Michael Hudson discusses "Junk Economics" at The Democracy Collaborative
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 вер 2024
- Renowned Economist Michael Hudson joined us for lunch on February 22 to discuss his new book "J is for Junk Economics: A Guide to Reality in an Age of Deception." Hudson will be working with the Next System Project on a new initiative that revolves around money and banking. Be on the look out for more!
Hudson is a Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City as well as at Peking University. He is a prolific writer and author of many books, notably "Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy."
You can learn more about Michael Hudson here: michael-hudson....
You can purchase a copy of "J is for Junk Economics" here: www.amazon.com...
My brain is full. Michael Hudson is a wealth of knowledge beyond belief. I wish I knew about him much sooner.
π
Take a look at Richard Wolff's publications then, or the site, Democracy at Work
Try reading Junk Economics! Or watching his appearance on The Jimmy Dore Show on youtube
Love it!
Yes, what he has to say is always too much to take in at once, I often find myself stopping his videos to reflect on things before I'm able to keep on listening.
Michael Hudson should be recognized as a national treasure.
Come the revolution, we will. And there should be a grant to a major university to create a department dedicated to making documentaries to illustrate the findings of Michael Hudson's and David Graeber's research.
International Treasure
@@jrshield7793 Can't disagree with that.
World's heritage rather
Michael Hudson is The Jimi Hendrix of Economics.
R U Experienced?
Yeah, Hudson's definitely on a roll here.
One of Michael Hudson's best lectures.
Michael Hudson is the most reliable Economist of this ERA. He expose TRUTH behind the facade to help a genuine understanding of Money and Economy
0:04:00 -
0:05:05 - How did civilization avoid this for 3,000 years ? : Cancel Consumer Private Debt
0:45:50 - A riot broke out
0:46:10 - I realized the importance of writing the history of what happened when
___________ when countries had not paid their debt.
0:46:23 - Bible's Jubilee Year
0:46:28 - Mesopotamia references : Proclamation of Order
0:48:50 - Translations for words of economic policy were different for each language
0:47:26 - In English
0:47:30 - In German
0:47:36 - In French = Restoration of Order
0:47:48 -
0:47:58 - The original ''state'' in Summer and Babylonia was exactly ,
___________ WORD FOR WORD what in the Bible is called the Jubilee Year
0:48:11 - Liberated the " Debt-Servants" & cancelled the Private money Debts &
___________ returned all of the "SELF-SUPPORT LAND" that had been forfeited to
___________ Private Creditors
0:48:39 - 1st attempt to Publish : The Year 1988
0:49:13 - SPARTA 3rd Century B.C.
0:49:28 - Same thing in Asia Minor
0:49:38 - How do you handle the fact that most Private Debts can't be paid?
0:49:46 - How do you prevent Private Debt from tearing apart society ?
0:49:50 - Conference every 2 years
0:51:00 -
0:51:27 - In 2008 , Obama , promised to write down junk private mortgage debts
0:51:50 -
0:52:08 - Posted and then removed one week later
0:52:13 - Same situation in Greater Depression of 2007 as in antiquity
0:52:19 - If you don't shift Private Banking Debts of individuals
___________ INTO the Public (or Government) sector
0:52:25 - China will not have a Private Banking Crisis : Money owned by GOVT.
0:52:32 - Either we can bankrupt private innovative industry and sell it to the
___________ Americans who can create money. Or we can write down the Private Debts
0:52:39 -
0:52:50 - Polarization where Private Debts are not CANCELED
0:52:58 - Also Marx wrote about exponential growth of Private DEBT in Cap'ism V 3
0:53:28 - Marx collected all writings he could on COMPOUND INTEREST to show
___________ COMPOUND INTEREST IS NOT PART OF CAPITALIST SYSTEM
___________ COMPOUND INTEREST IS B.C. = BEFORE CAPITALISM
0:53:50 -
Wow. Cold Econ truth delivered via firehose...
Thanks Michael - it's always illuminating to hear you speak.
I'm now off to Steve Keen's channel to get the math.
The world is nothing like what we're told.
good combo
Trotski's godson, for real! 😂
The world is nothing like we are told - so true. I feel so upset that I spent years going to school and college and working to get graduation and then post graduation but all of it is such a waste to me right now as I realize I know very little about the world affairs and world economy. Schools are only training us to be dumb and never know the reality about our world. I am 26 and hold two degrees but all that is such a waste.
ozwhistles Keep posting on DFA Walk the World. It needs your informed voice. So many there are Business School grads. who believe in Capitalist Free Market , purely for their own rentier financial advantage. They can’t think further than their own accumulation of wealth without real work. Very brain washed with a shrivelled concept of society and economy. Believe they are free thinkers and arrogant in their self-assurance.
@@nyb_ok you can upgrade your knoledge ifonly you want to.... Schools are training youg people to be brainwashed... Because of it you should read and learn on your oun...
Thank you, Professor Hudson for laying it out honestly and in a way we can all understand.
These are world changing revelations. Between Hudson and Michael Parenti I now know how the world works, and how it should work.
Debt cancellation does exists today but only for the 1 percents and in the form of bail out and bankruptcy laws. See Donald Trump.
Isn't it funny how that works
@@Mrch33ky Is it really just mindless greed? We've come to the end of another economic cycle. The rich have long prepared for this time.
Michael Hudson, the greatest American that has ever lived. This man is a gift to the world.
At least.
Amazing knowledge combined with great courage.
love this dude
genius, what clarity
Brilliant Ideas by DR. MICHAEL HUDSON.
Michel Hudson is brilliant.
Harry Kiralfy Broe Good to know there are serious and socially responsible people posting on DFA Walk the World. I have read your comments there. Glad people who read/watch Michael Hudson comment on DFA site - in the minority, but voice sorely needed.
My mind keeps going back to "Reverse Mortgages" and how many young people aren't able to stay in their family homes. How long has real estate been planning this debt bondage?
Thanks Michael. The answer to the rhetorical/example you talk about at approx 45:20 mins into your talk- The question a bank asks in a sovereign credit analysis for "How much can a country repay in interest" calculating in reverse, how much can we lend to the country"... In the case of Aotearoa New Zealand in 1984 when the "great experiment" of completely open markets with total financial deregulation was just about to be imposed by the IMF on a tiny OECD country was calculated, by my then employer Citibank international-Citicorp New Zealand, as Dlrs67Billion. At that point or thereabouts the IMF pulled the proverbial plug and Aotearoa went into a shadow state of 'temporary' austerity. The official financial reason being that it could not afford to pay the interest on its outstanding interest. Citibank was one of the largest offshore syndicate of lenders, it was the syndicate manager for SynFuels (state joint venture with Mobil oil) in which NZ paid a huge margin for a AAA rated borrower on the euro-markets. The extension of credit on the synthetic fuels' loan was around USD1.8Billion syndicated to 100 banks. It was the 2nd largest eurocurrency loan ever made on the markets at that time. Like a lamb to the slaughter for a totally naive and socialist government, with a population of around 3 million people with little experience in the treasury and financial sectors of euro-markets or even foreign exchange market. The result was extreme hardship for the vulnerable (Maori, Pacific peoples, poor white) mass unemployment, short funding for essential health and education sectors- the usual round of problems. Since that time Aotearoa has pulled back to some extent from chainsaw economics, but remains selectively right of centre to mid right of centre in construction, banking, and the other usual sectors. The shortage of housing and the poor state and standard of construction are nothing but an open wound, a seeping sore, and an ongoing fraud in this country. There are other crises too such as that in Climate and Biodiversity which are of a criminal nature as in almost every other country. Far from Clean and Green, Aotearoa is expert in producing misleading plans and budgets overnight to satisfy almost any inquiring mind in the current environment. Nga mihi, Haere pai
I think I'd die as if I overdosed on heroin if I ever saw Michael Hudson, Michael Parenti, Michael Perelman, David Harvey, Yanis Varoufakis and Bill Black together in the same room...
Marvelous. Simply fascinating.
To anyone who has just stumbled on this video, let me tell you why you’re here. You’re here because you know something.
What you know you can’t explain. But you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life. That there’s something wrong with the world. You don’t know what it is but it’s there, like a splinter in your mind driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you here. Do you know what I’m talking about?
Michael Hudson just uncovered the TRUTH, and it's much bigger than most people's small minds can even imagine. It's a conspiracy that cuts across all nations, all epochs. It explains everything that happens to everyone everywhere, from the day they are born until the day they die. It is the grandest of conspiracies, in plain view, yet hidden.
Morpheus
WoW Amazing
As a real german I have to say, that the part from 13:00 to 17:00 is the most interesting and maybe most important.
Very interesting point he made. I always wondered about this situation. It makes sense.
The world's second best economist
"Collapse" when read from the temporal superposition identification of probabilistic cause-effect correlations, is flash-fractal In-form-ation re-cognition of phase-locked holography dimensionality, meaning that Singularity-point focuses of coherence-cohesion shift relative-timing location in timing-phase.
Michael is talking about the reverse flow of relative value from the investment by individuals in activities to the paying out of increased vale to Landlord-Banking Contract holders, ..the problem being that only individuals are honest and honour their Contractual Obligations.
You have a brilliant speaker filling the room with his extensive knowledge while people at the table are eating, on cell phones, and the two guys on the right are continuously tending their laptops! WTF?! Can't be for notes-- the talk is captured on video. This seems to me to be VERY disrespectful. Why was this allowed?!
Superb talk.
Michael,
I wonder if you would say that the triangular relationship that you describe the pre-WW1 German banks having with industry is still present, to some extent, in Japan. It would explain the way that international attempts to take over Olympus optical after its misrepresentation-of-earnings debacle some years ago were essentially blocked by Mitsiubishe and other banks.
Wow, some sour faces around that table, and I'm amazed that he was able to discuss anti-semitism as a basis for making the Jews the bankers to the princes. His arguments seem plausible, and I guess he cannot be criticized, but those are bold statements.
Varoufakis makes a similar point to this when discussing the role of money in ancient Greece where he points out that bankers were - beside slaves - people of lower value so they could be ripped off or even killed for wrong-doing because they weren't legally recognized as human beings
@@kosmosfaber6534 bold comment too. I think I heard this before, by one or both, but maybe forgot. And you put that in tight context.
Redaction by the bourgeoisie at 40:45
Straight to the point: if you aren't allowed to own land, you can't be part of the landed gentry.
I enjoy listen and reading Professor Michael Hudson.
Can somebody explain me, please, how the negative 4 BUSD on land around minute 27.
Business land debt accumulation
@@maurgi17 Thank you for your kind answer. I still do not get it. Can you expand it further, please? Have you got a link for it, for example?
@@windokeluanda yes, hope you’ve been good! the business took on so much debt in the name of their land assets that the debt is larger than the land value, they’re underwater, they are more in debt than the value of the land the own
@TheCanMan Can Since 1990 What do you mean, please?
@@maurgi17 Ok! Now I think I got it. The business took debt and gave real estate as guarantee. Real estate is based on land as well. The business kept on expanding debt and if value of the land in terms of accounting keeps on being recorded in historic cost (such as acquisition cost) than such effect can happens. Thank you for educating me. It makes sense. Stay healthy.
Better late than never.
You couldn't find anywhere else to eat?
That is what I was thinking. I guess she didn't knew who was sitting right next to her while she languidly smacked on her bulgur salad
Idk. It feels like being in a grad student powwow. Lol
He's the rain man of fiance.
u want to marry him? u betta have a big ring saheeb!
What when, as is happening now the LABOUR is assigned to soft and hard robots called capital expenditure? At present it is still more profitable to buy back your own shares for resale at profitable levels with the tax breaks that this practice allows than it is to knock down labour costs.
I mostly agree with Michael's analysis of how almost every society has come to be dominated by the financial sector. I do wonder why he does not factor in the amount of gain experienced by sellers of land and real estate above what is required to meet debt service obligations and repay the principal of outstanding loans. Banks do have a cost of funds to absorb out of the gross interest payments they receive from borrowers. They have a diminishing equity interest in the properties against which they hold a mortgage lien, but an interest that diminishes over time due to loan amortization. So, the question is, for societies are the owners of real estate the primary rentiers? Or, are the providers of mortgage financing the primary rentiers?
For this, you have to understand the 4th function of money: transfers.
When a monetary transaction enters a private bank's spreadsheet, it ceases to be money. It is transferred into the account as a balance of claims: assets, liabilities and equity. For the purpose of the bank, only equity has any value. The quantity accounted only begins by the monetary measure, from there on down it is a transfer claim until issued in currency in a later transaction, at which point the monetary quantification is used.
It helps to look at Steve Keen's work.
In simplistic terms, the owners of property are those who can defend it long enough to gain its benefit. (Traditionally, transfer claims are enforced at gunpoint. "Primitive accumulation")
Human beings produce nothing but human flesh (the definition of the fiscal deficit).
At best, we are enablers .. stewards at the service of the non-human.
If you add livestock, human flesh exceeded 90% of total vertebrate tonnage on Earth in about 1985. The livestock component is our hedge which we defend.
This makes human flesh the cheapest commodity on the planet.
The global market of planet Earth is aware of this.
We lack equity.
As it draws to zero, there will be a foreclosure.
Obviously the former is the correct answer no matter the technics. The latter is a secondary parasite.
"When a monetary transaction enters a private bank's spreadsheet, it ceases to be money. It is transferred into the account as a balance of claims: assets, liabilities and equity. For the purpose of the bank, only equity has any value. The quantity accounted only begins by the monetary measure, from there on down it is a transfer claim until issued in currency in a later transaction, at which point the monetary quantification is used." -say this again but differently and break down the process and spell out the insights
I'm still trawling through the meaning of it myself. The usual definition of money has 3 components: means of exchange, unit of account and store of value. But there is a 4th component - a vehicle of transfer. That transfer happens in legal definition and is used by banks.
When you deposit money in a bank, you are essentially exchanging it for a legal claim on an asset account. You cease to be the owner of that money. Within the bank itself, the notion of money evaporates into 3 classes of account: asset, liability and equity. These must balance to zero in double-entry book keeping. I Assume that a deposit enters a liability account for the bank - but it has to be balanced by either an equity or an asset. Since only loans appear as assets on a bank spreadsheet, it is most likely that the balance is done by entering the funds as equity. To do that, the depositor loses legal claim on what was once money. Cash is treated very differently to the main accounts. It is not used in inter-bank settlements .. from what I gather, it is only used for cash withdrawals and as a physical dialogue with treasury - governed by separate accounts.
The notion of transfers was suggested to me by a fellow who does work for the European central bank, but the idea allows some crevice of understanding into what banks are up to. Stuff that happens in legal definitions rather than monetary reality.
Another side of the thing can be understood through Steve Keen's work - the "money-multiplier" thing is a total myth, shoving treasury claims into a bank's reserve has little or no effect because it is not really money - it is units of transfer. These are used to settle the asset/liability balances between banks and are recorded in accounts of central banks. They are not purposed for converting to currency to purchase anything and should never enter the general economy. But if a bank has a surplus of such credits, it may transfer them to asset accounts and transfer them with other banks to gain legal title over physical assets such as property, stocks or bonds. It never really becomes money.
The idea that banks must keep 10% of reserves may be legislated, but it has nil affect on the bank's loans procedure - that is a totally separate legal act. A bank may lend infinite "money" which is created by an entry into assets and an entry into equity. However, bank money has a legal path to repayment which reduces both accounts. to zero as the money is retired with interest. It is "mortal" money. Treasury money, on the other hand, is immortal. EXCEPT for bank-interest which may only originate from treasury. Treasury is the true source of money - it is by money-supply that treasury matches economic demand with monetary supply - too much is inflation, too little is deflation .. but they must feed the banks their interest. IF you have private banks, all sovereign money-printing must be in deficit.
When the deficit exceeds GDP of the state, the banks essentially own the state if the state economy is not growing.
(Last edit) If a sovereign taxes, it is only to reduce money-supply. It may also be used as a way to curb income inequality - otherwise, tax is unecessary. For a vassal state it is different - you must tax to fill any shortfall from sovereign grants. And if your state has any private banks - you will need to tax to feed their interest burden.
You write;
"Since only loans appear as assets on a bank spreadsheet, it is most likely that the balance is done by entering the funds as equity."
This is not the case. At least, not the case when I managed the residential mortgage lending group for a U.S. commercial bank. Cash held by the bank is an asset. The bank's equity is the amount by which assets exceed liabilities. Of course, there are many regulatory and accounting rules that affect the recorded asset and liability totals. For example, the amount of reserves that must be set aside based on asset risk and asset liquidity.
A commercial bank in the U.S. cannot simply create monetary balances out of thin air. This occurs at the level of the central bank, which can then transfer cash balances to member banks. The systemic risk is inflation, which to some extent governs the central bank's entry into the credit markets to buy or sell government securities, to increase or decrease the discount rate and to raise or lower reserve requirements against commercial bank asset classes (e.g., whole loans versus mortgage-backed securities).
I have not studied the charters of the central banks of other countries. It may be that some of these banks have the authority to create monetary balances out of thin air AND directly lend to private interests.
I hope i can read the transcript of this video please
0:54:18 - Q1 :
0:55:32 - A1 : A collapse = a phase change = a transforming
0:58:22 - Q2 : Not sustainable ?
0:58:24 - A2 : No. If you do not have enough income from productive jobs for people
0:59:44 - Q3 : Why is Douglass Cecil North (5 NOV 1920 - 23 NOV 2015) wrong?
1:00:33 - A3 : His wrongness begins in Mesopotamia
1:02:45 - Q4 : An institutionalist . . .
1:02:46 - A4 He is NOT an institutionalist :
1:04:13 - Q5 : Was Douglass Cecil North (5 NOV 1920 - 23 NOV 2015) Wrong ?
1:04:27 - A5 : Completely Wrong & Napoleon recognized that the French had not
1:06:05 - Q6 : Pyramids
1:06:50 - A6 : e.g. German Economic miracle Private Debt cancellation of 1948
1:08:52 - Q7 : If . . . Then . . .
1:09:24 - A7 :
1:11:32 - Q8 : How to prevent inventive financially engineered instruments
1:11:47 - A8 : There is always gong to be Private Debt
1:13:35 - Q9 :
1:14:14 - A9 :
___________ Solomon Fabricant (15 AUG 1906 - 13 SEP 1989)
Saint Michael
Let's have debt cancellation, by all means. That way nobody would ever again be willing to loan meney, and we'd all be better off.
Mr Hudson has got a lot to say on economics and other things. But you've talked a lot in the beginning with no pause (50mins+). I think you need to pause after 20mins talks, allowing ideas/info to sink in, you can take questions after that.
The United States has outdone all other countries in the industrialization and socialization of one particular industry: the military. If you want to understand what socialism is, just look at the US military-industrial complex. The US military is in fact the last avenue of social mobility for the American working class. The US military is a socialist society based on the unity, honor and dignity of its proletariat. That's the only sector of American society that was successfully socialized.
March 2019: Michael Hudson, Gar A. and everyone at this table: Healthy air, water, soil for food: Please do a daily discussion on how to end Geoengineering in all its various forms, as soon as possible. Please watch and discuss the channel geoengineeringwatch . org by Dane Wiggington. He used to work for the #1 engineering company in S.F. (and the world). He owns his own solar panel company. The panel were getting less and less effective as the airplane spraying chemicals happened more and more often. He studied the rain and discovered barium, oxide aluminum, and other toxic chemicals. He owns a nature preserve east of Mount Shasta. He has noticed how it is getting difficult to keep trees, insects, amphibians, etc. alive. He has had many large conferences with defecters, who used to support geoengineering. Please be a guest on his show to 'cross pollinate' your supporters.
Jewish people didn't own land because the Catholic Church forbid it. The church had too much power over government (monarchy).
What Point in this meet in of minds
How come Trump the dork didn't ask Michael Hudson to work for his administration?
cant scud the hud!!
That guy tweaking at the front row
Devouring a lot of Michael Hudson videos at the moment as I am Steve Keen. Both however brilliant are nevertheless not perfect IMO. It was good that Hudson mentioned Henry George in passing but has focused like most, on Karl Marx. Hudson description of how classical economics sought to tax the rentier class, I believe, deserved to credit George more since I understand from other reading - Mason Gaffney - that neoclassical economics rose more as a reaction to George than Marx . Marx has been a fit bogeyman for the monopoly capitalist since he has also conflated capital with land and thus obscured the factors of production and so obscured the imperative to tax land values.
The notion that Jews could not own land in Christian countries is wrong. Perhaps Michael Hudson is subconsciously virtue signalling. Stephen Goodson writes in his "A History of Central Banking and The Enslavement of Mankind":
"The Jews first arrived in England in 1066 in the wake of William I’s defeat of King Harold II on 14 October. These Jews came from Rouen, 75 miles from Falaise in Normandy, where William the Conqueror was born illegitimately as William the Bastard. Although the historical record does not indicate whether they promoted the idea of a military invasion of England, these Jews had the very least financed it. For this support they were richly rewarded by being allowed to practice usury under royal protection.
The consequences for the English people were disastrous. By charging rates of interest of 33% per annum on lands mortgaged by nobles and 300% per annum on tools of trade or chattels pledged by workmen, within two generations one quarter of all English lands were in the hands of Jewish usurers. At his death in 1186, Aaron of Lincoln was declared to be the richest man in England and it was estimated that his wealth exceeded that of King Henry II…
"
Britain wasn't christian at the time
@@felixii4931 I'm sorry but you're wrong. It was Christian prior to the Norman Conquest, and William I actually sought a papal blessing for his English adventure in 1066. To speak of Britain and England interchangeably is also imprecise. It's a mistake Americans usually make.
@@simonsmith3030
I live in the UK not America. As for Hudson talking about georgism, he has written plenty on Henry George elsewhere, google search should help you find plenty of material on this. For example, commonground-usa.net/hudson-michael_has-georgism-been-hijacked-by-special-interests-2003.htm
His thought process drifts off strangely
11:50 dafuq was that?
The girl on the right eating her dinner
I am so offended
You must be pretty dumb to ask a question whether neo-feudalism is (not) sustainable...
I thought you could lower the cost of doing business by competitiveness. Allowing multiple people to build infrastructure and letting a market decide which to use. The idea of having only the goverment to do work for us is shown to be unproductive. In fact I never expect neither the government nor wall street to ever work on anything.
Matheus Mendonça The problem is that if our public infrastructure is run through private interests, you will get prices to be of increase beyond their actual production cost value. This causes even more less money to spend and invest on goods and services and instead we are paying unnecessary fees and monopoly prices for basic needs (healthcare, education, roads, bridges, transportation). All in all a free way to make money just by privileged ability to charge things that are essential for the economy of production and consumption to flourish.
Broad (national) metrics put UK health care far in front of US health care. The problem is the inefficiency of intermediation (of insurance) in the name of competition. Competition is sometimes but not always useful.
Love the way this professor is able to integrate economic theories and thinkers with the many actual examples from history, linking it back to practical understanding in a way most people could understand. If more people were exposed to his integrated discourse maybe we could also come up with a way to undo the damage. I used to think just jailing and penalizing the banisters from 2008 meltdown would send a message but now it seems clear the entire Wall St. system is a toxic financial operation that took more than 50 years to fully develop. How can we now possibly remake that? Could Dr.Hudson focus his brilliant mind on that?
unproductive in what sense? what's unproductive about a post office,......?
Alexander Hamilton is the Father of American Socialism, or what many of today's right wing libertarian conservatives would say is "socialism". That is, govt investing in the Commons for industry and Commerce, investing in infrastructure and paying to develop cutting edge technology. It was called The American System.
Hudson doesn't oppose industrial competition. The rentier forces tend to be a near monopoly and impose monopolies.
The arguments around 16:00 aren’t convincing.