Reply With Quote
This [book]
Well, if it's in a [book] then it's gotta be true.
https://www.amazon.com/Imperialism-E...094/ref=sr_1_1This [book] explores the faults built into the core of the World Bank and the IMF at their inception. Forensic detail reveals how the world’s core economic functions were sculpted to preserve US financial hegemony. Difficult to detect at the time, these problems have since become explicit as the failure of the international economic order has become apparent; the IMF and World Bank were set up to give aid to developing countries, but instead many of the world’s poorest countries have been plunged into insurmountable debt crises.
The book became famous for detailing how the removal of the gold standard left the world’s central banks with only one alternative vehicle: to hold their international reserves in U.S. Treasury securities.
The result was a self-financing circular flow of U.S. military spending and the investment takeover of foreign economies. The larger America’s balance-of-payments deficit grew, the more dollars ended up in the hands of central banks and sovereign wealth funds. Machiavelli could not have planned it better. By participating in this circular flow, nations in effect financed their own economic and military encirclement.
Hudson’s critique of the destructive course of the international economic system provides important insights into the real motivations at the heart of these ins utions – and the increasing tide of opposition that they face around the world.
Ann Pettifor:
In this book Michael Hudson illuminates one of the most powerful forces in global economics – one which is hidden, and widely misunderstood. It is the use by the United States of a “money-pump” – an economic contraption which liberally pumps out money to finance extravagant US consumption and spending. This “money-pump” works at almost no cost to Americans, and at considerable cost to those who pour dollars into the “pump” – the rest of us. That is why this book is vital reading.Herman Kahn (1972):
This magisterial account of US imperialism is extraordinary in its range and immediacy. It was clearly written at a time when the events were still fresh in the memory of the author, and so has an authenticity missing in later accounts of the US’s decisive changes to the global economy.”
You’ve shown how the United States has run rings around Britain and every other empire-building nation in history. We’ve pulled off the greatest rip-off ever achieved.
This [book]
Well, if it's in a [book] then it's gotta be true.
Yeah...considering Brittan is responsible for entire continents being 3rd world holes for eternity, there's nothing we can do to top the British as the White Scourge of World History.
A must read for every marxist
I think it’s a good read for anybody
In 1964, Hudson, who had just received his master's degree in economics, joined Chase Manhattan Bank's economics research department as a balance of payments specialist. His task was to identify the payment capacity of Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. Based on export earnings and other international payment data, Hudson had to determine the income the bank could derive from the debt that these countries had ac ulated. He recalled that, "I soon found that the Latin American countries I analyzed were fully 'loaned up'. There were no more hard currency inflows available to extract as interest on new loans or bond issues. In fact, there was capital flight." Among other tasks that Hudson performed at Chase Manhattan was an analysis of the balance of payments of the US oil industry and the tracking of "dirty" money that ended up in Swiss banks. According to Hudson, this work gave him invaluable experience in understanding how banks and the financial sector work as well as understanding how bank accounting and real life correlate. It was during the study of oil company revenue flows (the study was funded by Chase Manhattan and Socony Oil Company) that Hudson met with Alan Greenspan, (future Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors), who acted as a consultant to Socony Oil. Hudson recalled that Greenspan had already successfully lobbied for the interests of his clients in those years and in the framework of the research tried to provide rough estimates of the US market based on global trends: "Mr. Rockefeller, Chase President, told me to inform Mr. Greenspan that unless he could provide specifically US figures, and/or be forthright about his assumptions, we would have to leave his contribution out of the study."[citation needed].
Hudson left his job at the bank to complete his doctoral dissertation. His thesis was devoted to US economic and technological thought in the 19th century. It was successfully defended in 1968 and in 1975 it was published under the le Economics and Technology in 19th Century American Thought: The Neglected American Economists.
In 1968, Hudson joined the accounting firm Arthur Andersen, for whom he expanded his analysis of payment flows for all areas of US production. He discovered that the United States deficit was evident only in the military sphere: "My charts revealed that the U.S. payments deficit was entirely military in character throughout the 1960s. The private sector—foreign trade and investment—was exactly in balance, year after year, and "foreign aid" actually produced a dollar surplus (as it was required to do under U.S. law)." However, the accounting system used in the US after the war mixed the balance of individuals and state payments flow into a single balance which concealed the budget deficit. Hudson proposed dividing US balance of payments figures into governmental and private sectors.
In 1968, Hudson published a 100 page brochure led A financial payments-flow analysis of U.S. international transactions, 1960-1968 in which he pointed out the flaws in the accounting system and the need to distinguish between state deficits and private payments. After the appearance of the brochure, Hudson was invited to speak to the graduate economics faculty of The New Schoolin 1969. As it happened, the New School needed someone to teach international trade and finance. Hudson was offered the job immediately after his lecture. According to Hudson, he was surprised to find that the university program virtually ignored the issues of debt, financial flows, money laundering and the like. The emphasis that Hudson placed on these subjects in his lectures aroused criticism from Economics Department Chairman Robert Heilbroner, who noted that his faculty did not focus on these issues.
Independent analyst[edit]
In 1972, Hudson published his first major book, Super Imperialism. In it, he showed how Nixon's abandonment of the gold standardcreated a situation wherein United States Department of the Treasury bonds became the sole basis for global reserves. It left foreign governments with no choice but to finance the US budget deficit and hence its military expenditures. After publication of the book, Hudson left the ins ute and moved to the Hudson Ins ute headed by Herman Kahn. In 1979, he became an advisor to the United Nations Ins ute for Training and Research (UNITAR). He wrote reports for the Canadian Ministry of Defense and also acted as a consultant to the Canadian government. His second big book, led Global Fracture: The New International Economic Order was published in 1977. In it, Hudson argued that the military superiority of the United States led to the division of the world along financial lines.
The book makes an economic argument, not a moral one. Michael Hudson isn't a moralist.
Super-Imperialism isn't about who's the worst oppressor or some such tripe, it's about how the US used economics to dominate the world for the last 50 years.
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2021...l-duopoly.htmlMichael Hudson: The reason that I taught balance of payments was I’d been working for many years for Chase Manhattan as their balance of payments analyst, and then for Arthur Andersen, the accounting firm that was later closed down for fraud, as its balance of payments analyst. And the topic just wasn’t taught in economics. The economic theory in the universities pretty much ignores money and credit. That’s what Steve Kean and myself and the MMT people at University of Missouri at Kansas City, who have now all been dispersed—Stephanie Kelton, Randy Wray—we’re all trying to say, “wait a minute, you’re looking at the economy as if it’s purely technological, purely physical, and you look at technology and GDP growth, but actually, what grows most rapidly is debt, and the debt is what is slowing the economy down and preventing the economy from growing.” There’s an attempt not to look at money and credit created by banks or what they’re creating it for, which is essentially for real estate, for economic rent.
Way back in the 1890s, economics stopped. There was an anti-classical reaction against Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Marx, Henry George, all the people who were talking about economic rent. Most of the fortunes in America were made by economic rent. So the wealthy fortune gatherers and rent extractors promoted a kind of barter theory of the economy. But in terms of what the government wanted, when my Super Imperialism came out, I had thought that probably a lot of left wingers would buy the book. And indeed it was quickly translated into Spanish and Russian and other languages. But immediately, Herman Kahn at the Hudson Ins ute, a National Security Ins ute, hired me and said the Defense Department wanted to give me an $85,000 grant for me to come to Washington…
Kevin Barrett: So they could understand how they’re ruling the world.
Michael Hudson: Yes. They didn’t realize that going off gold for the United States left other countries’ central banks with nothing to keep their foreign exchange reserves in except U.S. dollars, which meant U.S. Treasury bonds—loans to the U.S. Treasury, essentially. And so they looked at my Super Imperialism as how to do it book! And for the next four years, I was going back and forth to the White House and other government agencies sort of explaining this, and there was no attempt at all to to prevent this from being discussed. In fact, I worked for a lot of brokerage houses who wanted me to explain to them what the foreign exchange effects of American dollarization and the Treasury bill standard were, and America’s free lunch. And Herman Kahn and others said, “Well, look, this is great. American imperialism is giving us a free lunch, and we’re able to get foreign countries not only to finance our debt, but our balance of payments deficit, which is mainly military.” So in effect, foreign central banks paid the foreign exchange costs of America’s military expansion all through the the Korean War, the Vietnam War and throughout the 1960s and 70s into the 80s, all over the world.
Michael Hudson: Well, it took 50 years for other countries to develop to the point where two years ago, when the United States imposed agricultural sanctions on Russia, Russia said, “Okay, we’ll make our own cheese, we’ll grow our own grain.” And now two years later, Russia is the largest agricultural exporter in the world. Well, that wasn’t the case during the Cold War years as a result of the awful collective farm system that was over there. Same thing with China. Thirty years ago, China had not developed an ability to produce high technology, goods, cars, aircraft, electricity. It took a long time for other countries to develop. And fortunately (for China and Russia) you had Bill Clinton and George Bush and Obama essentially promote the offshoring of American industry. They pushed American companies to say, “Why hire American high wage labor when you can hire foreign labor?” And the foreign countries have all had their currencies decline, largely because whenever a country has to pay debt, it throws its currency onto the foreign exchange market, and the currency goes down. And what’s really devalued when a country lowers its exchange rate is the price of labor. So all of a sudden, the result of this dollar standard and IMF pro-creditor policy was to make labor outside the United States much less expensive than labor in the United States.
Michael Hudson: So American industry began to move to Asia, not only China, but also other countries in Asia. European industry did the same. And all of a sudden China said, “Well, you know, we’re quite happy to have you come in and build factories here and use our low wage labor. But you have to show us how to build the factory. You have to share your technology with us.” And so the American companies were glad to share their technology since the 1990s and (especially) since it joined the World Trade Organization around 2000. And now other countries say, “Okay, thank you for the technology. We really don’t need you anymore. We’ve we’ve got rich enough exporting to your market. We’ve got (to the point that) we can rely on each other for our own market. We can create our own currency. We don’t need dollars. We have our own printing presses in our countries. We spend our own currencies, yen or or whatever.” And so you can see how all of this is unfolded. And basically, that’s what my book Super Imperialism is about, how this process unfolded and left America all of a sudden without industry and as a debtor country.
Cool story“Okay, thank you for the technology. We really don’t need you anymore. We’ve we’ve got rich enough exporting to your market. We’ve got (to the point that) we can rely on each other for our own market. We can create our own currency. We don’t need dollars. We have our own printing presses in our countries. We spend our own currencies, yen or or whatever.” And so you can see how all of this is unfolded. And basically, that’s what my book Super Imperialism is about, how this process unfolded and left America all of a sudden without industry and as a debtor country.
It's roughly correct.
It's weird how few posters want to talk about politics on a politics board, you def fall in that category.
You go first
how not?
are we not a debtor nation? labor arbitrage hasn't hollowed out our industrial base?
Both are true but not necessarily negatives. It's why they are true that disproves the conclusion of this marxist author.
And doubtful we will get to dominate and destroy with economics the same way the British and other Euro Imperialists. I called them the White Scourge, but it wasn't a moral shaming moreso than ling them something fit for their track record.
Michael Hudson's not a Marxist as such, he's a classical economist. It would make about as much sense to compare him to Adam Smith, David Ricardo or JS Mill. The only economist cited in particular in the excerpted interview is an American economist from the Wharton School, Simon Patton.
Hudson's got a very curious CV for a dedicated Marxist, not very many of those have held jobs for the Rockefellers and Arthur Andersons of the world, to say nothing of the DOD.
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-22-2021 at 03:16 PM.
That's discussed in the interview I just posted. Maximizing economic extraction doesn't tend to create the long term alliances needed to maintain an empire.
OTOH, transnational commerce is less and less dependent on particular nation states for security and protection and has reached a level of development that essentially enables it to buy the political classes of the few dozen countries that matter the most -- except maybe the PRC.
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-22-2021 at 03:22 PM.
Why are they true, in your opinion?
That's a lengthy complex topic
I'm all ears.
If you're short of time, put it in a nuts , use broad strokes.
Snake Boy lurked, read, and ran away again.
He's not much for actually discussing things, he's too impatient with people who merely disagree to make his own points clear.
another fold.
so much the worse for you if you can't make your own point.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
