Yes I love his guide lines through history. Socrates was a orsom filosofer. The Leaders in the world are mostly victims of there greed and bribes from the wealthy people .
Michael was already a great economist, but I think his more recent work on the history of debt relief has been one of the most important (re)discoveries of the 21st century.
sure is, especially since the majority of the population is living with debt especially from housing procurement, maintenance and improvements. I for one would vote for my debts to be forgiven as I want a new car but can't afford it due to my old car's payments.
I think I remember a similar quote about bonded slavery, I wish I could remember who said it, but it from an interview recorded in the book "New Jim Crow". It was "Debt that can't be paid, isn't suppose to be paid", referring to the permanently in debt and therefore in modern bonded slavery.
@@rcmrcm3370 I'm a bottom 5%er in US Asset and Income. 100% Debt Free. Top 1% in Freedom because I won't take on Debt. I don't loan Money to anyone but have often given it away to People in need. Fair price for Freedom IMO. There's consequences for Debt.
@@rcmrcm3370 It says more people will likely become like me. Maybe after Bankruptcy? Professor Hudson Axiom; "Debts that can't be repaid, won't be repaid" is obviously True. We need a US Law change to make Student Loans dischargeable via Bankruptcy, then, all non payable Debt can be legally discharged. Our System will likely be reset via Bankruptcy Laws. Then, many more People will be far more careful about Debt for a couple Generations. Property Law Change is also in the Pipeline, otherwise, we devolve into; "If you can't hold it, you can't own it." as we see underway with Plundering of Stores in California now. This will most likely manifest in simple, non Tax, Property inheritance Law change. By 2030 we should be through most of this. Expect a Wild time.
@@michaelmcgarrity6987 freedom is just another word, for nothing left to lose . .. I don’t have much but also I am debt free so far at 56. Best of luck on your journey.
Thank you Paul Jay for sponsoring this. And thank you to the person interviewing for his care in this. Understand that we give to the same cause, but don't have enough right now.
Michael thanks for the historical background on ancient economies and how the crisis of unsustainable and growing debt in ancient Rome and Greece which was characterized by a handful of greedy individuals wanting unlimited wealth and power destroyed their empire through wars and a refusal to write down the debts of their citizens. Its what is playing out today which goes to show as Mark Twain stated a century ago: "History may not repeat itself, but it sure rhymes."
Frantz Fanon: “What counts today, the question which is looming on the horizon, is the need for a redistribution of wealth. Humanity must reply to this question or be shaken to pieces by it.” Romans and Greeks wanted slaves and plebeians without any political power. Roman voting was prejudiced in favour of wealth much like the US Constitution that limited political rights to rich white males. The Middle Ages oligarchs relied on force and forced serfdom and peasantry the were tied to a lord's land to serve his purposes. This explains the current oligarchy that prizes Latin as an academic accomplishment. Today's oligarchs love the idea of landless peasants and serfs eating garbage to support the arrogance convenieince of the rich. Lactantius, (late 3rd century) (The Divine Institutes): “In order to enslave the many, the greedy began to appropriate and accumulate the necessities of life and keep them tightly closed up, so that they might keep these bounties for themselves. They did this not for humanity’s sake (which was not in them at all), but to rake up all things as products of their greed and avarice. In the name of justice they made unfair and unjust laws to sanction their thefts and avarice against the power of the multitude. In this way they availed as much by authority as by strength of arms or overt evil.” Aldous Huxley ‘After Many a Summer Dies the Swan’: “…But the fact remains, nevertheless, that you can’t help if they persist in the course of behaviour which originally got them into their trouble. For example, you can’t preserve people from the horrors of war if they won’t give up the pleasures of nationalism. You can’t save them from slumps and depressions so long as they go on thinking exclusively in terms of money and regarding money as the supreme good. You can’t avert revolution and enslavement if they will identify progress with the increase of centralization and prosperity with the intensifying of mass production. You can’t preserve them from their collective madness and suicide if they persist in paying divine honours to ideals which are merely projections of their own personalities - in other words, if they insist on worshiping themselves…” Sheldon Wolin: “If the main purpose of elections is to serve up pliant legislators for lobbyists to shape, such a system deserves to be called misrepresentative or clientry government”.
Political economy is one of the most important issues of our time. David Harvey has a great story about his work in Baltimore that really brings it home. Also RIP David Graeber
One question! Who amongst Us can recall the last time any FAVORITE host or channel online or on TV, dived deeply into Graebers timely material that preceded his untimely premature departure? Seems he is dying from a most grave common affliction of "unpopular" yet more accurate and relevant scholars, The Memory Hole of the US★UK ∆ n g l o ∆ mer I Cant of Amnesia & Dementia. W H O ARE T. H. E. Y. and affiliations living in near supposed anonymity and UN Accountability‽ Please, BE TOO SPECIFIC! Inquiring minds OUGHT to KNOW, RIGHT, NOT WRONGLY. Hint! Don't blame the homeless or the billions in the "Global South" for the messes in YOUR city or State of Mind or Mind of The State.
Computers and the internet allow us access to information like never before. Technology aside, this formation access allows us a new path. I have a vision. It’s frickin’ awesome. ...tick...tock...tick...tock...tick...tock...
Classic Hudson--as brilliant as always, as tunnel-visioned about the beneficence of the state as always. Would love to have him on with a guest who could talk about the history of life under authoritarian states to complement his history of life under authoritarian creditor oligarchies. (neither tended to work out well for the citizenry)
Really enjoyed this interview, definitely gonna have to order Hudson's book. He is at his best when he is using his financial knowledge to explain history
Uncovered the invisible elephant in the room and completed my view of classical history, nothing less. Michael Hudson is great, he's been at it when I wasn't even born yet. Makes me feel young😀
We get a first look at the new book by renowned political economist Michael Hudson on the age-old battle between creditors and the real economy. Ancient Rome refused to adopt the practices of debt forgiveness and land redistribution previously understood to be essential. Instead, they instituted a rigid pro-creditor legal system, assassinating anyone who remotely threatened it--including Tiberius Gracchus, Julius Caesar, and Jesus. The empire devolved into a rentier economy, ultimately collapsing from within. Today's neoliberal establishment increasingly defends this failed state framework, even as the same disastrous dynamics intensify. To view PART TWO: ua-cam.com/video/pCIpGznmyoE/v-deo.html Please donate at theanalysis.news/donate/ - we can't do this without you.
To find more interviews with Michael Hudson, here is a link to the series/playlist - ua-cam.com/play/PL5wue8oAUyGp9dPvgHktCd8JE56zQBNCK.html Come visit us at theanalysis.news Sign up for our newsletter: theanalysis.news/newsletter/ Like us on Facebook: facebook.com/TheAnalysisnews-111882350255869 Follow us on: Twitter: twitter.com/paul__jay?lang=en Instagram: instagram.com/theanalysis.news/ Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/company/theanalysis-news #PaulJay #theanalysis #history #economy #U.S.Politics
Thanks for having Michael Hudson on. He is truly a fantastic resource that isn't utilized enough. Probably because his message rings just too true. We live in perilous times.
Dr Hudson is a professor to respect and one who brings honor to academia. His work is of global significance like the writings of Angus Deacon. And completely unlike the onanizm of the likes of economics “Nobelists” Friedman, Krugman, Bernanke etc
Thanks for having Michael Hudson on, one of the greatest economic minds. This is so depressing and clear eyed as he always is…I might just start looking for a cliff or tall building. There’s no hope.
@@snarkybuttcrack And you need to stop being such a bossy, pontificating person, stop telling people how they should feel. Your opinion on my feelings is not valuable.
Humans have a problem with understanding exponential growth. We just lost millions in a global pandemic where the health professionals were trying to explain this to us; proving how little we understood it. We still don't understand it when it comes to debt. The oligarchs do. That's why we have this economic system and why we put up with it.
Hudson is great in explaining economics that even i can understand it and comprehend the disastrous implications of western rule over other countries and its peoples.
I very much look forward to reading the book. Jacob Soll has recently pointed out, in his study of the "free market" concept, how intently Adam Smith channelled Cicero in his "Theory of Moral Sentiments" and "Wealth of Nations". My only reservation concerns the attempt to draw over-hasty contemporary parallels. There are some similarities and also a lot of differences between ancient and modern polities.
The remark on Aristotle (and later Polybius) asserting that democracies evolve into oligarchies in a cyclical cycle is odd because the modern Western republic is not and was never modeled after democracy in the first place. Almost down to the last man, America's founding fathers were explicitly hostile to democracy and they very deliberately modeled their new government after the Roman oligarchic form of governance. The only reason we conflate the electoral representative form of government with democracy today is because there has been a completely Orwellian word inversion. Continue reading Aristotle's "Politics" that Michael cites and you'll find Aristotle clearly define democracy according to the ancient Athenians who invented it: democracy is governance by random lot, whereas elections are oligarchic in nature. You cannot claim to be retracing the path of Aristotle and Polybius's anacyclosis of governments today when we never had democracy to begin with.
Anacyclosis pretty much nails political economy right up to this day 👏 And don't get me started on how undemocratic US govt structures are ie, the senate, electoral college, and most horrifyingly rn the SCOTUS
Don't take the word democracy too literally. Like many other words of the long nineteenth century, it was a coinage and metaphor, like capitalist or industrialist or socialist. Democracy in the early 19th century meant the reform or enlargement of the franchise to all men. When Tocqueville wrote about Democracy in America, he was exploring a society which had implemented a new regime based on a previously radical idea. The America of the 1790s was a federalist commercial republic of neo-Roman oligarchs like Alexander Hamilton in the Age of Washington. By the 1830s, a revolution occurred which might be compared to the Cuban revolution of the 1950s. Andrew Jackson enlisted the frontiersman and common men and created a universal franchise which ended the regime of the 1790s. That founding regime, that opening cycle of the public life of the American nation, only lasted a generation. Just as surely as the bourgeoisie displaced the puritans, the frontiersmen displaced the bourgeoisie. What has become of this democratic republic (formerly a commercial republic) in America since the 1830s is a long and varied story.
@@jason8434 Democracy in the early 19th century was undergoing its historic meaning inversion from the definition used for over two millenia years since the death of Aristotle, and make no mistake it was a conscious and deliberate word inversion pushed by early figures in American history and the French Revolution. It's strange that one would portray Jackson as some sort of builder of democracy when, perhaps more than any other political figure since Jefferson and Madison, he was directly responsible for rebranding the word "democracy" to mean the exact opposite of its historic meaning. Builder of oligarchy? Perhaps. Democrat? Not even close, he was just another faux populist utilizing propaganda to appeal to the commoner without actually fighting for commoners' rule.
@@MathUDX Democracy for the Greeks was a regime for the city-state. The republicans and democrats of the early nineteenth century were building nation-states. Greek democracy was an idea for an agricultural society with an elite urban civilization. Nineteenth century democracy was an idea for an industrial society with an elite capitalist civilization. The two world-contexts cannot be compared simply by comparing the word democracy. Political ideas are not textbook definitions, they are shorthand metaphors. In early nineteenth century democracy, women and slaves and (in Europe) even non-property owners were still excluded from the franchise. Of course, if we compare democracy then and now we could note stark differences. But America is still nominally a democratic republic insofar as it has a universal franchise. If you want to install some ancient Greek regime of democracy by lots as though the modern world was a small peninsula of city-states, you probably won't get very far.
@@jason8434 Yes, and both the voter base and the requirements to hold office were extremely tight, hardly from the dēmos. Rome had more pleb input than Athens at it's most democratic moment.
Thank you. I really enjoyed the discussion! I hope for the sake of us all that Dr. Hudson's work won't be in vain. Also, the quote at 34:57 about how the empire was essentially using its wealth to hire mercenaries during the decay gels with the current situation in Eastern Europe quite well... shows that the thought processes of the leaders then and now is not so different in spite of all our "progress".
When populations don't use money, or own property, the dynamics of human tribalism preserve far more egalitarianism, and shared holistic sensibilities regarding collective survival. These dynamics are sustained when The Authoritarians are not allowed to express themselves, especially through expansionism. When populations use money and own property however (an authoritarian expression), something else happens. Using one penny of a money system plunges the user into a totalitarian system, where the fractional division of money enables social compartmentalization down to the individual. Populations are atomized and reduced to in-group survival, individual survival, and "individual responsibility." When populations exceed the tribal limitations of approximately 150 recognizable individuals that share a single tribal identity and egalitarian responsibility, those populations fragment into subgroups that begin to repeat the evolutionary dynamics of human tribalism unto their own in-group, but also unto the in-groups of private individuals. Each of these expressions begins to reproduce the tribal dynamics endemic to in-group/out-group relationships, which is one of adversary, competition, and psychopathic authoritarian "winning is everything." Both in-groups and private individuals begin treating other out-groups - including private individuals - as a tribal enemy, a competitor, in the proverbial 'war of all against all'. At that point, it represents self-interest - which paradigm is not difficult to gain consensus on, and therefore legality - to treat vulnerable, exploitable, demonized, and strategically targeted out-groups and individuals as slaves, servants, and second-class citizens with the full litany of tribal convictions that are traditionally inflicted on out-groups, spanning demonization, subhuman status, religious and libertarian moralizing, means testing, draconian punishments, and psychopathic actions spanning destitution, sickness, and death. These same dynamics are being repeated today within the "nation-state," between ruling class oligarchy and the working class.
One of the topics addressed in Hudson's "... and Forgive Them Their Debts" is that neoliberal ideology claims to be an extension of economic relationships that have always existed, that surely our ancestors lent each other a cow and collected interest in milk or hay. But upon examination of the historical record and anthropological evidence, this is patently false.
While I agree that Rome had a problem with the accumulation of wealth by a small elite, which eventually impacted the viability of the system, to say this lead to a collapse is a bit misleading. This erosion of meaningful participation of ordinary citizens in the decision making processes of the empire ended well before the collapse of the Roman system. A very unequal system survived for centuries before, the collapse of the currency, population decline and catastrophic military defeat. However really good to see the politics being put back into the concept of economy.
The Roman empire only lasted longer because they literally killed anyone that opposed their whims. Citizens were slaughtered and tortured to maintain the order as long as they did.
He’s talking not about the collapse of the “empire” which almost everyone assumes is all that “Rome” is. He’s talking about the century-long decline of the Roman Republic, leading to civil war due to the corruption of the oligarchic senate and the subsequent destruction of the Republic marked by the well known events surrounding Julius Caesar and the final battle for power between Marcus Antonius and Octavian Caesar. After Octavian defeated Mark Anthony he made it impossible for the now discredited and disempowered senate oligarchy to rule and the autocratic dictatorial Roman Empire was born out of the economic failures of the oligarchy to settle differences within its own members and to repair its broken economic relationship with the plebeians and their growing dissatisfaction with their increasing impoverishment while the republic grew in size and seemed to thrive militarily and economically. The last century BC marked the end of the Roman Republic and it was full of civil conflict and the Roman economy grew increasingly disfunctional as wealth grew concentrated in the tiny oligarchy who began to thrive off a debt based economy. Conflict within the oligarchy was exacerbated by waves of demagoguery and populist movements for reform and agitation for plebeian revolt turned the plebes into a newly significant political force The end of the Republic was caused by a self destructive relationship to debt within Roman society and a failure to change in time to hold off the civil war that destroyed the republic and all the old “Roman Virtues” they held in such high esteem and had died to defend for many generations previously. Greed among a small oligarchy killed the Roman Republic and all the Roman Virtues.
Certain people like to point out that the word "democracy" never appears in the US constitution, and that the USA is a "republic". I've read the definitions of those two words and found them somewhat vague. In the USA today, the word "democracy" usually refers to our representative system of government, whereas the founders used it to refer to a "direct democracy", wherein every decision is put to a popular vote, something the founders were opposed to. So I'm a bit confused. But more importantly, I feel that perhaps we've been deprived of the vocabulary necessary to have a productive argument about our system of government and alternatives to it. Is a "republic" necessarily "democratic"? To the wealthy, anything more pluralistic than a monarchy seems to be sufficiently democratic for their purposes. Sorry if this is a bit off-topic. These questions are important, but the meanings of the words have been destroyed. Is an oligarchy a republic? It would seem so. What is the difference between socialism and a social democracy? Can an undemocratic system be socialist? Communist? What will it take to restore or create a democracy in the USA when the nation is controlled by the oligarchy, the deep state, and the mega-propaganda machine?
Good stuff, but suggesting that autocracies like Russia somehow have a better model of dealing with debt is fucking insane. And even if they did, they have a million other glaring problems.
Not properly comparing how Western civilization turned out vs its competitors since antiquity is a little naive, too. Life was pretty brutal all over the world until relatively recently, and Eurasia has just as sordid a history of imperialism since then as Europe and America--the difference is that the West wound up with liberal democracy (however imperfect) and, ultimately, superior technological innovation. Ask the average person whether they'd like to live in the best of the West, (say, Denmark) or live in China or Russia. I'm not sure Dr. Hudson, for all his brilliance, would like the answer.
Countries with parliaments (representative democracy) are in fact oligarchies (few lead). In order to be a true democracy, the decisions of the Parliament should be submitted to the approval of the citizens. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of those elected and the voters, so people lose confidence in the way society function. As a result, the poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. the populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a side effect in societies where economies have a strong competitive aspect, where the interests of those who hold economic power in society are divergent. Thus, those with money, and implicitly with political power in society, are supervising each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. Because of this, countries with large mineral resources, like Russia and Venezuela (their share in GDP is large), do not have democratic aspects, because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries, the main resource exploited may even be the state budget, as they have converging interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. This is what is observed in Romania, Bulgaria, when, no matter which party comes to power, the result is the same. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if most of his voters consider that their interests are not right represented. Those who think that democracy is when you choose someone to make decisions for you without him having to consult you, are either a fool or a scoundrel. It's like when you have to choose from several thieves who will steal from you. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and even more surely you will be left without money and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, you will not find, in any economic or sports activity, someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and who is fired only after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, without to wait until the term to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
The debt econonomy is a shadow economy, a ball and chain, if you will, and a poor substitute to a potent companion economy enabled by universal credit that enables the survival and sustainability of well being, prosperity in the guarantee of the beauty within human civilization without dependence upon usery and investment speculation (capitalism) within the sphere of global industrial balance.
I am confused about the "we know where that ended up" comment about Rome; didn't Constantine just move the capital to Constantinople, and the Roman empire lasted another thousand years until the Ottmans took it in 1453? 1500 plus years seems like a good run.
Right the Incapability to pay property tax is used to size property especially senior citizens homes Your house could be a million dollar home and property taxes could be around twenty thousand dollars
21:05 the claim is that debt was forgiven in the acient world and the torah was cited as an example earlier in the episode. Why then does it say in proverb 22:26-27 don't take on debt or you will lose your bed you sleep on? This seems to indicate that the jews were opposed to debt of any kind not just forgiving debt once every 7 years. Though i suppose the lenders would be slow to lend money if they knew they would have to forgive the debt if it could not be repaid in a certain amount of time.
The wealthy themselves use leveraged corporate debt as a tool in order never to expose their capital to risk. They then sold the idea of consumer debt as a tool to the working class during the 1980s as a means of convincing them that the working class no longer needed savings in order to function in a modern economic society (savings which they no longer had anyway because their wages were being suppressed by their corporate employers and were no longer keeping up with the rising costs of “middle class” living). Your blame the victim “personal responsibility “ argument doesn’t work. The wealthy take on debt all the time and when their ventures fail their debts are written off quite often at tax payer expense. So go kiss up to the rich somewhere else.
I don't understand how could one call creditors greedy that not debtors. Debt forgivness seems to me unjust like salaries forgivness - if a worker worked for him an employer must pay him - there is no debt forgivness or wage forgivness. By the way the state don't forgives its taxes so why the creditors should forgive their loans, shouldn't citizens practice the same rules as the state.
Compound interest is a scam that always outpaces real economic growth (number of cows, bushels of grain etc), and can be used to progressively steal the property/labor of each person who suffers a random setback like an illness or injury, or poor weather etc. Compound interest never takes a day off. It also allows the richest people to take a bigger and bigger slice of society's wealth without actually doing anything, in an ever-worsening spiral. Hudson has talked and written extensively on how Adam Smith &co waged a war on this parasitic "rentier" class.
Man this man makes me such a fanboy that it takes sooooo much for me to think critical about what he’s presenting -- but I know he turns a blind eye to China.
It is hilarious to me that we have so many academics that eagerly launch into sermons and moralish nonsense whenever ancient Empires, particularly Rome are discussed. Absent from these tedious, boorish lectures is any recognition of reality on the ground for the average human being that was fortunate enough to live under the Pax Romans. Life expectancy doubled and yet we can expect to see no shortage of conversations like this one in which supposedly intelligent people tell us how morally corrupt the Roman Empire was. Objective reality is not something held in high esteem in the academies. Past and present human societies must be compared to that Utopia which exists somewhere just over the horizon.
Michael Hudson is the world's greatest economist.
He has a million ways to say the most complicated things simply.
Yes I love his guide lines through history. Socrates was a orsom filosofer. The Leaders in the world are mostly victims of there greed and bribes from the wealthy people .
A true intellectual
@@a.randomjack6661 He recites the basics of econmics... Agan and Agan.... Writes lots of books about it. I read them.
Michael was already a great economist, but I think his more recent work on the history of debt relief has been one of the most important (re)discoveries of the 21st century.
sure is, especially since the majority of the population is living with debt especially from housing procurement, maintenance and improvements. I for one would vote for my debts to be forgiven as I want a new car but can't afford it due to my old car's payments.
@@antoniodesousa9723 I suggest we get a few (classical) tyrants back in power!
Anthropological Economics
@@antoniodesousa9723 henry george blamed the profits from property ownership for most socio-economic problems.
@@drphosferrous Yes... Land debts are a huge way there is wealth transfer from the plebs to the aristocrats... Hudson writes about this extensively.
"Debt that can't be paid, won't be paid" my favorite quote from Dr. Hudson.
I think I remember a similar quote about bonded slavery, I wish I could remember who said it, but it from an interview recorded in the book "New Jim Crow". It was "Debt that can't be paid, isn't suppose to be paid", referring to the permanently in debt and therefore in modern bonded slavery.
@@rcmrcm3370 I'm a bottom 5%er in US Asset and Income. 100% Debt Free. Top 1% in Freedom because I won't take on Debt. I don't loan Money to anyone but have often given it away to People in need. Fair price for Freedom IMO. There's consequences for Debt.
@@michaelmcgarrity6987 So your the odd man out, what does that make you? what does that say?
@@rcmrcm3370 It says more people will likely become like me. Maybe after Bankruptcy? Professor Hudson Axiom; "Debts that can't be repaid, won't be repaid" is obviously True.
We need a US Law change to make Student Loans dischargeable via Bankruptcy, then, all non payable Debt can be legally discharged.
Our System will likely be reset via Bankruptcy Laws.
Then, many more People will be far more careful about Debt for a couple Generations.
Property Law Change is also in the Pipeline, otherwise, we devolve into; "If you can't hold it, you can't own it." as we see underway with Plundering of Stores in California now.
This will most likely manifest in simple, non Tax, Property inheritance Law change.
By 2030 we should be through most of this.
Expect a Wild time.
@@michaelmcgarrity6987 freedom is just another word, for nothing left to lose . .. I don’t have much but also I am debt free so far at 56. Best of luck on your journey.
I wish I had Michael's glasses to see the world through. Such a clear headed thinker.
Thank you Paul Jay for sponsoring this. And thank you to the person interviewing for his care in this. Understand that we give to the same cause, but don't have enough right now.
I am more hyped by this upcoming book than the Harry Potter series releases when I was a kid
Michael thanks for the historical background on ancient economies and how the crisis of unsustainable and growing debt in ancient Rome and Greece which was characterized by a handful of greedy individuals wanting unlimited wealth and power destroyed their empire through wars and a refusal to write down the debts of their citizens. Its what is playing out today which goes to show as Mark Twain stated a century ago: "History may not repeat itself, but it sure rhymes."
Frantz Fanon: “What counts today, the question which is looming on the horizon, is the need for a redistribution of wealth. Humanity must reply to this question or be shaken to pieces by it.”
Romans and Greeks wanted slaves and plebeians without any political power. Roman voting was prejudiced in favour of wealth much like the US Constitution that limited political rights to rich white males. The Middle Ages oligarchs relied on force and forced serfdom and peasantry the were tied to a lord's land to serve his purposes. This explains the current oligarchy that prizes Latin as an academic accomplishment. Today's oligarchs love the idea of landless peasants and serfs eating garbage to support the arrogance convenieince of the rich.
Lactantius, (late 3rd century) (The Divine Institutes): “In order to enslave the many, the greedy began to appropriate and accumulate the necessities of life and keep them tightly closed up, so that they might keep these bounties for themselves. They did this not for humanity’s sake (which was not in them at all), but to rake up all things as products of their greed and avarice. In the name of justice they made unfair and unjust laws to sanction their thefts and avarice against the power of the multitude. In this way they availed as much by authority as by strength of arms or overt evil.”
Aldous Huxley ‘After Many a Summer Dies the Swan’: “…But the fact remains, nevertheless, that you can’t help if they persist in the course of behaviour which originally got them into their trouble. For example, you can’t preserve people from the horrors of war if they won’t give up the pleasures of nationalism. You can’t save them from slumps and depressions so long as they go on thinking exclusively in terms of money and regarding money as the supreme good. You can’t avert revolution and enslavement if they will identify progress with the increase of centralization and prosperity with the intensifying of mass production. You can’t preserve them from their collective madness and suicide if they persist in paying divine honours to ideals which are merely projections of their own personalities - in other words, if they insist on worshiping themselves…”
Sheldon Wolin: “If the main purpose of elections is to serve up pliant legislators for lobbyists to shape, such a system deserves to be called misrepresentative or clientry government”.
Looks like it has always been like that. Greed.
REVOLUTIONARY!!! Literally. If this gets out…..freedom
So eloquent and articulate of economic governance in so called civilizations.
And thank you for asking well researched, intelligent questions of Dr. Hudson. I appreciate it, and it appeared that Dr. Hudson appreciated it also.
Political economy is one of the most important issues of our time. David Harvey has a great story about his work in Baltimore that really brings it home. Also RIP David Graeber
One question!
Who amongst Us can recall the last time any FAVORITE host or channel online or on TV, dived deeply into Graebers timely material that preceded his untimely premature departure?
Seems he is dying from a most grave common affliction of "unpopular" yet more accurate and relevant scholars, The Memory Hole of the US★UK ∆ n g l o ∆ mer I Cant of Amnesia & Dementia.
W H O ARE T. H. E. Y. and affiliations living in near supposed anonymity and UN Accountability‽
Please, BE TOO SPECIFIC!
Inquiring minds OUGHT to KNOW, RIGHT, NOT WRONGLY.
Hint!
Don't blame the homeless or the billions in the "Global South" for the messes in YOUR city or State of Mind or Mind of The State.
Thanks for having Professor Hudson on.
amazing work
Salute Micheal Hudson.🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋
Professor Michael Hudson Rocks!
Computers and the internet allow us access to information like never before. Technology aside, this formation access allows us a new path. I have a vision. It’s frickin’ awesome. ...tick...tock...tick...tock...tick...tock...
BRAVO MR HUDSON !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
great episodes, I love Mr Hudsons Book Forgive them their debts, I think it is time to make debt Jubilees great again
Salute All Truth Teller's and All Activists.🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋
I don't know how I stumbled across this but I stayed and enjoyed very much thank you
Can't wait for part 2!
Classic Hudson--as brilliant as always, as tunnel-visioned about the beneficence of the state as always. Would love to have him on with a guest who could talk about the history of life under authoritarian states to complement his history of life under authoritarian creditor oligarchies. (neither tended to work out well for the citizenry)
Really enjoyed this interview, definitely gonna have to order Hudson's book. He is at his best when he is using his financial knowledge to explain history
Uncovered the invisible elephant in the room and completed my view of classical history, nothing less. Michael Hudson is great, he's been at it when I wasn't even born yet. Makes me feel young😀
Excellent intro well done
Hudson is the badass at the head of changing the predatorialism of our age, we see you!
Outstanding content and timing!
Incredible interview. Very nicely done.
That is content gold
Mind blowing stuff. Wish I'd discovered Hudson years ago.
We get a first look at the new book by renowned political economist Michael Hudson on the age-old battle between creditors and the real economy. Ancient Rome refused to adopt the practices of debt forgiveness and land redistribution previously understood to be essential. Instead, they instituted a rigid pro-creditor legal system, assassinating anyone who remotely threatened it--including Tiberius Gracchus, Julius Caesar, and Jesus. The empire devolved into a rentier economy, ultimately collapsing from within. Today's neoliberal establishment increasingly defends this failed state framework, even as the same disastrous dynamics intensify.
To view PART TWO: ua-cam.com/video/pCIpGznmyoE/v-deo.html
Please donate at theanalysis.news/donate/ - we can't do this without you.
To find more interviews with Michael Hudson, here is a link to the series/playlist - ua-cam.com/play/PL5wue8oAUyGp9dPvgHktCd8JE56zQBNCK.html
Come visit us at theanalysis.news
Sign up for our newsletter: theanalysis.news/newsletter/
Like us on Facebook: facebook.com/TheAnalysisnews-111882350255869
Follow us on:
Twitter: twitter.com/paul__jay?lang=en
Instagram: instagram.com/theanalysis.news/
Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/company/theanalysis-news
#PaulJay
#theanalysis
#history
#economy
#U.S.Politics
Thanks for having Michael Hudson on. He is truly a fantastic resource that isn't utilized enough. Probably because his message rings just too true. We live in perilous times.
An outstanding antidote to the noxious zombifying effluvium flooding Us ALL past our eyeballs, courtesy of the HIGH, atop BS Mountain & The Crack of Doom Cultists of PPP Party Global Iron Triangles of Transnational Org Crime compromised of the top 1001 most connected families, Monopolists and Militarized Spooky Gov Minder - Regulatorz, from purifying pelf peaks of D ∆ V 0S to ∆ SS Pen to The ∆ n Des, Event ually 2 → 1→🌐💩🏴☠️ Odor ∆ K ∆, The 4th ® € Î © H
U
C
2
‽
Feel ~ Free‽™
OR
*_Freely Living For Loving_* !
ALL TOGETHER
YOUR Choice!
It ALL WAYS Mattered!
THEY KNOW IT!
But do ENOUGH of, We The People,
AKA THEIR Exploited AND THEIR Irrelevant CASTE,
also KNOW IT, too?
T. H. E. Y. being, The Planters AND Pi|| Grims S 0 C or what Adam Smith coined the "Unproductive" Caste of Characters, ∆ K ∆,
THE UNEXPLOITED EXPLOITATIVE CASTE OF
$ ∆ D I S ‡ M ∆ $ $ 0 C H I S ‡ I © M E G A G R0 P I N G LOW M ∆ N I A C Misanthropic Anti Social Behavioralists.
Or so say THE "experts", "doctors" consultants, ∆ n a lists, offi C | A ls say, IMHO.
So enjoyed this history lesson!
Dr Hudson is a professor to respect and one who brings honor to academia. His work is of global significance like the writings of Angus Deacon. And completely unlike the onanizm of the likes of economics “Nobelists” Friedman, Krugman, Bernanke etc
Didn't know Angus Deaton, thank you for the link!
Thanks for having Michael Hudson on, one of the greatest economic minds. This is so depressing and clear eyed as he always is…I might just start looking for a cliff or tall building. There’s no hope.
You need to stop binging on negativity. There is still plenty of things you can enjoy in the world, but you have stop focussing on what you can't.
@@snarkybuttcrack And you need to stop being such a bossy, pontificating person, stop telling people how they should feel. Your opinion on my feelings is not valuable.
This sounds like a great read.
good to know someone is carrying on the torch from David Graeber... and Michael Hudson no less!
Very exciting, will be buying this book! Great questions, thank you dear host!
Humans have a problem with understanding exponential growth. We just lost millions in a global pandemic where the health professionals were trying to explain this to us; proving how little we understood it. We still don't understand it when it comes to debt. The oligarchs do. That's why we have this economic system and why we put up with it.
And now the call for Student Debt forgiveness is also for the relatively rich.
Sometimes I feeling they're saying 'predators' instead of 'creditors', those people actually have a lot in common anyway.
I PRAY AN ENTIRE LEGION OF ANGELS PROTECT HIM….. Michael Hudson is pissing off the hellish minions of todays’ economic system
I Proclaim I am a disciple of Michael Hudson
New Zealand is a very good example of this type of politics...
Economy
Hudson is great in explaining economics that even i can understand it and comprehend the disastrous implications of western rule over other countries and its peoples.
I very much look forward to reading the book. Jacob Soll has recently pointed out, in his study of the "free market" concept, how intently Adam Smith channelled Cicero in his "Theory of Moral Sentiments" and "Wealth of Nations". My only reservation concerns the attempt to draw over-hasty contemporary parallels. There are some similarities and also a lot of differences between ancient and modern polities.
Michael Hudson is awesome
Love you Michael.
Great stuff!
The remark on Aristotle (and later Polybius) asserting that democracies evolve into oligarchies in a cyclical cycle is odd because the modern Western republic is not and was never modeled after democracy in the first place. Almost down to the last man, America's founding fathers were explicitly hostile to democracy and they very deliberately modeled their new government after the Roman oligarchic form of governance. The only reason we conflate the electoral representative form of government with democracy today is because there has been a completely Orwellian word inversion. Continue reading Aristotle's "Politics" that Michael cites and you'll find Aristotle clearly define democracy according to the ancient Athenians who invented it: democracy is governance by random lot, whereas elections are oligarchic in nature.
You cannot claim to be retracing the path of Aristotle and Polybius's anacyclosis of governments today when we never had democracy to begin with.
Anacyclosis pretty much nails political economy right up to this day 👏
And don't get me started on how undemocratic US govt structures are ie, the senate, electoral college, and most horrifyingly rn the SCOTUS
Don't take the word democracy too literally. Like many other words of the long nineteenth century, it was a coinage and metaphor, like capitalist or industrialist or socialist. Democracy in the early 19th century meant the reform or enlargement of the franchise to all men. When Tocqueville wrote about Democracy in America, he was exploring a society which had implemented a new regime based on a previously radical idea. The America of the 1790s was a federalist commercial republic of neo-Roman oligarchs like Alexander Hamilton in the Age of Washington. By the 1830s, a revolution occurred which might be compared to the Cuban revolution of the 1950s. Andrew Jackson enlisted the frontiersman and common men and created a universal franchise which ended the regime of the 1790s. That founding regime, that opening cycle of the public life of the American nation, only lasted a generation. Just as surely as the bourgeoisie displaced the puritans, the frontiersmen displaced the bourgeoisie. What has become of this democratic republic (formerly a commercial republic) in America since the 1830s is a long and varied story.
@@jason8434 Democracy in the early 19th century was undergoing its historic meaning inversion from the definition used for over two millenia years since the death of Aristotle, and make no mistake it was a conscious and deliberate word inversion pushed by early figures in American history and the French Revolution. It's strange that one would portray Jackson as some sort of builder of democracy when, perhaps more than any other political figure since Jefferson and Madison, he was directly responsible for rebranding the word "democracy" to mean the exact opposite of its historic meaning. Builder of oligarchy? Perhaps. Democrat? Not even close, he was just another faux populist utilizing propaganda to appeal to the commoner without actually fighting for commoners' rule.
@@MathUDX Democracy for the Greeks was a regime for the city-state. The republicans and democrats of the early nineteenth century were building nation-states. Greek democracy was an idea for an agricultural society with an elite urban civilization. Nineteenth century democracy was an idea for an industrial society with an elite capitalist civilization. The two world-contexts cannot be compared simply by comparing the word democracy. Political ideas are not textbook definitions, they are shorthand metaphors. In early nineteenth century democracy, women and slaves and (in Europe) even non-property owners were still excluded from the franchise. Of course, if we compare democracy then and now we could note stark differences. But America is still nominally a democratic republic insofar as it has a universal franchise. If you want to install some ancient Greek regime of democracy by lots as though the modern world was a small peninsula of city-states, you probably won't get very far.
@@jason8434 Yes, and both the voter base and the requirements to hold office were extremely tight, hardly from the dēmos. Rome had more pleb input than Athens at it's most democratic moment.
12:40 voting was means tested.
😅🤔😶😮💨
I would like to see Michael Hudson and Steve Keen talk about a modern debt jubilee.
Thank you. I really enjoyed the discussion! I hope for the sake of us all that Dr. Hudson's work won't be in vain.
Also, the quote at 34:57 about how the empire was essentially using its wealth to hire mercenaries during the decay gels with the current situation in Eastern Europe quite well... shows that the thought processes of the leaders then and now is not so different in spite of all our "progress".
Great
When populations don't use money, or own property, the dynamics of human tribalism preserve far more egalitarianism, and shared holistic sensibilities regarding collective survival. These dynamics are sustained when The Authoritarians are not allowed to express themselves, especially through expansionism.
When populations use money and own property however (an authoritarian expression), something else happens. Using one penny of a money system plunges the user into a totalitarian system, where the fractional division of money enables social compartmentalization down to the individual. Populations are atomized and reduced to in-group survival, individual survival, and "individual responsibility." When populations exceed the tribal limitations of approximately 150 recognizable individuals that share a single tribal identity and egalitarian responsibility, those populations fragment into subgroups that begin to repeat the evolutionary dynamics of human tribalism unto their own in-group, but also unto the in-groups of private individuals. Each of these expressions begins to reproduce the tribal dynamics endemic to in-group/out-group relationships, which is one of adversary, competition, and psychopathic authoritarian "winning is everything." Both in-groups and private individuals begin treating other out-groups - including private individuals - as a tribal enemy, a competitor, in the proverbial 'war of all against all'. At that point, it represents self-interest - which paradigm is not difficult to gain consensus on, and therefore legality - to treat vulnerable, exploitable, demonized, and strategically targeted out-groups and individuals as slaves, servants, and second-class citizens with the full litany of tribal convictions that are traditionally inflicted on out-groups, spanning demonization, subhuman status, religious and libertarian moralizing, means testing, draconian punishments, and psychopathic actions spanning destitution, sickness, and death. These same dynamics are being repeated today within the "nation-state," between ruling class oligarchy and the working class.
One of the topics addressed in Hudson's "... and Forgive Them Their Debts" is that neoliberal ideology claims to be an extension of economic relationships that have always existed, that surely our ancestors lent each other a cow and collected interest in milk or hay. But upon examination of the historical record and anthropological evidence, this is patently false.
Volume up please
While I agree that Rome had a problem with the accumulation of wealth by a small elite, which eventually impacted the viability of the system, to say this lead to a collapse is a bit misleading. This erosion of meaningful participation of ordinary citizens in the decision making processes of the empire ended well before the collapse of the Roman system. A very unequal system survived for centuries before, the collapse of the currency, population decline and catastrophic military defeat. However really good to see the politics being put back into the concept of economy.
Makes it sound like the Romans were a flash in the pan civilisation rather than one spanning 2 millenia.
The Roman empire only lasted longer because they literally killed anyone that opposed their whims. Citizens were slaughtered and tortured to maintain the order as long as they did.
He’s talking not about the collapse of the “empire” which almost everyone assumes is all that “Rome” is. He’s talking about the century-long decline of the Roman Republic, leading to civil war due to the corruption of the oligarchic senate and the subsequent destruction of the Republic marked by the well known events surrounding Julius Caesar and the final battle for power between Marcus Antonius and Octavian Caesar. After Octavian defeated Mark Anthony he made it impossible for the now discredited and disempowered senate oligarchy to rule and the autocratic dictatorial Roman Empire was born out of the economic failures of the oligarchy to settle differences within its own members and to repair its broken economic relationship with the plebeians and their growing dissatisfaction with their increasing impoverishment while the republic grew in size and seemed to thrive militarily and economically. The last century BC marked the end of the Roman Republic and it was full of civil conflict and the Roman economy grew increasingly disfunctional as wealth grew concentrated in the tiny oligarchy who began to thrive off a debt based economy. Conflict within the oligarchy was exacerbated by waves of demagoguery and populist movements for reform and agitation for plebeian revolt turned the plebes into a newly significant political force
The end of the Republic was caused by a self destructive relationship to debt within Roman society and a failure to change in time to hold off the civil war that destroyed the republic and all the old “Roman Virtues” they held in such high esteem and had died to defend for many generations previously. Greed among a small oligarchy killed the Roman Republic and all the Roman Virtues.
To protect a fortune you must increase a fortune.
The biblical law against charging interest makes alot more sense with the hudson economic history context. I used to think it was all religion.
jubilee - jobel means trumpet sound
Certain people like to point out that the word "democracy" never appears in the US constitution, and that the USA is a "republic". I've read the definitions of those two words and found them somewhat vague. In the USA today, the word "democracy" usually refers to our representative system of government, whereas the founders used it to refer to a "direct democracy", wherein every decision is put to a popular vote, something the founders were opposed to. So I'm a bit confused. But more importantly, I feel that perhaps we've been deprived of the vocabulary necessary to have a productive argument about our system of government and alternatives to it. Is a "republic" necessarily "democratic"? To the wealthy, anything more pluralistic than a monarchy seems to be sufficiently democratic for their purposes. Sorry if this is a bit off-topic. These questions are important, but the meanings of the words have been destroyed. Is an oligarchy a republic? It would seem so. What is the difference between socialism and a social democracy? Can an undemocratic system be socialist? Communist? What will it take to restore or create a democracy in the USA when the nation is controlled by the oligarchy, the deep state, and the mega-propaganda machine?
Good stuff, but suggesting that autocracies like Russia somehow have a better model of dealing with debt is fucking insane. And even if they did, they have a million other glaring problems.
Not properly comparing how Western civilization turned out vs its competitors since antiquity is a little naive, too. Life was pretty brutal all over the world until relatively recently, and Eurasia has just as sordid a history of imperialism since then as Europe and America--the difference is that the West wound up with liberal democracy (however imperfect) and, ultimately, superior technological innovation. Ask the average person whether they'd like to live in the best of the West, (say, Denmark) or live in China or Russia. I'm not sure Dr. Hudson, for all his brilliance, would like the answer.
This assumes a family relationship over an adversarial one
Monarchy (Tyranny) to Democracy to Oligarchy to Aristocracy (Hereditary Oligarchy) to Tyranny (Monarchy) to Democracy....
Countries with parliaments (representative democracy) are in fact oligarchies (few lead). In order to be a true democracy, the decisions of the Parliament should be submitted to the approval of the citizens. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of those elected and the voters, so people lose confidence in the way society function. As a result, the poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. the populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a side effect in societies where economies have a strong competitive aspect, where the interests of those who hold economic power in society are divergent. Thus, those with money, and implicitly with political power in society, are supervising each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. Because of this, countries with large mineral resources, like Russia and Venezuela (their share in GDP is large), do not have democratic aspects, because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries, the main resource exploited may even be the state budget, as they have converging interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. This is what is observed in Romania, Bulgaria, when, no matter which party comes to power, the result is the same. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if most of his voters consider that their interests are not right represented.
Those who think that democracy is when you choose someone to make decisions for you without him having to consult you, are either a fool or a scoundrel. It's like when you have to choose from several thieves who will steal from you. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and even more surely you will be left without money and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, you will not find, in any economic or sports activity, someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and who is fired only after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, without to wait until the term to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
The debt econonomy is a shadow economy, a ball and chain, if you will, and a poor substitute to a potent companion economy enabled by universal credit that enables the survival and sustainability of well being, prosperity in the guarantee of the beauty within human civilization without dependence upon usery and investment speculation (capitalism) within the sphere of global industrial balance.
I am confused about the "we know where that ended up" comment about Rome; didn't Constantine just move the capital to Constantinople, and the Roman empire lasted another thousand years until the Ottmans took it in 1453? 1500 plus years seems like a good run.
Where’s part 2?
It's coming!
Right the Incapability to pay property tax is used to size property especially senior citizens homes
Your house could be a million dollar home and property taxes could be around twenty thousand dollars
34:47 "just like the usa looted Russia in the 1990s" what? When did this happen? Please provide a source.
21:05 the claim is that debt was forgiven in the acient world and the torah was cited as an example earlier in the episode. Why then does it say in proverb 22:26-27 don't take on debt or you will lose your bed you sleep on? This seems to indicate that the jews were opposed to debt of any kind not just forgiving debt once every 7 years. Though i suppose the lenders would be slow to lend money if they knew they would have to forgive the debt if it could not be repaid in a certain amount of time.
poor sound
1913 AIPAC HOLLYWPPD ROMAN EMPIRE ending & a good way to understand BRENUS 390 BC/1812 polish Napoleonic wars version zalesnki 2023.
Fare out...Great rave ....
2:40 Cicero sounds a lot like Peter Schiff! Is he a copycat? Maybe he even was a goldbug like Peter!
Jesus said slaves obey your masters. Jesus preached paying taxes and upheld the laws of the time. Jesus never spoke of slavery being wrong.
Hudson wrote an entire book marshalling historical evidence to the contrary -- "... and Forgive Them Their Debts".
If you avoid taking on debt you avoid the problems of debt.
The wealthy themselves use leveraged corporate debt as a tool in order never to expose their capital to risk.
They then sold the idea of consumer debt as a tool to the working class during the 1980s as a means of convincing them that the working class no longer needed savings in order to function in a modern economic society (savings which they no longer had anyway because their wages were being suppressed by their corporate employers and were no longer keeping up with the rising costs of “middle class” living).
Your blame the victim “personal responsibility “ argument doesn’t work. The wealthy take on debt all the time and when their ventures fail their debts are written off quite often at tax payer expense. So go kiss up to the rich somewhere else.
So an economy is only free of the problems of debt if no one is in debt.
I don't understand how could one call creditors greedy that not debtors. Debt forgivness seems to me unjust like salaries forgivness - if a worker worked for him an employer must pay him - there is no debt forgivness or wage forgivness. By the way the state don't forgives its taxes so why the creditors should forgive their loans, shouldn't citizens practice the same rules as the state.
Compound interest is a scam that always outpaces real economic growth (number of cows, bushels of grain etc), and can be used to progressively steal the property/labor of each person who suffers a random setback like an illness or injury, or poor weather etc. Compound interest never takes a day off.
It also allows the richest people to take a bigger and bigger slice of society's wealth without actually doing anything, in an ever-worsening spiral. Hudson has talked and written extensively on how Adam Smith &co waged a war on this parasitic "rentier" class.
Man this man makes me such a fanboy that it takes sooooo much for me to think critical about what he’s presenting -- but I know he turns a blind eye to China.
@AppleScab (Venturia inaequalis
) examples…?
It is hilarious to me that we have so many academics that eagerly launch into sermons and moralish nonsense whenever ancient Empires, particularly Rome are discussed. Absent from these tedious, boorish lectures is any recognition of reality on the ground for the average human being that was fortunate enough to live under the Pax Romans. Life expectancy doubled and yet we can expect to see no shortage of conversations like this one in which supposedly intelligent people tell us how morally corrupt the Roman Empire was. Objective reality is not something held in high esteem in the academies. Past and present human societies must be compared to that Utopia which exists somewhere just over the horizon.
You seem offended at the idea that the Romans could have done smart things and dumb things, and that people would ever talk about the dumb things.