , than all the Wars have – most likely ! Everything is Illuminescent.

  30. @Carlton Meyer

    You’re tinkering around the edges.

    Remove the accreditation from all the Humanities and Social Sciences courses so that they can’t be taught in exchange for money. This would close a huge number of schools and limit enrollment in the remaining schools to courses that can actually prove what they claim is true – science and engineering. The entire world needs to get rid of all the bullshit professions like economics, psychiatry, psychology and all the other brain farts that pass for knowledge.

    Get rid of credit cards totally. Limit plastic to debit cards only. As long as the fraudulent fiat currency system exists and is forced upon the population via legal tender laws, there should be no private banks that act as the middle man skimming profit from transactions. There should be a 0% cost to use the currency.

    Transition to real commodity money and away from the bankers and gov’t free ride of currency.

    Pass legislation that prevents any and all forms of gov’t from borrowing. Let gov’t be the servant of the people they claim to be by asking them for increased taxes to pay for whatever it is that gov’t thinks is necessary.

    I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an additional article, taking from the federal government the power of borrowing.
    Thomas Jefferson

    • Replies: @Biff
    , @Realist
  31. @RoatanBill


    I only disagree with one of your statements:

    “Economists from every possible school of thought are all bullshit artists. They can’t prove a damned thing and hence shouldn’t be listened to.”

    There is ONE economist that I know of who, in my opinion, actually tells it like it IS –
    Ha-Joon Chang, Ph.D.


    • Agree: dogbumbreath
    • Thanks: Nancy
    • Replies: @Mefobills
    , @Weaver
  32. @Nancy

    No question about it Nancy.

    For all its shortcomings (and there are many), relative to the U.S, China is far more of a capitalist country.

    China has a much lower percentage of GDP spent on government, lower tax rates and a far lower regulatory burden to name just a few things.

    (Let’s not forget far less blood and treasure is being extracted from its citizenry than the U.S in pursuit of genocidal wars on behalf of Israel).

    • Thanks: Antiwar7
  33. Mefobills says:

    Whether based on fiat or actual money, an economy has real processes happening to it that are explainable with mathematical models.

    Definitions and Language matter.

    All money is fiat – faith in the law. Money’s true nature is law.

    The 2000 years of Gold Coin circulation was fiat. The coin became fiat as soon as it got the King’s stamp.

    Debased coins circulated at par.

    Anytime somebody starts bleeting about Fiat, that is an immediate tell, that they have been caught up in false narrative.

    Money that comes into being, a hypothecation event, with a debt instrument is more properly called debt based money.

    The only kind of “real money” is that issued by law, such that the money channels and works to improve the general welfare, and not to enrich parasites.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  34. Mefobills says:

    He apparently took Trotsky’s philosophy seriously. It’s hard to take serious people who are serious about Soviet-style governments.

    More confusion and B.S. from the commentariat. It is like a whack-a-mole game.

    Trotysky was an agent of the finance capitalist class. The Bolsheviks were funded by Finance Capital out of Wall Street and London, especially Schiff:

    One of the greatest myths of contemporary history is that the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was a popular uprising of the downtrodden masses against the hated ruling class of the Tsars. However, the planning, the leadership and especially the financing came entirely from outside Russia, mostly from financiers in Germany, Britain and the United States. Furthermore, the Rothschild Formula played a major role in shaping these events.

    So which it it? Hudson is for Finance Capitalism and one of its tentacles (Bolshevism), or he is a Trotskyite (Bolshevik)? He is for that which he is against?

    Just like the LoL’s you have work to do, to overcome narrative conflict residing in your brain.

    In this very article, Hudson explains that there is a huge difference between finance capitalism and industrial capitalism.

    • Replies: @ruralguy
  35. @Mefobills

    Oh dear, it seems like I struck a nerve with Mofo-Bill.

    He really was foaming at the mouth in that little tirade.

    Of course, UR readers who’ve been following the dialogue I had with Michael Hudson in previous threads will know that I’ve challenged him multiple times to debate Peter Schiff and he’s chickened out every time.

    Yet despite our interchange being archived, Mofo-Bill has the audacity to write this:

    You are a liar and a P.O.S.

    Hudson didn’t chicken out and answered your charge.

    Well readers, here is the article (scroll down to comments # 165, 166 and 168 and see for yourself who the lying P.O.S really is):

    It’s unambiguous.

    I challenged Hudson to a debate and he came up with a lame excuse (on par with ‘he left the water running in the bathroom and had to scurry off’), as to why he wouldn’t debate.

    It’s there for all to see.

    I ask you readers, did Hudson accept the challenge to debate or did he chicken out?

    Michael Hudson, Mofo-Bill and their kind are GUTLESS COWARDS who don’t have the courage to stand by their convictions and debate them in an open forum.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  36. Nancy says:

    Re: metal vs ‘tokens’, IIRC, the American colonies issuesd their own ‘scrip’, modifying the amounts according to what their economies required – i.e., printing/circulating it ‘in’, and taxing it ‘out’. Bank of England asked why they were so commercially successful, and were told that it was due to their NON debt ‘money’. Whereupon the BoE proceded to sabotage the colonial currency. The problem is not the form of the token, but the DEBT, placing highest priority on enriching the lender. (Do I recall correctly?)

    Why would a gov authorize private money creation, then borrow needed funds, and pay interest on that which the government has the original authority to create? Lunacy! And for those who villify ‘corrupt government control’, do you think the Fed has done better in the last 100+ yrs? The Termite oligarchs will/do control the private and/or public money supply, one way or another, plus ‘economists’ & their schools. After all, their laser-focus, persistence and adaptability put real termite/parasites to shame.

    • Agree: Mulegino1
  37. Levtraro says:

    Even the economy of a completely anarchist society would have economic processes that would need to be studied so anarchists would take rasonable decisions. For instance, should the self-appointed and self-funded Council of Lords of the Central-East Coast fund the project presented by the Free Guild of Nuclear Engineers, with support from the Liberty Thorium Energy Alliance, to build ten molten salt reactors around the coast of Cheasapeake Bay, in order to supply cheaper electricity to all major Free Cities of the region? Or, should Freedom Food go ahead with the project to build a major factory of meat on the Northern-West Coast Free Cities Region using the new headless cattle technology given the current situation in the cow AI market? Or, Central AI is predicting a serious upstick in food inflation next year and competing Core AI agrees, citing various factors but mostly the taking offline of several offshore facilities in the Gulf of Mexico due to hurricane predictions by Weather AI: so how many new synthetic photosyntesis cells need to be built or bought to curb the coming food inflation to a level that wouldn’t cause too much trouble from the large population of well-armed savages that don’t voluntarily submit to the social contracts of the Free Cities as most others do?

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  38. ia says:

    Maybe you could explain why Baltimore has descended into so much inequality. It certainly had big government for decades, all Democrats.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  39. @Levtraro

    Where you get all this free this and free that from is a real mystery.

    You’re assuming it takes an economist to do the decision making. I contend that economists are no more capable of making decisions than the average educated business man. As a matter of fact, they are less capable since most of them have never worked for a living outside their academic ivory tower. The invention of the spreadsheet allows any intelligent person to model whatever it is they want, unhindered by the bullshitology of economic theory that is just the invention of a class of economist priests.

    When people invest their own money, they carefully weigh the odds of success versus failure. Even when a private corporation is formed for a specific purpose, the investors, putting their own money at risk, use reality as a measure of how to proceed. It is when gov’t, a manipulated stock market, a corrupt banking system gets involved calling upon the priestly class of economists is when the normal processes people use to make decisions is negatively influenced by political considerations. Once newly instantiated free currency is injected into any process by the fraud of central banking, aided and abetted by the frauds in the economics “profession” is when how can I get a piece of the action becomes an overriding consideration.

    If a group of individuals sees a need for a new power plant, they can risk their money to build it and then reap the rewards or failure as it turns out. No need for an economist or other central planners.

    It’s when decision making is concentrated in the hands of a few that corruption is built into the process. See the current vaccine situation where central planners have foisted a completely unnecessary sewage injection upon millions of brain damaged believers when knowledgeable people in the field, not sociopaths, have identified cheap and more effective alternatives like Ivermectin.

    • Agree: Truth Vigilante
    • Replies: @Mefobills
  40. peterAUS says:

    All money is fiat – faith in the law. Money’s true nature is law.

    I’d add that the law, to be effective, is backed by force. That’s where we get the state and its monopoly on using lethal force to enforce the law.
    And….in the current state of world’s affairs, the Superpower backing up the dollar.
    You say

    …Anytime somebody starts bleeting about Fiat, that is an immediate tell, that they have been caught up in false narrative…

    I feel the same whenever somebody starts saying that US dollar is backed up by nothing. It’s actually backed up by SOMETHING. and that’s the power of US military.
    I am sure there are plenty of people here wishing to tell me “for now…all falling apart….matter of time…etc.” Be that as it may, let’s focus on now.

    Which brings me to the reason I type this.
    Would you be willing to share your thoughts about events surrounding the meeting in Jackson Hole in August 2019? Not much chatter on the “alternative” about it. Understandable.
    I, personally, believe it’s IMPORTANT.

    And, more importantly…where all this, most likely, is going, for plebs like us?
    CBDC,UBI, Social Credit etc?

  41. Anon[341] • Disclaimer says:

    Redistribution via fiat money/government intervention etc.

    Trump didn’t make the rules.

  42. Weaver says:

    Andrew Yang has jumped on the idea. A number of libertarians like it. I’m coming from the right; so, I would argue for it differently than they would and do. The “worker” wing of the GOP and socialist wing of the Dem could all support it.

    One lesson I learned, I talked of wanting a “Workers Party” or “American Worker Party” and a “Nazi” in the US created a Nazi themed party called “Traditionalist Worker Party.” That was a bust. I had no tie to that party. Any attempt at right wing populism tends to be labeled as Nazi or racist. Just like with Trump’s citizenism. That’s how any good idea gets shut down on the right: call it Nazi.

    We’ve seen Trumplicans support higher minimum wage in Florida. Minimum wage has the same spirit as UBI, but really one can do away with a minimum wage if using UBI.

    And btw, the first time I heard the concept “citizenism” was by Steve Sailer; so, it has been odd seeing him cited in opposition to the concept. Jokingly, I say, if Sailer doesn’t want me thinking outside the box, he should be less interesting.

  43. Mefobills says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    It’s all there for anybody to see, especially that you are full of it:

    Here it is again,

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

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

    Hudson’s methods to reach people are the two ways I explained:

    Hudson is making traction in two ways:

    1) He has direct influence on the thinking of the Chinese leadership, especially through Peking University.

    2) He writes books, so that Truth Seekers, who have brains that are not demoralized, can then learn the new language, and try to understand the fabric of reality.

    There is a third way to do a debate, and that is the Trivium method.

    In the Trivium the debaters may spend weeks defining terms. That way when somebody says the term “Fiat” it may mean one thing in one person’s brain, and another thing to another person.

    The defining of terms is to level set the audience before the debates even begin.

    In the case of Lolbertarian LoL Lol land, the definition of terms would define LoL’s out of existence. There are no LOL equivalent terms for rents, unearned income, usury, etc. If the word doesn’t exist, then it is impossible to talk about it.

    But, since you are low IQ and have the inability to understand nuance, Hudson politely told you to go pound sand, because you don’t have the vocabulary or understanding to even begin a debate.

    We don’t do Trivium debates in modern times. Hudson’s two ways are the only reasonable ways to reach an audience. Your type has to be bypassed, and marginalized.

    But, then again, you are making yourself irrelevant, as your language does not describe the world, only a parallel universe.

    You will go to your grave with a stick up your rectum, muttering under your breath about how China’s success is impossible. You would rather believe fairy tales than adjust the false narrative in your brain.

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  44. R2b says:

    I’ve read some of what these two, Piketty and Hudson, has written.
    And I say, there must be a simpler way of explaining economics.
    Very disappointing figures.

  45. The present monetary policies go on : 1984
    The present monetary policies stop : Mad max

  46. Mefobills says:

    Maybe you could explain why Baltimore has descended into so much inequality. It certainly had big government for decades, all Democrats.

    Finance Capitalism is a Jewish construct. It came to fruition in 1694 with the advent of the Bank of England.

    I have explained it in my comment history, especially the nexus with Amsterdam. The Revolutionary war was economic in that England denied the Colonials the use of their script, and demanded that imbalanced exports be consummated in gold/silver. This drained the Colonies of their lifeblood, in the same way the Baltimore has a drain. The English also had the usual types in the Colonies trying to enclose the lands for their own selfish benefit. Obviously they would have tried to untax the land to their benefit, then as now. This article talks about taxes as part of economy.

    Baltimore is no exception to the predations of finance capital, and finance capitalists emit hypnosis and false economic doctrine. The parasites emit hypnosis, especially the removal of words and concepts. Lolbertarianism, Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism are all part of the funded mind screw. (To be less polite, it is a skull-fu*k). That is why Truth Vigilante types are so odious.

    I’ve even pointed out to LoL’s, that when the Libertarian Austrian’s (German Jews) came to America, they found succor and support from Rockefeller. But, these sort of reality events will not compel them to examine their belief system – they can’t do it.

    You are making a mistake, both Democrats and Republicans are prostitutes for finance capital. Both Republicans and Democrats make excuses about magic negroes and butt smoochio about Jews, as if they are also magick and beyond reproach. The same bird has two wings that are animated by the planners of civilization, and that is finance capital out of London and Wall Street. If you get caught up in the my team, your team (Repubs vs Democrats), you’ve been hoaxed, and fell for it.

    How many times have U.S. voters voted to not have mass immigration? Yet, it continues does it not? Your vote doesn’t mean squat. Democracy and finance capital are oil and water – they cannot coexist.

    Finance Capital took over completely in the U.S. by 1913, and probably a little earlier, around the time of the Spanish American War.

    The founding of the country was industrial capitalism. But, you wouldn’t know that if you listened to the Lol’s and Neo-liberals, as they skull F— the population with implanted memories.

    • Thanks: Nancy
  47. Anon[417] • Disclaimer says:

    Hudson is definitely one of most underrated writers whose articles are published on UR

    • Agree: Nancy, showmethereal
  48. By and large, the Chinese model looks more and more like a perfect digital dictatorship, and nobody really wants to [chuckles] copy this, apart from other government elite, who would like to keep their population quiet and restrict movement as efficiently as the Beijing regime is doing.

    Thomas is a typical, over educated, indoctrinated (vaccine will protect me from supposed illness 99.5% of people survive), economist that cannot evaluate “reality” with “ideology (propaganda)”. What do you think the Western “vaccine passport” is? The vaccine passport is the same “digital dictatorship” people identify with China; with a different name. Do you think you will have more freedom in the West when this “vaccine passport” is fully implemented? The writing is on the wall and has been for some time. The Western governments will decide how you live and what you do. So, we return to the same point which is, “how is your government using it’s power to improve the lives of society and the REAL economy”…..for the sake of truth, base this on past/present actions and not a dream (ideology) which so many like to do.

    • Agree: Truth Vigilante
  49. First of all, land doesn’t have any cost-value, nor does energy have any. We’re talking about economic rent. The financial sectors uses part of its income to subsidize economic schools and universities to change the vocabulary. Our vocabulary is different from the realistic vocabulary that we had in the 19th century. Land doesn’t really have a value, nature creates it.

    Value is created by people working and creating it. Nature provides the land, and the public sectors spending on infrastructure creates the rent of location, which increases land prices. Nature provides the oil. Economic rent is what we’re talking about.

    Hudson is spot on throughout this debate. Can’t thank him enough for his independent thinking and teaching.

  50. Mefobills says:
    @Brad Anbro

    There is ONE economist that I know of who, in my opinion, actually tells it like it IS –
    Ha-Joon Chang, Ph.D.

    I agree, he is pretty awesome.

    Hudson pretty much drills bulls-eyes with his darts. I can usually find fault with most economists.

    For example, MMT is fairly accurate at description, but goes off the rails when they combined private banks and government into one sector. They do this for sector accounting reasons, but it is a mistake.

    Hudson finds fault with Piketty.

  51. Weaver says:
    @Brad Anbro

    He has some good insights. Paul Craig Roberts and Ian Fletcher are also good, as is Friedrich List.

    I liked Chang’s comment that Korea, Japan, and Germany were all three once looked down upon. Today, not. He also points out state run enterprises seem to have a place in society, or at least make better sense than America’s private monopoly alternative. And no one has risen on liberal policies. He’s very worth reading, for someone in the “West” who has been badly educated, which includes myself.

  52. Mefobills says:

    If a group of individuals sees a need for a new power plant, they can risk their money to build it and then reap the rewards or failure as it turns out. No need for an economist or other central planners.

    Whack a mole time again.

    Power plants and utilities are inelastic sectors that belong to the commons. They are to be government owned or heavily regulated.

    How much externality cost did Fukashima lard onto the Japanese taxpayer? Fukashima was not regulated enough, so the owners put off things like elevating the diesel generators above the flood plain. It’s important to pay out dividends to stock owners you know.

    It is not a “group of individuals” when you are talking about the commons, it is everybody within in the nation. There is no way investor individuals in Fukashima paid for the externality costs, which are incalculable.

    Privatizers socialize their losses, usually while also bleeting about “free markets,” when there is no such thing.

  53. Anon[391] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Wanna make a bet? I bet ya 25 to 1 that you are wrong in whatever you think is going to happen in the future.

  54. Weaver says:

    Solar or wind can be small scale, but there tends to be reward from scale and specialization. Tidal could possibly be private in some parts of the world, if the tech improves.

    My point: It would be neat to have more decentralized power, to an extent, for the sake of redundancy.

    I wholly agree with your point. Fukushima was a nightmare. It should be a state owned enterprise or at least better regulated. But I question the advantage in making something like a nuclear plant private.

    • Replies: @dogbumbreath
  55. @Mefobills

    You picked a really bad example for you to claim that gov’t needs to do more.

    What industry do you know of that is more regulated than nuclear energy? Didn’t the regulatory agencies sign off on the Fukushima design? How many of the management team, gov’t bureaucrats, etc got life sentences in their trials for the damage they caused? Why not try being honest and state categorically that gov’t IS the problem?

    It is precisely due to regulatory capture that things like Fukushima occur. Just look at how big pharma can get the gov’t to force millions of stupid people to take the jab.

    There should be no “commons”. Absolutely everything should be privately owned so that the owner can be held liable for anything that causes harm and so that someone with a vested interest in the property wants to take care of it. It is because the US border is part of the commons that we have illegal immigration. If that land were owned by private individuals, do you seriously think they would be allowing tens of thousands of dirtbags to cross their land?

    Whack a mole time again.

    I believe I’ve crossed swords with you before. Stop bringing a knife to a gun fight; friendly advice.

    • Agree: Truth Vigilante
  56. Mulegino1 says:

    …Democrats and Republicans are prostitutes for finance capital. Both Republicans and Democrats make excuses about magic negroes and butt smoochio about Jews, as if they are also magick and beyond reproach. The same bird has two wings that are animated by the planners of civilization, and that is finance capital out of London and Wall Street. If you get caught up in the my team, your team (Repubs vs Democrats), you’ve been hoaxed, and fell for it.

    Well said.

    Both Tweedle-Dem and Tweedle-GOP have become marionettes of mammon, hence acolytes of Jewry. Usury is the weaponized worship of mammon, and it is totally destructive.


    With Usura

    With usura hath no man a house of good stone
    each block cut smooth and well fitting
    that design might cover their face,
    with usura
    hath no man a painted paradise on his church wall
    harpes et luz
    or where virgin receiveth message
    and halo projects from incision,
    with usura
    seeth no man Gonzaga his heirs and his concubines
    no picture is made to endure nor to live with
    but it is made to sell and sell quickly
    with usura, sin against nature,
    is thy bread ever more of stale rags
    is thy bread dry as paper,
    with no mountain wheat, no strong flour
    with usura the line grows thick
    with usura is no clear demarcation
    and no man can find site for his dwelling.
    Stonecutter is kept from his stone
    weaver is kept from his loom
    wool comes not to market
    sheep bringeth no gain with usura
    Usura is a murrain, usura
    blunteth the needle in the maid’s hand
    and stoppeth the spinner’s cunning. Pietro Lombardo
    came not by usura
    Duccio came not by usura
    nor Pier della Francesca; Zuan Bellin’ not by usura
    nor was ‘La Calunnia’ painted.
    Came not by usura Angelico; came not Ambrogio Praedis,
    Came no church of cut stone signed: Adamo me fecit.
    Not by usura St. Trophime
    Not by usura Saint Hilaire,
    Usura rusteth the chisel
    It rusteth the craft and the craftsman
    It gnaweth the thread in the loom
    None learneth to weave gold in her pattern;
    Azure hath a canker by usura; cramoisi is unbroidered
    Emerald findeth no Memling
    Usura slayeth the child in the womb
    It stayeth the young man’s courting
    It hath brought palsey to bed, lyeth
    between the young bride and her bridegroom
    They have brought whores for Eleusis
    Corpses are set to banquet
    at behest of usura.

    Ezra Pound

    The land of the fee and the home of the slave committed this great literary figure to a cage in a madhouse!

    • Agree: Truth Vigilante
  57. ruralguy says:

    Sorry guy, you don’t get to rewrite history. Trotsky identifies himself as a Marxist as early as 1896. He was jailed and then imprisoned from this revolutionary activity then and openly advocated overthrowing the tsarist monarchy then. That’s long before the events in your conspiracy theory took place. That’s based on material evidence created by Trotsky and the Soviets. He dedicated his life to a socialist revolution from an early age.

    Hudson’s articles have often in the past focused on debt and questioned the rights of landlords. Trotsky’s contribution to Marxist thought was his variant of the need to achieve an international and ” permanent revolution” He based this variant of the permanent revolution on the power of entrench capitalism in agrarian areas, where landlords received credits from the Tsar. He thought this was a key factor in the Marxist revolution, not just in Russia, but worldwide. If you look at Michael Hudson’s articles he is focused on the same concepts — debt and landlords. Trotysky was 20-25 years old when he formed his immature ideas. I can understand youth as an excuse. Perhaps that’s your excuse?

  58. the 1% have concentrated wealth

    It sounds so positive, like they did something productive or good.

    the 1% have accumulated wealth
    the 1% have grabbed wealth
    the 1% have stolen wealth

    That’s more like it!

  59. @Rubicon

    Cut the nong-nongs a break. They are brainwashed from birth, any sign of dissent is ruthlessly crushed, and so long as there are foreign ‘gooks’, ‘slopes’, ‘rag-heads’ etc to slaughter, well, we’re still Number One, eh. And there is the ‘enemy within’, the other team in the political charade. I really think that the USA represents humanity’s destiny, alright-self-destruction.

  60. ruralguy says:

    Power plants and utilities are inelastic sectors that belong to the commons.

    In the United States, almost all power utilities are owned by corporate shareholders. The notion in your mind that they belong to the public isn’t reality. Your notion that public ownership or oversight solves these problems is simply foolish.

    Fukashima was not regulated enough

    Fukashima was built in 1967. It’s height then was reduced, to allow its foundation to be built on bedrock. They did analyze the effects of a tsuanmi but determined the seawall could contain it. It was regulated and its decisions were approved by the Japanese Nuclear Regulatory Authority which was a Japanese Government authority. The notion in your head that government ownership solves these problems is just foolish. Chernobyl was the world’s most costly nuclear disaster. It was built and controlled by a Marxist government, the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union’s environmental disasters by far dwarf the U.S. nuclear accidents: Kyshtym disaster 9000 square miles contaminated and Chernobyl, along with the dumping of nuclear reactors in the world’s oceans.

    externality costs

    So, who is paying for the externality costs of the 100 million people you Marxists murdered? Or the externality costs of Chernobyl? The externality costs of the misery you Marxist cost in Cuba, Venezuela, Cambodia, the Soviet Union, the Chinese Cultural revolution, etc. You Marxist have spread nothing but misery and death across the planet, but new generations of this idiocy keep popping up. Maybe, you should study the externalities of your Marxist ideology, before you attack others claiming the moral high ground.

  61. @RoatanBill

    Your ‘philosophy’ is simply narcissistic egomania and malignant misanthropic xenophobia.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  62. @peterAUS

    Money’s true nature, if I might paraphrase the odious Krugman, ‘…men with guns’.

  63. Biff says:

    Get rid of credit cards totally.

    Where I live electronic bank transfers are free all day and everyday, and credit cards are going by the way of the dodo.

    • Replies: @ruralguy
  64. Nancy says:

    So we want ‘solutions’? Try rearching ‘The Chicago Plan” proposed in the 30s (Wiki) and the IMF’s recent white paper analysis – ‘models’ show it would be beneficial and feasible. We need to return to 100% Reserve banking and move money creation into the Treasury (end privitization). Try ‘The Lost Science of Money: The Mythology of Money, The Story of Power’ by the late heroic Stephan Zarlenga, and his website – ‘American Monetary Institute’.

    Now FDR didn’t implement it, althought hundreds of economists supported it… could it have been Morgenthau, et al? So, we know why we can’t do it now…. Termites… the destabilization is about complete, and it will fall down about theirs ears, also, God willing.

    So it might be helpful to have an option, feasible, historically tested, etc., available, and familiar to as many as possible. (As John Kenneth Galbraith attested, economic jargon is obfuscatory for a reason.)(

  65. Realist says:

    Pass legislation that prevents any and all forms of gov’t from borrowing.

    You are proposing to use the very government you so despise.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  66. @mulga mumblebrain

    Another of your personal attacks, since you can’t refute my statements.

    Give it up. You embarrass yourself in these lame attempts.

    • Replies: @mulga mumblebrain
  67. @Realist

    As long as gov’t exists …

    • Thanks: Realist
  68. land doesn’t have any cost-value

    You gotta love these “economists”!
    OK, give me a square kilometre.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  69. Nancy says:

    If we are waiting for a ‘leader’ to stand up, who do want to nominate to die? ‘They’ got away with JFK, so the rest were a sure thing… RFK, MLK, USS Liberty, Gulf of Tonkin, WMD, 9/11 et al. We don’t deserve a martyr…. we deserve a collapse… and maybe that will do the trick. (I’m remembering ‘A Paradise Built in Hell’)

  70. Nancy says:

    So which leader are you nominating to die? After getting away with JFK, the rest were a sure thing… RJK, MLK, Malcom X, Gulf of Tonkin, WMD, 9/11 et al. We don’t deserve a martyer… we deserve a collapse … maybe that will do the trick. (I’m thinking of ‘A Paradise Built in Hell’)

  71. @Trond Andresen

    I have a simple thought experiment to prove the importance of money creation in an economy, and its implications. If an economy is compared to an organism, then money circulation is its bloodstream; just as an organism grows it needs to create fresh supplies of blood, an economy has to create its money supply to match the growth. It is the root of the greatest monopoly of all – the power to create currency (different from money, but the sleight of hand that makes us believe that creating currency is creating money is also the biggest trick ever).
    Tell me if you are interested, I will share it with you.

  72. ruralguy says:

    There are advantages and disadvantages for both credit cards and electronic bank transfers. Those eChecks have been around for a long time, as paper checks. Things haven’t changed much, by doing it electronically. They are still batched up and then processed, taking several days to work its way through its clearing processing. So, they are slow. But, with more sophisticated theft, there is more risk in making your routing number and account number public, than in the more civilized era when people gave out paper checks with this info. This creates risk for you.

    Credit cards are highly successful, because 63-78% of America adults live pay check to pay check. The credit card allows them to accumulate charges until pay day. For bigger ticket items, they simply can’t buy without credit cards. 85% of the vehicles on the road are bought through financing. Without credit cards, a big chunk of our population wouldn’t be able to buy meals. Credit cards are also safer. If something is mischarged or if your credit card is hacked, the processing system can more easily correct it.

  73. @Mefobills

    You wrote:

    You will go to your grave ….. muttering under your breath about how China’s success is impossible.

    Those who have been following my comments already know that I’ve been speaking on behalf of China’s economic model and why it’s been successful.
    Obviously you haven’t been paying attention.

    Of course, Free Market Capitalism, in it’s purest and unadulterated form, isn’t practised anywhere in the world.

    But to the extent that China is practising Capitalism, on a level far greater than the U.S and most countries in the world (ie: lower taxes, Big government parasitism as a percentage of GDP is far lower than in the U.S, far less regulatory impediments etc), this is why China has been a success story post the Mao era.

    If China had been following Michael Hudson’s Marxist policy prescriptions, they’d still be a 3rd world cesspool on par with Burkina Faso.

    Lastly Mofo-Bill, I have to give it to. You raised the art of obfuscation to a new level,

    UR readers, did you absorb all that nonsense about ‘Trivium’ and ‘defining terms’ that Mofo-Bill came up with as an excuse for Michael Hudson refusing to debate Peter Schiff ?

    How simple is the question that I posed ?

    I asked Michael Hudson to accept the challenge and debate Schiff.

    He would not – ergo HE CHICKENED OUT.

    Why are you such a coward in not being able to admit what is evident to all ?

    This is a golden opportunity for Hudson. He is a non entity that no one of substance has ever heard of. Debating Schiff would raise his profile one hundred fold.

    Peter Schiff is acclaimed internationally – the internet is awash with ‘Peter Schiff was right’ videos.

    Meanwhile, no one thinks Hudson is worth bothering with to waste their energy producing videos about him – such is his lowly stature.

    At the end of the day, a debate could be conducted using PLAIN ENGLISH, with minimal economic specific jargon employed, seeing as most listening will be laypersons (hence no need to ‘define terms’).

    If Michael Hudson’s theories have any substance then he should easily win over the masses.

    Of course Mofo-Bill, you and I both know there is no substance to anything you and Hudson have to say.
    All you know is obfuscation and the art of spin.

  74. @Mefobills

    Another stupendous effort in obfuscation.

    All that B.S of a response and yet …. the question posed by ‘ia’ remains unanswered.

    Just as I eviscerated Michael Hudson’s nonsensical explanation as to why Volcker jacked up the Fed Funds Rate to 20% in my comment # 16 in this thread, and just as I explained in another thread that the ‘landed gentry’ cannot jack up the rents on their landholdings but that rental rates are determined by the market via the mechanism of supply and demand (I note you didn’t respond to either with a refutation because you are UNABLE TO REFUTE those immutable truths), you’re back to your old tricks.
    ie: going off on a tangent when you’re unable to answer a simple question.

    You’re an absolute eff’n joke Mofo-Bill.

  75. @Mefobills

    Mofo-Bill wrote:

    Privatisers socialise their losses

    How can privatised losses be socialised UNLESS the corrupt government overlords are working in cahoots with them ?

    In a true Free Market Capitalist economy, where government is minimal as a percentage of GDP and it’s power is negligible, there are NO BAILOUTS.

    Private sector organisations that acted recklessly will reap what they’ve sowed and go bankrupt.

    Let’s get something straight. The bailouts under Bush43 that were continued under Obama during the 2008/09 GFC were not failures of Capitalism – because the U.S was operating under SOCIALIST regimes.

    That’s right. Bush 43 was just as much of a socialist as Obama.

    Bear in mind, the U.S is ruled by a One Party Tyranny. The GOP and Dems are just slightly different factions of the SAME PARTY – both of whom are accountable to the Zionist Dominated Usury Banking Cartel (aka the ‘Deep State’) that controls the entirety of the western financial system.

    So, said ‘privatising of losses’ can only occur in a situation where Big Government is entrusted with sufficient executive or legislative power to enable it to act this recklessly with taxpayer money.

    Centralised Big Government in the nation’s capital should be stripped down to a fraction of its present size and most activities (to the extent that they’re not abolished completely), should be allocated to localised entities (state and county level), who also should be pared down to the most essential services.

    Such entities, with negligible financial wherewithal and legislative powers, would be unable to undertake a programme of bailouts for their corporate crony pals should they experience financial distress.

  76. @Weaver

    I wholly agree with your point. Fukushima was a nightmare. It should be a state owned enterprise or at least better regulated. But I question the advantage in making something like a nuclear plant private.

    Perhaps not known in the West but Japan like Germany is a vassal of the US. Perhaps secret agreements losers of war sign after WW2. In Germany it’s called KANZLERAKTE. In Japan, author Kouji Yabe explains it in his book:

    Anyway, Fukushima is managed by an Israeli company called Magna BSP. Yes, a National nuclear reactor is run by a foreign company (and you say Japan is not a vassal). There were many inconsistencies with the Fukushima disaster similar to WTC 9/11. For example, boiling water nuclear reactor meltdowns cannot go critical and explode like a nuke…they melt. The explosion at Fukushima #3 captured on film resembles a nuclear detonation more than a meltdown. There is more but you get the jist…

    • Thanks: Truth Vigilante
  77. @Badger Down

    first ya gotta understand what they’re saying
    which a combination of dumbness, ill-will and smart-ass
    makes harder,
    doncha know?

  78. @ruralguy

    Superbly put R-guy.

    And what is the response from Mofo-Bill ? You guessed it – nothing but silence.

    They always scurry off when confronted with emphatic refutations of their ‘ownership of the commons’ thesis.

    They’ve got no answer to the hard questions. Just like the perpetrators of the Covid psyop, and alleged man-made Climate Change (the same Zio-malfeasants that are behind the Zionist One World Government/World Economic Forum cabal).

    They just won’t engage you in a debate because their thesis comes apart at the seams.

    Craven cowards, the lot of them.

    • Thanks: ruralguy
  79. @Old Brown Fool

    Ever heard of polycythaemia vera? Too much blood, leading to a profusion of clots. Sounds familiar. Thankfully we have legions of leeches ready to suck the blood out of the body.

  80. @RoatanBill

    Yeah-an anarchic free for all, dominated, he dreams, by the likes of Bill. My idea of Hell on Earth.

  81. I’ve just listened to it all and failed to fall asleep while wondering what amazing stuff I would hear next.Is the US observed by Michael Hudson so bizarrely different from the world I live in that the 1% are lending money to the 99%!?

    Very cute to refer to the “savings” of the 1%. As for his problems with compound interest! At 2.5%?

  82. @Old Brown Fool

    @Old Brown Fool says:

    If an economy is compared to an organism, then money circulation is its bloodstream; just as an organism grows it needs to create fresh supplies of blood, an economy has to create its money supply to match the growth.


    It is the root of the greatest monopoly of all – the power to create currency (different from money, but the sleight of hand that makes us believe that creating currency is creating money is also the biggest trick ever).
    Tell me if you are interested, I will share it with you.

    Post it here, and I will read it and respond.

    • Replies: @Old Brown Fool
  83. Realist says:

    You are expecting those in power to pass legislation encumbering their power…not going to happen.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  84. @Realist

    I’m not expecting anything.

    I was replying to a comment that was trying to propose solutions within the current system. In that same spirit, I offered an alternative and somewhat stronger proposal, not that it would ever happen, but to make the original poster rethink his weak as water position.

    I full well realize that 99% of the people on this site are mentally incapable of separating themselves from the existing power structure. They know deep down, despite all contrary evidence, that gov’t is an absolute necessity and that on some grand and glorious day they will have a gov’t that isn’t a criminal enterprise. These same people also are religious zealots that know, without evidence, that some god exists and their prayers are heard by some entity beyond the bounds of the universe.

    This is human nature in the modern world where people are, for the most part, steeped in the mysticism they call religion and politics.

  85. Mefobills says:

    I feel the same whenever somebody starts saying that US dollar is backed up by nothing. It’s actually backed up by SOMETHING. and that’s the power of US military.

    Yes… Money/Law/Force are all part of the same thing. Anybody who bothers to think it through, knows that if you don’t pay your taxes, then men with guns show up at your door.

    Part of the hypnosis is that all debts must be paid, or men with guns – using the law, will show up at your door. The payment of debts are in a monetary unit, also codified in law.

    One of the signal services Hudson is doing for humanity is explaining how the law is wrong, that the assumptions about how Western Civilization is best organized, have fundamental flaws. Those flaws are a function of bad thinking.

    Jackson Hole in 2019 was because the Masters of the Universe were frightened by Trump’s tariffs, and his campaign suggestions to end the fed.

    The Western World does its civilizational planning in secret. Masters of the Universe represent power centers, with the top of the hierarchy being able to manufacture new credit. Banking corporations are stock owned companies, which have usurped the money power to themselves, to then issue their money (bank credit). Central Banks in the Western World, for the most part, are hybrids – with the bulk of the power being devoted to serving their real clients. The real clients are the “banking system,” which has networked through reserve loops and various legal fictions.

    Finance Capitalism, which really came into being starting in 1694, is stock owned private banks doing debt spreading. The debts are spread into supposed free markets around the world, which then make demands on the world. The line of power is then no longer a sovereign authority, but instead the stock and bond owners pulling strings from behind the scenes – hence planning done in private.

    I’ve no idea of their planning – but it will be to their benefit or continuation of the finance capital debt spreading structure that is part of Atlantacism born around 1694.

    And if anybody has any doubts, yes – our (((friends))) are heavily involved, but the cancer has metastasized.

    China does its planning in the open, so who is more free?

  86. Mefobills says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    And what is the response from Mofo-Bill ? You guessed it – nothing but silence.


    You keep making claims that I or Hudson scurry off like cockroaches, or I am a craven coward, or that I am afraid because there is some silence?

    I always answer your bull shit charges. Because you are full of crap, I should ignore your type like Hudson does. But, that is not how I am built, I like to engage the Zombies and those who are demoralized – like you.

    You get all butt-hurt when I make fun of the Lol’s, and it is fun for me. I’m not scurrying off, I’m doing other things, I have a life.

    Anybody who uses ad-hominems like you do has something wrong with their personality. You are a personality defective.

    I’ve noticed that a lot of Lols are defectives, who cannot learn, who refuse to accept certain verities about life that even children can figure out.

    LoL’s tell bedtime stories for the Kiddies, and live in an alternate reality. My observation is that the Lols also engage in Cultism, wanting us to debate their “heroes” to then validate their LoL false reality.

    Face it… you are a brainwashed dupe.

  87. Mefobills says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    Superbly put, my shiny red ass.

    He is as full of crap as you are:

    So, who is paying for the externality costs of the 100 million people you Marxists murdered? Or the externality costs of Chernobyl? The externality costs of the misery you Marxist cost in Cuba, Venezuela, Cambodia, the Soviet Union, the Chinese Cultural revolution, etc. You Marxist have spread nothing but misery and death across the planet, but new generations of this idiocy keep popping up. Maybe, you should study the externalities of your Marxist ideology, before you attack others claiming the moral high ground.

    I’m not a marxist, I am an industrial capitalist. I am actually a NAZI, if you stupid asses would bother to figure out who I am before bleeting out your confusion.

    The American System of Economy was invented by the Colonials, and was part of the American Experience.

    Industrial Capitalism transmitted to Germany via Frederick List. Finance Capitalism funded Bolhevism into existence, which then became communism.

    You guys are so dumb you are operating with implanted memories and doing the bidding of finance capital, which in turn is part of liberalism and bolshevism.

    You have been brainwashed and have Stockholm Syndrome, and are virtue signaling for your masters.

    I bet you are just fine with being a tax donkey for endless brown people flowing across borders. That finance capital is fungible (has legs) and people are fungible (have legs) and free markets are god. OH, but the only real problem is that we don’t use metal money. It is shiny and doesn’t rust. I’m reminded of the movie Toy Story. “THE CLAW… THE CLAW.”

    Lols live in an alternate reality and have cult worship. Check into roach motel and worship THE CLAW.

    It’s always amazing to me to see dumb people worshiping their slave masters.

    • Replies: @Gilles
    , @ruralguy
  88. Mefobills says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    They’ve got no answer to the hard questions. Just like the perpetrators of the Covid psyop, and alleged man-made Climate Change (the same Zio-malfeasants that are behind the Zionist One World Government/World Economic Forum cabal).

    Stupefying is a word that comes to mind.

    making physically stupid or dull or insensible;

    You don’t even realize that you are dupes for Zion; that it is recycled usury that flows into creating think tanks – including “Mises INC.”

    You don’t even know that you are controlled opposition. Lolbertarianism is a Jewish Construct, and it finds resonance especially with stupid American’s (I’m American). Most Americans are zombies.

    A zombie is actually calling me out as a shill for Zionism. LOL is appropriate term here.

    Zombie Americans (especially Lolbertarians) somehow think the wide open lands represent freedom, but of course only if we keep labor cheap to then exploit the land.

    Zionism and Rothschild merged at the first Zionist conference. The masters of the universe are connected via “free market” ideas about how the money power is to be privatized, something you LOL’s push as part of your doctrine. Government is evil and all that.


  89. Mofo-Bill wrote:

    It’s always amazing to me to see dumb people worshiping their slave masters.

    And who, pray tell, are the ‘slave masters’ ?

    Of course, Michael Hudson doesn’t have the guts to say it. As for you Mofo, you’re too retarded to have even worked out who they are.

    One more time for the dummies:

    The ‘slave masters’ are the Zionist Dominated Usury Banking Cartel that controls the entirety of the financial system of the western world. They are the cartel of private bankers that own the U.S Federal Reserve, the Bank of England.
    They either own or control the European Central Bank ( ECB), and likewise for other western central banks.

    You claim to be a Nazi (by implication you’re anti Zionist), and yet I NEVER hear you (or Hudson and his ilk) mention abolition of the Fed.

    One man (and ONLY one man) in the U.S Congress has been consistently demanding an audit of the Fed in the last five decades* (which would lead to its abolition after exposure of its chicanery and exploitation of Americans).

    And that man is former 12 term Congressman Dr Ron Paul. (*To their credit, Senator Rand Paul and Congressman Thomas Massie have been doing what they can to that end in recent times).

    Yes – Ron Paul (and his son Rand), are dyed-in-the-wool Libertarians. And yet you have the audacity to criticise Libertarians when the reality is you’re not even fit to shine their shoes.

    The fact that your political ideology NEVER criticises The Fed or calls for its abolition is worrying to say the least, and suggests you’re working in cahoots with these Zio ‘slave masters’.

    And your advocacy of ‘Fiat Money’ speaks volumes (in perfect alignment with the Zio-cabal who also demonise a gold backed currency).

    The Zio Usury Cartel can’t ‘print’ gold, but they sure can print/digitally create trillions of fiat and dole it out amongst their Zio cronies whenever the reckless trading of the latter results in financial distress ).

    At the end of the day, a gold backed currency (or platinum or palladium or other tangible commodity with a degree of scarcity), ensures FISCAL DISCIPLINE from governments.

    That’s why the U.S presently has triple digit (banana republic like) debt-to-GDP and isn’t even remotely capable of servicing that debt (if an unmanipulated market interest rate was in play), let alone paying off the principal.

    Because of your fixation with the voodoo economics that you and Hudson advocate for, you’re oblivious to the damage done to the U.S economy under a fiat system.
    And, just like in 2008/09 when you were asleep at the wheel and surprised by the GFC, so too will you be by the next cataclysmic collapse which will usher in an inflationary Depression the likes of which the U.S has never seen.

    Not so Peter Schiff, Ron Paul and the Libertarians who forecast the last crisis and are warning about the impending one.

    One would’ve thought that after Hudson’s abysmal track record (and I assume yours), of failing to forecast the last GFC, that you’d eat some humble pie, acknowledge the shortcomings in your ideology and sit down with the Libertarians and try and learn some functional real world Economics from them.

    But you’re not man enough to do that.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
    , @Mefobills
  90. Mefobills says:

    What industry do you know of that is more regulated than nuclear energy? Didn’t the regulatory agencies sign off on the Fukushima design? How many of the management team, gov’t bureaucrats, etc got life sentences in their trials for the damage they caused? Why not try being honest and state categorically that gov’t IS the problem?

    I said it needs to be heavily regulated OR GOVERNMENT OWNED.

    Do you think the U.S. navy would scrimp out on the coins to move diesel generators out of the flood plain?

    The U.S. Navy doesn’t screw around with nuclear power, and there should be little question in your mind, that if they were running Fukashima, the generator problem would have come up in review, and not been put on a back burner – you know to keep the stock owners happy. If they screw up, there is military jail.

    Also, anybody with more than two digits of IQ to rub together can figure out that a privatized nuclear power plant would be a disaster in waiting, as the owners would cut corners to save costs.

    Bringing a gun to a knife fight. Ha Ha.

    There is another personality defect I notice in LoL’s, is that they think very highly of themselves.

    Legends in their own minds, living in an alternate universe, and claiming to be moral arbiters of the truth.

    Since I’m a NAZI, your type would be one of the first I would put in my concentration camps, because you are demoralized, with your brain function taken over, and living in alternate reality. It would be a kindness, something like what China is doing to the Uighurs, and removing wahabbi takfiri Islam from their brain space, so they stop malfunctioning.

    German citizens were also demoralized, as Jewry and liberalism infested Germany during the interwar years. The Hyperinflation (a private banking affair you would have gone along with) especially demoralized them as they lost generational wealth, and many Germans had a brain melt-down.

  91. Mefobills says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    You claim to be a Nazi (by implication you’re anti Zionist), and yet I NEVER hear you (or Hudson and his ilk) mention abolition of the Fed.

    LoLs are retards. It is fun debating them, but also something like herding mice. They can’t learn and keep throwing up all kinds of obfuscations.

    Hudson ALL THE TIME, talks about how the money power should be a public utility.

    The FED IS NOT A PUBLIC UTILITY you moron. It is a creature of the private banking system, you know the free market.

    You worship your slave masters.

    In order to overcome the hyperinflation, the Reichsbank was UNPRIVATIZED.

    I know you won’t listen though, because you are convinced in your alternate universe that things work a certain way.

  92. @Mefobills

    Do you mean gov’t owned as in Amtrak or the USPS? Do you mean gov’t owned as in the US military that has lost wars against peasants in Vietnam, Afghanistan and numerous smaller engagements? How about gov’t education? How about the latest gov’t jab mandate? How about immigration?

    Are you seriously stating that gov’t has ever been the solution to anything of consequence?

    Why not turn the entire economy over to the DOD? They know how to burn money like no one else and produce zero positive results over decades.

    I don’t doubt that you would put people in camps that disagree with you. That just shows how shallow minded you are that can’t effectively counter an argument, terminating it instead with violence.

    • Agree: Truth Vigilante
  93. Mefobills says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    One would’ve thought that after Hudson’s abysmal track record (and I assume yours), of failing to forecast the last GFC, t

    Hudson did forecast the last GFC.

    I previously posted a link to you exactly when it happened. It gets tiring debating LoL’s, because you are unteachable, and convinced in your demoralization status about the nature of reality. I can post all the data in the world, and your brain cannot receive.

    It would take a big stress event, like being stuck in a concentration camp. Logic and reason doesn’t work.

    You live in LoL Lol land.

    I’ve already posted this to you in the past, but your two digits of IQ and inability to process new information has you blinded.

    As you predicted and as happened, people just couldn’t pay anymore and the thing collapsed. You could’ve made a lot of money out of this. Did you?

    No, I couldn’t. I could only make money if someone would’ve lent me a billion dollars, like they lent to Mr. Paulson [the Wall Street operator who made billions out of the housing crash] to bet against it. I’m a professor and a book writer. They’ll only lend you money if they can grab the assets, and I’m somebody that doesn’t have many assets, except a big collection of economics books.

    Have you ever heard of someone sitting on Wall Street who read Harper’s in May 2008 and acted appropriately?

    I don’t think they needed me. If they’re on Wall Street, they didn’t need me to tell them that the economy is going to collapse. They all knew it was going to collapse. That was in the language of “liar’s loans” and “NINJAs.” It was pretty obvious what was going on. It’s just the media didn’t talk about it because the media was giving handouts from Alan Greenspan saying that it’s not possible for there to be a real estate collapse, it’s only local.

    It was general knowledge, and you act as if your heroes are some sort of great soothsayers.

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  94. Jon Chance says: • Website

    You can’t understand economics without understanding the genuine definition of “money”.

    What exactly does each unit of money represent?

    An ounce of silver or gold? A barrel of petroleum? A pound of tobacco? An hour of labor? A kWh of energy?


    Money is a representation of Location Value Rent — sovereign national territory.

    Examine Article 8 of the First US Constitution (1776) — The Articles of Confederation.

    The primary reason why almost nobody today understands economics is because nearly everyone confuses “currency” with “money”.

    This confusion is deliberate.

    The Second US Constitution (1787) — which is fraudulent — is a major cause of this confusion.

    “Money” and “currency” are two distinct phenomena.

    Why is this a secret?



  95. Mr. Grey says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    Hudson and Picketty call for bigger government and more intervention, ignoring the problems they cite have been created by a large, intrusive government. Student debt was created by the government guaranteeing loans, which also helped make the cost of an education skyrocket so now most people need a loan to go to a university.

    • Agree: Truth Vigilante
  96. Gilles says:


    Apologies for my poor English; it’s not my native language.

    Libertarianism has religious overtones, much like the diametric opposite communism it despises. Its adherents are quite childish and are keen to throw tantrums. With both, there is no room for compromise, which works only for children, and for adults outside of the real world.

    The American Libertarian / Right-Wing fascination with ‘Free Markets Uber Alles’ is equally amusing, and these folk entirely miss subtleties (and things that are quite obvious as well), like the concept of comparative vs. absolute advantage. Like tax breaks and elimination of government, this is simply a religious edict from University of Chicago / ‘Austrian School’.

    That said, there is a lot to admire with libertarianism, non-interventionism being its best attribute.

    I was a Mises-worshipping Libertarian until I grew up and realised that humans and systems created by humans simply cannot function under absolutist systems like libertarianism or communism. Compromises aka mixed economy are things that are eventually acquired through maturity.


    • Replies: @ruralguy
    , @Truth Vigilante
  97. ruralguy says:

    You’re 1/2 redeemed — the nationalist part. The Socialist part needs work.

  98. Mutual Admiration Society of powerless economists.

  99. ruralguy says:

    Very true., but economics is a dismal science because it cannot integrate those microeconomic decisions into a coherent and composed mathematical model. A Libertarian view of free markets approximates this integration somewhat. A Japanese style economic policy that favors an absolute advantage over free-market comparative-advantage policy exemplifies the errors in trying to beat the free market model. We know from complexity theory that international economic optimization is best approximated through modeled human behaviors, statistical equilibriums in the network, random matrix modeling of multiple interactions, evolutionary game theory, etc. But even this approximaion is too difficult, though much better than the simple microeconomic graphs taught in economics college courses. But, the libertarian model approximates it much better than that. You have a good point about central planning, because the U.S. Defense Department was responsible for much of the total-factor productivity gains in the three post-WW2 decades, supporting you notion that there are advantages to social central planning.

  100. @Mefobills

    Finance Capitalism, which really came into being starting in 1694, is stock owned private banks doing debt spreading.

    Proof of the Divine Power of Jesus is anticipation of this evil and the action to preclude it at the outset of His public mission, Luke 4: 16-30, as Hudson edifies with cutting edge scholarly research interpreting documents found among the Dead Sea Scrolls:

    …and forgive them their debts” (2018).

    The Church founded by Jesus emphasized this prime thrust of His Message for about 300 years then lost its way.

    Today, as E. Michael Jones describes here

    “Jewish control of the Catholic Church” has neutralized the only institution which has ever proven able to rein in Jew usury and the other aspects of (((their)) perfidious predatory parasitism.

  101. @Carlton Meyer

    Yes when “lobbying” – which is nothing about legalized bribery is so prevalent – and winning elections costing so much money – those common sense things you note won’t come to pass.

  102. @Mefobills

    So, when a government run entity fails catastrophically, Mofo-Bill responds with:

    I said it needs to be heavily regulated OR GOVERNMENT OWNED.

    And how does one ensure something is more regulated ?

    Well simple, says Mofo-Bill.

    Let’s just appoint even more REGULATORS – because the already bloated Big Government in existence is not bloated enough for him.

    That’s the typical answer we always get from Big Government STATISTS whose aim is to centralise even more power into the hands of the wise overlords who rule over us.

    In the private sector, when mistakes are made, they’re subject to huge litigation payouts, which can lead to their eventual bankruptcy. (Hence a mighty deterrent to cut corners, manufacture a shoddy product or provide bad service).
    Case in Point: The Bhopal Disaster in 1984 which cost Union Carbide Corporation dearly:

    Meanwhile, if there’s a failure in any particular department in a government sector, the bureaucrats (following Michael Hudson’s advice and yours Mofo), will claim that the failure was due to insufficient funding and too few staff.
    So they’ll just get more taxpayer billions and hire more unproductive parasites – putting even further pressure on the private sector to feed these useless eaters.

    It’s all been tried before and failed spectacularly.

    It was called the SOVIET UNION.

    But Mofo and Michael Hudson have learnt nothing from history.

    • Troll: mulga mumblebrain
  103. @Mefobills

    I clearly state (in comment # 91) that the Federal Reserve is owned by the Zionist Dominated Usury Banking Cartel and that they are a ‘cartel of private bankers’.

    So, Mofo-Bill comes back with:

    The FED IS NOT A PUBLIC UTILITY you moron. It is a creature of the private banking system, you know the free market.

    You see, this is the problem I face trying to enlighten the Mofo.

    His comprehension skills and his rate of absorption are very poor.

    My highlighting of the U.S Federal Reserve is to underline the fact that they’re a malfeasant entity – a Vampire Squid that is sucking the life out of the U.S economy.

    When a CANCER is identified, it matters not whether it is in the private or public sector.

    What matters is that it is EXTRACTED and DISPOSED OF quickly before it metastasises.

    But the Mofo, Michael Hudson and their Marxist/Keynesian ilk will NEVER even identify the Federal Reserve as the root cause of the problem that inflates these bubbles that lead to catastrophic failures in the market, let alone advocate for their abolition.

    Of course, why would they highlight the malfeasance of their benefactors ?
    The Mofo’s and the Hudson’s of this world actively SHIELD these Zionist miscreants at every opportunity.

    You’re either working in cahoots with them or you’re just USEFUL IDIOTS.

    Well, we know for sure you’re a bunch of idiots – not so sure about the ‘useful’ tag.

  104. @Mefobills

    The Mofo writes:

    Hudson did forecast the last GFC.

    Predicting the GFC by referencing something Hudson said in non-entity publication two days before Lehman Brothers collapsed is hardly worthy of praise. Even Blind Freddie could see what was about to unravel by that stage.

    Predicting it YEARS in advance (as Peter Schiff did), and predicting how it would unravel in precise detail (ie: what specific stocks would implode etc), is masterful.
    Case in point:

    In the years leading up to the 2008/09 GFC, Peter Schiff repeatedly appeared on MSNBC, Fox Business, Bloomberg and all manner of high profile programmes.
    And he was ALWAYS hammering on about the impending collapse and was always consistent. He was invited to these programmes because people SOUGHT his advice.
    Wherever Schiff appeared ratings went through the roof.

    Meanwhile, NO ONE invited Hudson anywhere. He appeared nowhere of substance (The Marxist Workers of America and the North Korean Herald newspapers being the exception).

    Let’s face it, NO ONE wants to hear what Michael Hudson and his Mofo groupie have to say.

    If that’s not enough, I urge everyone to watch this video from 2006 which emphasises Peter Schiff’s prescience (you will learn more real world economics from this video than a dozen lifetimes of voodoo economics from Hudson and his Mofo sidekick):

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  105. @Gilles

    You wrote:

    Libertarianism has religious overtones ….. Its adherents are quite childish and are keen to throw tantrums.

    There is/was no more high profile politician in the world, who’s a devotee of Libertarianism, than Dr Ron Paul.

    And, if you know anything about Ron Paul it is that he’s always calm, rational and generally the only adult in the room (and that was certainly true for other prominent Libertarians over many decades. eg: Murray Rothbard, Harry Browne and scores of others).

    So Gilles, I don’t know which Libertarians you’ve been mixing with over the years but I suspect they’re pseudo-Libertarians who infiltrated the movement with the intention of discrediting it.

  106. Mefobills says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    You are like some sort of autistic retard.

    Below is link of economists who predicted the GFC using statistical models:

    All of your personality characteristics are those of a Cultist.

    You do hero worship, you are a legend in your own mind – assured of the rightness of your position. When in actuality your position is gibberish. An alternate parallel universe that doesn’t explain the world.

    Lolbertarianism is a cult, a dialectic of liberalism. You and your ilk are part of the problem, not the solution.

    You would be one of the first people I would put in my hypothetical concentration camps. It would have camp prostitutes, camp doctors, good food, perhaps even an orchestra like Hitler’s camps. You would be paid camp money for your labor, and you would be able to graduate once you were disabused of your cult religous-like status.

    If I were Ron Unz, I would ban you from commenting, because you spam up the threads with your nonsense. Hudson may choose to stop letting his important articles be posted here.

    Michael Hudson and Piketty were having a very high level conversation, especially about how the statistics of Piketty show debt accumulations. You have managed to derail the conversation, as usual.

    Hi IQ people are not going to come to UNZ review to read and comment with demoralized cult types spamming things up.

    You’ve already posted your heroes before, and putting them up repeatedly is not an argument. You’ve got nothing. Lolbertarianism is a dialectic designed to ensnare a certain type of person, and then take them out of the game. Hudson was actually having an argument with a Neo-Liberal. Neo-Liberalism is also a dialectic of Liberalism and Zionism, but that argument is too subtle for your pea brain.

    Ron Paul and Schiff are dupes for Zion. They don’t actually expose the working of Finance Capital, which is the main funding mechanism. The language used by LoL’s does not explain the world.

    This paper presents evidence that accounting (or flow-of-fund) macroeconomic models helped anticipate the credit crisis and economic recession. Equilibrium models ubiquitous in mainstream policy and research did not. This study identifies core differences, traces their intellectual pedigrees, and includes case studies of both types of models. It so provides constructive recommendations on revising methods of financial stability assessment. Overall, the paper is a plea for research into the link between accounting concepts and practices and macro economic outcomes.

    Download the .pdf and read it, use what few brain cells you have:


    Michael Hudson, US professor, University of Missouri “Debt deflation will shrink the “real” economy, drive down real wages, and push our debt-ridden economy into Japan-style stagnation or worse.” (2006)

    and Schiff:

    Peter Schiff , US stock broker, investment adviser and commentator “[t]he United States economy is like the Titanic …I see a real financial crisis coming for the United States.” (2006). “There will be an economic collapse” (2007).

    There were 12 Analysist who foresaw the collapse, all of them using non Neo-Liberal methods. Schiff got it right too, but so what? A clock is right twice a day.

    Keen’s analysis is especially important as it uses a new branch of accounting and mathematics, which is way beyond Lolbertarian concepts. Hudson works with Keen to incorporate debt modeling.

  107. Mefobills says:

    The pdf above does attribute this to Schiff:

    Several of the commentators (Schiff and Richebächer) adhere to the ‘Austrian School’ in economics,
    which means that they emphasize savings, production (not consumption) and real capital formation
    as the basis of sustainable economic growth.

    Industrial Capitalism, emphasizes savings and production (not consumption) and real capital formation.

    Hudson repeatedly is in favor of Industrial Capitalism, but dumb LoL’s can only bleet out MARXIST!

    The thing is, the gold fixation for Lobertarianism prevents Industrial and Physical economy. Industrial Capitalism uses state banks (China) or sovereign money (National Socialist Germany – especially their bill system), where credit channels into the commons and industry. Gold economies are antithetical to industrial capitalism.

    What LoL’s want they cannot have due to internal contradictions. Living in a parallel universe effectively blinds them.

  108. @Mefobills

    Yes, there are a few ‘fence sitters’ (like Noriel Roubini) that nonchalantly said words to the effect of ‘we are heading into a correction’ or equivalent, in the lead up to the last GFC.

    And your list of nobodies undoubtedly will include individuals where you’ll find a SINGLE LINE line on page 57 of some newspaper documenting that they did indeed make some ambiguous statement about ‘gloomy skies’ ahead (usually said comment was made a month or two before the Lehman Brothers collapse and by that stage the subprime mortgage market was well and truly unravelling).

    But no one, and I do mean absolutely NO ONE, consistently (over several years leading up to the GFC) spoke about the cataclysmic event that was soon to envelop the U.S.

    MORE IMPORTANTLY, no one pinpointed, in precise format, HOW the GFC was going to play out like Peter Schiff – coupled to big calls on specific stocks that were about to implode (at a time when said stocks were still riding relatively high).

    No need to look at one sentence uttered by those non-entities you claim called the GFC in advance, documented in some backwater publication where ‘your people’ claimed to have forecast the upcoming calamity.

    Peter Schiff’s predictions are catalogued in many HOURS of video footage where he appeared on countless high profile business programmes.

    As to this comment of yours:

    If I were Ron Unz, I would ban you from commenting, because you spam up the threads with your nonsense.
    Hudson may choose to stop letting his important articles be posted here.

    … I can see you’re getting pretty desperate and resorting to the same tactics as your controllers.

    It must really be getting under your skin how I emphatically refute one B.S remark after another of yours and Hudson’s (especially the one where I explained the REAL REASON why Volcker raised the Fed Funds Rate to 20% forty years ago – as opposed to Hudson’s juvenile explanation).

    The UR readers are waiting for a refutation from you Mofo.

    C’mon, what are you waiting for ?

    You gutless Coward. You can’t refute so you do what you do best. You OBFUSCATE.

    As to the matter of your ‘controllers’, of course I refer to the cabal behind the Covid psyop, the Climate Change fraud, the same controllers that deplatform the best infectious disease epidemiologists, virologists and immunologists on the planet from You Tube, Twitter and Facebook for telling us the facts about the scamdemic.

    Yes Mofo, the same controllers that told you to muzzle up and inject their experimental toxins into your veins.
    And, good servile statist that you are, you dutifully obliged.

    Admit it Mofo, you’re one of the double-jabbed fuckwits.

    Yes Mofo, I’m talking about the Zio-cabal that’s trying to install a Marxist One World Government to rule the planet – thus realising your statist dream (and Michael Hudson’s) of centralised control by a Zionist Politburo.

    As for Hudson choosing to withdraw his important articles from UR, what ‘important articles’ are you referring to ?
    All I’ve seen is Marxist clap-trap from Hudson posted on UR.

    The sooner Hudson leaves and takes his discredited theories with him, the better.

    Let’s hope he takes you with him because UR readers are tired of your B.S and fed up with your cowardice.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  109. @Trond Andresen

    Sorry it is a tad too long; it still rambles on, and I will post the next part if you are still interested and if Mr Unz tolerates:


    Imagine you are the king of a country in the faraway past. Your kingdom is simple, people are mostly farmers, and there are some other artisans, like blacksmiths, weavers, cartwrights, etc. They don’t need money, they exchange their goods and services among themselves, wages to the labour are paid in grains and salt, and if they still need money to buy something, they use foreign coins circulating in your country, because you do not mint your own coins. You tax these people every year after the harvest, and they can pay their taxes in grains, salt or timber, and if they are in service, like a barber, or a boatman, they pay their taxes in foreign coins or metal ingots. You store the grains in your granary and foreign coins and metal in your treasury. And let us say you are a frugal king, you don’t splurge money on dancing girls, and your only item of expenditure is payments to your 10,000 soldiers. You pay them in grains, salt and some foreign coins. But transporting, storing and distributing grains, salt and timber is proving difficult. You lose a substantial amount of grains to rats, pests and fire.
    One day a smartly dressed MBA turns up at your door. He speaks the latest lingo of London School of Economics, and he promises to simplify your task of tax collection and earns you a profit to boot. You hire him at an enormous salary.
    First, he tells you to stop collecting taxes in kind; instead he introduces a new currency: a shiny round piece of copper, called Dummy (plural Dummies). He estimates your annual expenditure (hence necessary revenue) at one million Dummies.
    Next, he sends tax assessors to all your farmers and other taxpayers. They are told that henceforth they have to pay their taxes only in Dummies. Earlier their tax was fixed in terms of bags of rice, wheat, salt, metal ingots or timber; now all that is fixed in terms of Dummies. They are told that the tax should be paid soon after the harvest, and those who do not pay taxes will be thrown into jail.
    Next, he buys some good quantity of copper in exchange for the rice and salt in your stores, and mints one million shiny new Dummy pieces. The cost of this minting should be obviously less than one million Dummies, else you will incur a loss in minting these coins. He makes sure that the copper content of a Dummy is worth less than a Dummy. Thus to mint one million Dummies, you had to spend only about 800,000 Dummies worth of rice, wheat, salt etc out of your warehouses. Thus you earn a profit of 20% in minting these new coins – this he calls “seigniorage”. Remember this term, we will need it frequently.
    Next, he fixes the salary of your soldiers in terms of Dummies instead of bags of rice, salt etc. Thus, the salary of a soldier is fixed at 100 Dummies. They are paid their annual salary at once, and asked to buy whatever they want from the market.
    By this time harvest is over and the last date to pay taxes is nearing. Farmers look for Dummies; they bring their harvested rice and salt to the markets; soldiers also reach the market to buy rice etc for their families. They meet, discuss about how many bags of rice for one Dummy, reach an agreement; let us say they decided 1 Dummy = 10 bags of rice; the harvest is sold; farmers get enough Dummies to pay their taxes, soldiers get food for their families; barbers shave the soldiers and give them a haircut; soldiers pay them with Dummies; same with other service providers; finally tax collectors appear on the scene, collect the Dummies from the farmers, barbers, etc and deposit it back at your treasury. Thus the cycle is complete. The Dummies are back at your hands. They are not needed till you pay your soldiers next year. You gift your MBA a nice BMW chariot.
    If everything had gone smoothly, nobody lost their Dummies, nobody cheated on their taxes, and no Dummy was taken away by a foreigner, then at the end of the cycle, goods and services worth one million Dummies have reached your soldiers; you don’t have to collect, store and distribute grains or salt. And you have made a tidy profit in seigniorage, too. This view, that money is created when the government spends (you paid salary to your soldiers) and extinguished when it collects taxes, is called ‘Chartalism’.

  110. onebornfree says: • Website

    Terrifying New Horror Movie For Liberal Audiences Shows Politicians Leaving Them Alone, Letting Them Make Own Decisions

    “HOLLYWOOD, CA—Theaters across the nation are about to leave modern audiences shaking in their boots with the release of “Individual Responsibility”, a terrifying new horror movie where politicians leave people alone to make their own decisions regarding what to do with their own lives……”:

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  111. Tough Guy says:

    What nonsense! Bill Gates can’t force me to do anything. I am not worse off because Bill Gates is wealth. I am better off because of the software his company developed. He and most other billionaires produced something others CHOSE to buy. The fixed-pie approach to economics is DUMB. The rich do not get richer and the poor poorer. Repeating a falsehood doesn’t turn it into truth. (See “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot.”

    As for the actions of Paul Volcker, talk about revisionist history. Inflationary expectations were high because recent inflation had been high and growing. Who caused the high inflation?! GOVERNMENT! Volcker stopped the printing presses and interest rates peaked, contributing to the recession. Then interest rates came down and contributed to the higher economic growth. It’s why Reagan won 49 of 50 states.

    Government control of credit was something for which Marx advocated. We now have incredible financial repression because allowing interest rates to go back up would lead to a debt spiral. But hey, maybe, unlike any other country that has already tried it, the U.S. can get away with printing money to solve its problems. That’s not the private sector geniuses. It’s government!

    • Agree: Truth Vigilante
  112. Mefobills says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    I don’t have any “controllers,” nor do I do hero worship in some sort of religious conviction.

    Every one of my posts, I explain how things work, and I typically include links to justify the explanation.

    In other words, I teach and explain in my posts, which many people find useful.

    People that come to read Hudson also want to have some sort of understanding of the world.

    It is the “flow of funds” analysis, which also includes debt flow that is ultimately what matters.

    Lolbertarians do not incorporate this sort of modeling into their conceptual framework – which Hudson calls “Flea Bag Hotel.” I agree with him.

    You cling to Schiff like a rat on a lifeboat. THE CLAW.

    You also bring up straw men arguments, like the CABAL BEHIND CLIMATE CHANGE, and do other attributions to me that are completely crazy. For example, your were calling me a Marxist, even though in earlier conversations I told you I was a NAZI.

    In other words, not only do you not listen, you are “ate up” and basically crazy… a cultist.

    So, now I am part of the cabal, and I have a statist dream for one world government, and hence part of Zion. Oh and I am a coward too. Keep telling yourself lies.

    You stupid ass, I am a nationalist, and Hudson’s flow of funds and debt analysis is precisely what a nationalist country needs in order to survive. It was flow of funds, usury, and “international” debts that caused the Hyperinflation, and it was a CABAL of private bankers that started WW1 and 2.

    You are basically crazy, a cultist – which is why you should be banned. There is no convincing somebody who is a nut-burger using logic, or factual analysis.

    It was under the gold regime that you and your ilk caused the German Hyperinflation. It was gold that backed up many of the shorts that caused the Hyperinflation.

    Stockholm Syndrome? You are useful idiot for the Zionist Cabal , as Lolbertarianism is a branch of Liberalism. Rockefeller actually supported Mises with money and a place to live.

    The ZIO’s actually are rubbing their hands with glee that somebody like you has been brainwashed and taken out of the game, and no longer a threat.

    I know this is hard for your little pea brain to accept, but what Hudson, Keen and others are doing, especially with flow of funds, and usury analysis, strikes at the heart of the Zionist finance capitalist system.

  113. Mefobills says:

    Terrifying New Horror Movie For Liberal Audiences Shows Politicians Leaving Them Alone, Letting Them Make Own Decisions

    Terrifying that at Lolbertarian, which is a branch of Liberalism, shows up to brainwash the audience with hypnosis.

    It was authoritarianism that undid the damage of liberalism and “free dumb markets” that ravaged Germany.

    You LoL would have visited Weimar Germany and taken part in the Hedonism and Sodomy, you know because of Free-Dumb.

    You do know that some sort of authoritarianism is the answer, where corporations- including banking corporations come under control? Your free dumb actually gave space for oligarchy to arise, which is privateers string pulling government from behind the scenes. Your very illogic causes the things you are against.

    All of life is a hierarchy, but to listen to you nutburgers, there is magic in gold, and human action.

    Gold, human action, and free markets are GOD!

    This is why I call your type LoL’s, because I am laughing at you. You are a joke.

    As Hudson says, you live in an alternate universe. Hudson says it takes too long to unpack your arguments.

    I say your arguments are circular, and worse – you are cultists, and hence are beyond reason. I’ve even found posts of yours where you talk about how you would pay to see somebody harmed.

    Lols are personality defectives, ate up, and cultists.

    You are threatened I suppose by Hudson, which is why you show up whenever he posts one of his articles.

    And then you proceed to jam up the threads, so normal intelligent people cannot have a conversation.

  114. @ruralguy

    Government ownership and competent governance are not one and the same… Political systems have little to do with it. Nor is pain and suffering inherent in any political system. Competence is the key.

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  115. @showmethereal

    You wrote:

    Government ownership and competent governance are not one and the same

    In fact they’re RARELY the same.

    I’ll go further than that. I can’t think of a single enterprise of substance run by government, over a long period of time, that hasn’t been an abject failure as compared to the same enterprise run in a competitive Free Market.

    Yet the Mofo has the temerity to classify the centralised statist model that he and Hudson espouse as ‘Industrial Capitalism’.

    There’s no capitalism of note in his unworkable model.

    The only thing it yields is abject poverty and destitution in the final analysis.

    Mofo actually thinks anyone at Peking University of note is actually paying attention to what Hudson has to say.

    Undoubtedly, there will be some Communist hardliners from the Mao era who apply Hudson’s principles – this is evident in the parasitic and loss making State-owned Enterprises (SOE’s), which are a huge drag on the Chinese economy.

    Fortunately, these losses are more than compensated by the dynamic Chinese private sector which practises something much closer to the ‘nearer-to-pure’ Capitalism that the U.S and Britain employed in the 19th century.

    Bottom Line: China is successful today DESPITE those sections of its economy that cling to anachronistic and failed prescriptions (ie: the Hudson/Mofo model) of a bygone era.

  116. @Rubicon

    The biggest elephant that very few people don’t talk about is the fact that there’s a centralization of a nation’s banking. And the first receivers of new money are governments and their cronies which they use that to inflate their assets

  117. @Mefobills

    Peter Schiff and Ron Paul only take into account the economics. They don’t need to care if these people are Jews or anything. Centralizing the money supply by rigging interest rates or printing money is what creates boom busts.

    Commercial banks can engage in risky bank practices all they want. In a true free market society, they’ll be bankrupt and people learn hard that X bank are not trustworthy. There are always buffers to freedom and liberty. Governments always destroy those buffers hence manipulating behavior.

    • Agree: Truth Vigilante
  118. @Mefobills

    As long as a ‘private’ bank controls the entire money supply of the country, it is still a central bank

Current Commenter

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

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