I've never heard Micheal so direct, and he is normally pretty direct, but here he is even more forthright. He states outright who it is that drives world terrorism and that Hilary was the neo-fascist candidate who promised WW3. The US election was fixed, he says, for Trump to win because the ruling knew Americans were never going to vote for their preferred candidate, Hilary.
He also says how Thatcher said that there was no alternative and that it is natural for the rich to get richer and richer while everyone else gets to live shorter and more impoverished lives.
Micheal Hudson is certainly angry here like so many of us are here too, but most people don't know whats going on and just put up with it.
I might add:
US capitalism is really like a game of monopoly where one person, or group of people - who Micheal Hudson calls monopolists - get to win everything in the world, and the wealthier they become, the more they can buy, and so people in foreign countries get to own nothing of their country's wealth, and maybe not even much of the land, with all of it instead being owed by Wall Street, the City of London, and their spin offs.
Microsoft and Google can draw the most talented scientists, mathematicians, computer software designers and engineers from all around the world and pay them top salaries keeping their companies at the front. In this way we have the self perpetuating rich whose offspring will for eternity never have to work and yet grow exponentially rich. You can see the philosophical dilemmas here?
KV
Prof Michael Hudson joins to review his critique of US financial imperialism in light of recent events. From the WB, IMF through to deep state strategy, Hudson is the best in the business at tying the economic pressures in our lives to the geo-political forces at work.
Renegade Economist
Karl Fitzgerald - US Financial Imperialism – Protected by Academic Propaganda
The US election was fixed, he says, for Trump to win because the ruling knew Americans were never going to vote for their preferred candidate, Hilary.
ReplyDeleteThe US election was fixed FOR Hillary but the fix failed. There is a great deal of evidence for this:
Hillary's supportive corporate media focusing on the three most despicable GOP candidates (Carson, Cruz, and Trump) in an attempt to make her more palatable
DNC collusion with Hillary and the media to scuttle Bernie's campaign
2:1 financial advantage in campaign money (the most money wins > 90% of the time)
super-delegates being counted for Hillary long before the convention and that count used to announce that Hillary "clinched the nomination" the day before the CA primary
Hillary announced as the winner of primary races with < 1% of the vote counted (before noon!)
etc. etc. etc.
Link doesn't work.
ReplyDeleteBut from the title alone, in my experience it's Progressives and MMT folks who defend the inherent injustice of our financial system while seeking to make it more stable - as if injustice should be, or even can be, stable for long.
I redirected the link to Michael Hudson's blog.
ReplyDeletehttp://michael-hudson.com/2018/06/academic-propaganda-protecting-us-financial-imperialism/
Thanks, Tom.
Delete“The US election was fixed, he says, for Trump to win “
ReplyDeleteEven Noah knows this is BS...
Franko is like a broken clock: he's correct twice a day.
ReplyDeleteHmmmm. This guy sounds like me, Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard and David Stockman. The fiat funny money system is a continuing criminal enterprise designed to loot and conquer. This is just our standard decades-old analysis which is mocked by know-nothing Keynesians (excuse the redundancy).
ReplyDeleteBut MMTers worship it as "Modern Money". Very strange.
Good thing the fascist imperialist deep state isn't "revenue constrained". Right?
Research the Black Eagle Trust.
ReplyDeleteInteresting reading.
The fiat funny money system ... Bob Roddis
ReplyDeleteA Gold Standard or gold coins as Gary North advocates would be by fiat too. You guys just want fiat to be NEEDLESSLY EXPENSIVE and from base motives too:
1) To benefit special interests such as gold and silver owners/miners.
2) To enable lazy, risk-free gains from deflation.
You call fiat funny money but what is sad is people thinking that ethics require precious metals:
They will fling their silver into the streets and their gold will become an abhorrent thing; their silver and their gold will not be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of the Lord. They cannot satisfy their appetite nor can they fill their stomachs, for their iniquity has become an occasion of stumbling. Ezekiel 7:19 NASB
That's what I think, Andrew. Only the rich can afford gold mines, then then can dig the money up.
Delete“The fiat funny money system is a continuing criminal enterprise designed to loot and conquer.”
ReplyDeleteMonetary systems are ethically neutral accounting systems, like points on a sports scoreboard.
Human cheating is a separate matter.
To call U.S. dollars intrinsically “funny money” is like calling sports points “funny points.”
Both assertions are silly.
Monetary systems are ethically neutral accounting systems, like points on a sports scoreboard.
ReplyDeleteNo. Our current "system" is designed so that recipients of the new money gain and embezzle purchasing power from those holding the existing stock of money without any due process of law or concern for their rights. A normal person finds that outrageous and immoral. MMTers think that's its greatest feature.
Andrew Anderson wrote:
ReplyDeleteTo enable lazy, risk-free gains from deflation.
Those gains would be received by the entire mass population as opposed to the .1% who trade in inflated assets. It's good to see you admit to hating average and poor people and trying to ruin them, Mr. Anderson. Your efforts at supporting the funny money system have certainly paid off in crushing average and poor people. Be proud of your accomplishments.
During the Gold Standard Era, a major excuse for our two-tiered money system whereby the banks use fiat and the rest of us must* use bank liabilities for fiat was that gold-backed fiat was too scarce for the general population to use unless the exchange rate (e.g. dollars per ounce) were set so high that gold was then much less affordable for non-monetary uses such as wedding rings, dentistry, electrical contacts, etc.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, to be for a Gold Standard is to implicitly support government privileges for the banks, etc. OR making gold much less affordable for practical use.
*Or be limited to mere physical fiat, aka "cash."
“Our current ‘system’ is designed so that recipients of the new money gain and embezzle purchasing power from those holding the existing stock of money without any due process of law or concern for their rights.”
ReplyDeleteSuch meaningless gibberish is like visiting the zoo. Trying to refute it is like trying to refute monkeys who chatter in their exhibit. Only a fool would even consider it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKLBne1CoI
@ Konrad
ReplyDeleteBut you don't understand Austrian economics (snark).
@ Konrad
ReplyDeleteBut you don't understand Austrian economics (snark).
You don't. And you are proud of it.
Austrian economics will leave the poor to rot. No one likes it, not even conservatives, because they don't want no safety net at all. Human societies are collective for that reason, because any of us can fall on bad luck. The world's a tough place.
DeleteNeither libertarianism nor Austrian economics contains ANY positive duties. Those are left to other realms of thought and analysis. People are always free to create any "safety net" they think wise. It is "progressives" who believe that people will lack the consensus to voluntarily create such a safety net and so society requires a vast army of cops, paddy wagons and jails to force people to do what they think they will not do without the threat of violence.
ReplyDeleteHuman societies are collective for that reason
This accusation is completely bass-ackwards. Actually, MMT is based upon a view of a permanent and perpetual lack of consensus and a permanent inability to engage in voluntary collective action. MMTers not only doubt the ability of society to create a voluntary consensus, they even doubt the ability to create a majority rule voting consensus regarding appropriate levels taxing and spending. The power mad dogs who run the government must be given exclusive authority to create funny money out of nothing in order to "provision the government" because society necessarily lacks the ability to come to a consensus about much of anything (MMTers claim).
Lbertarians believe that people can and do come to a voluntary consensus about what needs to be done collectively. "Progressives" do not believe that and therefore insist upon relentless violent intervention 10x a day by the cops, bureaucrats, soldiers and prison guards.