Michael Hudson: Money & Debt
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ก.ย. 2012
- Wall St. Financial Analyst & Economics Professor Michael Hudson on the history of debt and economic imperialism.
From the first seminar of the "Modern Money and Public Purpose" series at Columbia Law School.
To watch the full seminar, including Q&As, and for a list of suggested readings, please visit the Modern Money & Public Purpose website:
www.modernmoneyandpublicpurpos...
SPEAKER BIO:
Michael Hudson, Ph.D. is a Wall Street Financial Analyst, Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, and President of The Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trends (ISLET). He has authored over ten books on international finance, economic history and the history of economic thought, including Super-Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (1968 & 2003) and Trade, Development and Foreign Debt (1992 & 2009). Dr. Hudson acts as an economic advisor to governments worldwide including Iceland, Latvia and China on finance and tax law.
How underrated this man is
Gardening is something I enjoy, If one wants the lower portion of the flora to flourish one must cut back the top!
Amazing analogy. As above, so below. Once we enforce a disruption in this balance of reality, we destroy our balance with reality itself.
Again, fantastic.
really loved the pulling hand move having the camera zoom in on him at 3:16. played that back a dozen times.
9:00-23:00 opened my eyes
what an amazing lecture
Precisely. Keynesian is a reaction to the, at the time, 100 year old idea started by Ricardo, the bank apologist, that finance was frictionless, that interest rates reflected only the willingness to save and not a possible monopolistic income from credit issuance itself.
If that makes you a lefty that is your business.
I'd be most thrilled to see professor hudson and John Titus work together on a project!
Rob, we are not disagreeing about wealth. As I've taken pains to explain, wealth is reflected in the goods and services that we desire and the resources that we require. What I am addressing are the constant misrepresentations of the US monetary system from deficit hysterics who have hamstrung the recovery with the false equivalence of a nation-state like the US possessing a non-convertible, non-pegged currency to a household which must first earn an income or borrow before it can spend.
Rob, what I've presented here is a straight forward description of the US monetary system as it actually functions. The Fed gov SPENDS money into existence which, as our income, then provisions real resources.
The ONLY restraint on US government fiscal policy is the CAPACITY of the real economy and the AVAILABILITY of real resources. Period, full stop. There is no risk of insolvency whatsoever for the US can NEVER RUN OUT OF DOLLARS. Any suggestion otherwise is completely false.
What about its relations to other currencies? Especially if the US Dollar gets dropped as the reserve currency, sure they can just print more money, but if goods are increasingly expensive to import, surely that's a restraint too?
@@genedalefield as goods become more expensive to import, they also become cheaper to export.
That’s why in 2022 the US trade deficit has exploded. With DXY over 100 US goods are way too expensive for the world.
Being the reserve currency tends to cause a currency (the dollar) to be overvalued, which causes deindustrialization and eventually hollows out an economy. Sound familiar?
Nope the insolvency basically comes as in ARGENTINA NOT BECAUSE YOU ARE POOR BECAUSE THE RICHNESS IS BLOCKED HOLD OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY ..
Michael Hudson: Money & Debt
th-cam.com/video/cCsxKy6Lbvg/w-d-xo.html
24 sep. 2012
Wall St. Financial Analyst & Economics Professor Michael Hudson on the history of debt and economic imperialism.
From the first seminar of the "Modern Money and Public Purpose" series at Columbia Law School.
SPEAKER BIO:
Michael Hudson, Ph.D. is a Wall Street Financial Analyst, Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, and President of The Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trends (ISLET). He has authored over ten books on international finance, economic history and the history of economic thought, including Super-Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (1968 & 2003) and Trade, Development and Foreign Debt (1992 & 2009). Dr. Hudson acts as an economic advisor to governments worldwide including Iceland, Latvia and China on finance and tax law.
Flash recognition, at last, from watching enough of Dr Hudson's assessment of Civilisations, that "Bartering" is the double speak word for aggravated competition, the Forever War.
I love hearing the historical context around money and Michael Hudson seems to have some fascinating insights. Did he imply western civilisation was really just the poor left over bits, the by product of the collapse of near east bronze age civilisations, perverted by banksters? Well as Gandhi said, it would be a good idea :)
That was very interesting, thank you 😊
he is brilliant
"Wealth is reflected in the goods/services we produce not those we desire"-RM
We produce the goods and services that we desire... otherwise we would NOT produce them.
We purchase the items we desire , otherwise we would not purchase them & that's why a lot of For-Money-Profit firms end operation, having made things not desired
My response exactly.
Read Professor Stephanie Kelton's (then Stephanie Bell) 'Can Taxes and bonds finance government spending?'. It's available for free online.
Un abrazo desde Cali Colombia
And the answer to the question of why isn't the asset side of money talked about in economy - because the government and the banks don't want people to know what creates real wealth because then the ratio of the few people who hold 95% of the wealth would change considerably.
Excellent
The reality of the economy is that activities of human beings are intertwined. None of them operates without effect on something else which is the same as what happens in any science. The universe is totally connected to everything else. Observation of human activity such as finance and manufacture and investment cannot be fully isolated from any other, despite what MH is saying. His analogy isolates his thinking from the required interconnection needed to resolve economic issues .
Please can we ask for the link of transcript of this video???
It's interesting that you seem alarmed by the prospect of moral hazard for the poor and middle class, but not the people who actually have been bailed out.
What we're really talking about is allocation of resources through relationships. Who gets to use what? How do they share it? Deciding that strictly through a market approach is impossible. There's always morality involved, even when it's implicit (like how you're painting the poor as grasping freeloaders).
Thanks for the response and this is an interesting perspective. It has certainly piqued by interest.
What does MMT have to do with Hudson's argument in this video?
Wealth is an abstract concept. You could be wealthy but if you don't have dollars, ,and can't get dollars for whatever reason, you can't pay the government. The rules are different under a FIAT currency issued by a monopoly issuer of the currency. i.e. USA. Euro for example is a fiat currency where there is no monopoly issuer and each nation state is a taker.
I think what he's saying is if a private company funds a tram line or hospital that's real wealth but if government does it isn't. Pretty sound, really. I mean, superficially the Brooklyn bridge & Erie Canals seemed to turn out pretty useful but when you *really* think about it what individual needs did they satisfy?
I understand what you are saying. My comment was in realtion to situations where there was an expectation of the transaction being reciprocated on a commercial basis or a mutual exchange basis. Gifts are somehing which is very a small part of exchange of goods or services.
I don't think that Hudson denies interconnectedness, he rather stresses it, while is exposing essential falacies: his point is that a system cannot be based on verifiable falsehoods. Hudson's analysis elsewhere is extremely specific - try 'The Bubble and Beyond' - he was after all a Wall Street analyst who once had the pleasure of sacking Alan Greenspan. Not really sure that your comment says anything at all, except the standard 'leave it as it is, its too complicated for the likes of you'.
To expand on the above. The ultimate question is whether a government can satisfy its own need. Ultimately government is a collection of people in some formal arrangement so it cannot satisfy a need of government since one can only satisfy people's needs. Argument about wealth are really about people's wealth not company or government wealth since both are only arrangements consisting of people. Extrapolation of needs to organisations often distorts the reality of the economic situation.
I think the "Nail that stands out gets hammered down" is a Japanese proverb, not an Australian one.
Australia has tall poppy syndrome though,- people who boast or brag or outperform other people are cut down to size.
Similar ideas, but yes indeed it's a Japanese proverb.
出る杭は打たれる。
Deru kui wa utareru.
Literally: The stake that sticks up gets hammered down.
Meaning: If you stand out, you will be subject to criticism.
ChrispyT YO Well yes, I think Australia, NZ, Japan and Scandinavian countries all have tall poppy syndrome. Probably some other countries as well.
@@chrispytyo9577 - Thank you , so much .
"You believe that a deficit which is essentially a shortfall in revenvue from taxes which are short of paying for outgoings" -RM
Until you recognize the category error reflected in your statement here, one that implies an equivalence between a household USER of a currency and nation-state ISSUER of that same currency you will not comprehend a word that I write.
Wealth is food, water, shelter, leisure time, freedom from want, and the other abundant natural resources that surround us.
It's interesting to hear some of the comments in his column around money creation. People argue about is the action and effect of money creation. What's too often missed is while banks create money when a mortgage is approved they seem to ignore the fact that when a private loan is paid out it is no longer a multiplier. The opposite effect happens. On the government side the Fed creates money but almost never destroys it by paying back the money so in effect the inflation buck stops there !!
So what - Nothing is ideal in all minds. And what do you think is the answer to replace capitalists with? Some have tried socialists - that has failed everywhere, some tried dictatorships of various types - that has failed everywhere, some tried communism - that has failed everywhere. Some dream of an idealist government but idealism is only ideal in some people's minds when others disagree with those same ideals. What practical example do you have in mind?
Please Indonesia Mr Hudson
You say it goes to bonuses and sales propaganda but you have to notice that whatever goes to those then goes somewhere else, not into a black hole. A bonus doesn't go into thin air? It doesn't matter which person has a bonus or the size of it since the money does not vanish. What matters is the wealth created by the business and the more of that the better because wealth is better produced by attentiveness to the detailed demands of consumers than the will of unconnected lawmakers.
What ever money in currency or other form the Federal prints or "creates" competes on the market with other would be purchasers of the same goods/services. Loans create both debt and credit in the private market. The difference from the private market debt/loans and the government Fed created loans is the government created side increases money supply. More money (curency or electronic or instuments) resluts in a decrease in unit value of all of the money avilable. Do the maths.
I see - but the gift economy you are talking about would be small and maybe has some effect but rules which prevent people being ripped off by people whose values they don't know or are uncertain of are the norm i.e exchange based on a money values such as normal trade. .
❤❤❤
Agreed, but you are redefining exchange to include Gift economics alongside barrter. No doublt there was barter but was Gift really a gift or was it expecting reciprocal offers from the receiver? Most peole I have known expect reciprocation of some sort so it could be considered a form of barter or was it just charity? I think Gift economics would hardly exist today and if so it would not be significant. Although you can send me a gift any time - prefer a red Ferrari or kilo of gold.
Hudson also describes a military objective used by the rulers, Paharoes, to employ debt cancellation to return peole to the land as farmers so they would defend the county in case of war. That is not an economic objective at all, but a miliary objective. The whole story negates his argument that economic dowturns did not occur. Widespread evidence is they did. Crop failures often occurred especially in the river Nile due to pests and diseases and drought years. These caused economic mayhem.
But FN are not in a zero sum environment. They did not have the population density for that to happen. They were generous to other members of tribe or clan. When they had surplus they gave it away to gain status. If you did not have surplus you could not have warriors or shamans. In northern Canada you had to have a surplus ( which was hard to get) to get through winter. Starvation was a major problem. Almost insulting to FN.
The complexity issue seem to be beyond MH. He fails to deal with the issue of cancelling debts, since bad debtors are ofen repeat debtors. I credit him for saying that big bailouts should not occur. He has a principle with that but does not explain why big bailouts should not occur but little ones should. What principle is involved here? A double standard? If not then what price should bailouts be capped at. I have an isssue quoting early civilizations when so little detail is known of them.
Not as simple as that. Look at what Norway did as foreign policy - did the Norwegian government pay for the Nato effort in Bosnia? what about the Iraqi war. Did Noraway incur costs for that? what about their windfall oil/gas reserves? How big are the in comparison to North sea oil? All of these things have to be accounted for when looking at policy? The detail is the crux of this, not a generalistic view of some policies.
Norway's 2/3 public owned oil; "environmental record without rival", highest tax on 1% = money went to population as equality, free edu, health, skills, best standards of living etc. low crime.
good wages = not forced into debt.
watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw
look up "Mondragon"
UK also has oil; private BP; disaster record, inequality, crime. debt.
Alternative to paying pompous 1% sales thugs ever bigger bonuses,
Is more equality & informed democracy.
evri1 support worker's uprisings & revolution.
Yes, in low surplus societies it is in fact unpolite to charge a lot for anything, bc ancient societies were small groups of family members. See Dunbar;'s number. Current societies are formed by prefect strangers, so anything nice ancient societies could do among themselves it is completely inapplicable to a society of millions of perfect strangers.
Once the distortions of excessive government spending and money printing have become prevelent there are many steps to re establish a workable stable set of relationships based on supply and demand. Constant medling by people unrelated to the parties in the sale of goods or services such as excessive government regulation does not help. So does emotional reaction to situations like envy or greed make it hard for peole to carry on normal trade so prices become inflated or shortages occur .
them whats got, gets more; them what ain't got, pays. that's the way is, may as well face up to it. have a nice day?
them what ain't got persuade them whats got that sharing and caring is a better way of life and the alternative is guillotine shaped?
You cannot take one secor of any economy and say that it is isolated from other sectors, I agree. But when MH tell me that the finance sector is ripping off the rest then it begs the question "where is all of the money going?" It can't be going into a black hole and staying there since it would be worth nothing on it's own. It has to be relating back to production in one way or another and this negates his finance isolationist argument.
The money simply recirculates back into financial assets (stock buy-backs, cash equivalents, bonds, etc etc.) and/or is converted into cash that is stored god knows where.
@@thatisabsolutelykooooge2211 So you are operating off the idea that you don't know whwer te moeny is stored as cash somewhere. That idea itself is absurdly conceived since only a very small percentage of money in the economy is in the form of cash - Something like 2%.
@@Rob-fx2dw Read the comment again and read it slowly. You're so focused on always arguing that it blurs your vision and deafens your hearing.
The only confusion here appears to be on your part. The assertion that the government has allowed 'money printing to pay for government deficits to hide its dire economic record' betrays a complete misunderstanding of how the US monetary system actually functions. Government SPENDING is ultimately our INCOME.
I understand that. But wealth is a term that includes money and property and rights etc.Money is a means of relating wealth, storing wealth, comparing wealth and is a facilitator for exchange of goods/services. Money in concept could include gold or any other agreed goods. The money you are speakin of is a dominion's currency. Currency may have lttle or no value depending on it's availability or it's dominions policies - Printing more money does not necessarily create wealth.
.
That is incorrect since bartering takes place often even though the tax offices don't like it since they miss out on what they consider their revenue. Whenever one swaps or exchanges goods or services without money in the transaction there is barter. Barter is a significant part of all economies and always will be to an extent. Not normally the only part of a transaction in most developed economies but the actual extent of bartering even in developed economies is naturally hard to estimate.
It doesn't go into industry; manufacturing & skills wrecked & sold.
It goes to 1% bonuses & sales propaganda.
Capitalists find it much more profitable to create low wage & debt, to collect interest.
AKA "rent seeking" by pompous bailiffs in sneer suits.
debt is mostly mortgages & student loans & CC.
Deregulated capital's #1 income is from fines. 'innovations' like sending bills late to fine ppl more.
Pays for worsening inequality, denial, brainache junk & more ranting fail.
watch?v=B9P35DiufsA
You are confusing a deficit with an increase in the money supply. Two different things. A deficit is where the government spends more than it collects in taxes. They can do this by issuing bonds for sale to the public or institutions or printing more money in currency terms or other terms such as issuing bonds or similar instruments to banks so they can extend credit.
Islam, Christianity and Judaism have common roots. Then there was India and China. A,d that's it.
Economics :- the study of scarcity.You believe that a deficit which is essentially a shortfall in revenvue from taxes which are short of paying for outgoings. With this pressure is put on goods and services creating a demand whch raises prices by marketplace force. This means that less services and goods are available for people to buy. That is a cost to people who lose purchasing power to the government. Deficit debts are things which have to be paid, The problem is production not demand.
Most government money comes from taxes. If thre is an overspend by government of more than the taxes it collects it usually comes from loans (governent bonds) or sell off of assets to cover the difference. Not sure what your CAD term refers to - To me it refers to Current Account Deficit which does not seem to be immediately to this budget deficit question. Do you mean cash account deposits ???
Rob living in 1983
More info on this. - You asked whether wealth is created when a government spends money? I believe the error in any positive anwer to this is that an institution creates wealth, but first you have to ask what wealth realy is? Wealth is that which benefits actual people by satisfying a need " For example if a governent could create wealth itself then it could create wealth for to satisfaction of its own need. This is a fallacy since it is not a natural person so its needs cannot even exist.
Saying the US system cannot alter economic reality. The US may do things slightly different from other governments but I know that a deficit is and it's pretty basic bottom line stuff and cannot be described away by such atatements as the US does it differently. Government spending is money transfer. Wealth is not government spending. Wealth is production, trade, adaption, better efficiency of industry. Government spending is mainly money re allocation by taxation at 40 cents of every dollar.
You seem to confuse the compative size of financial issues. The icing on the cake marinas etc and such things are not in abundance when compared to the rest of the economy. They are small fractions of it. The fact that some lied about their taxes is tiny in comparison to economy overall. What is huge is the government have allowed huge money printing (money supply blow out) to pay for government deficits and attempts to hide it's dire economic record from the public by "stimulation".
So are you suggesting that scale is important. If so what is your reasoning. Does it all change at some point and if so is it a certain economy size? Where is that point where size matters? One billion GDP, One trillion, Five trillion? Intersting theory but not demonstrated yet that I have seen. Have you seen or heard the reasoning or principle behind it? I would like to know.
Yawn
You have it wrong. There is nothing that indicates a government must spend before it taxes. That is incorrect. It is not how taxation works. They government of USA cut spending by almost half in 1946 and economic activity, and people's incomes as well as tax revenues increased. When government spends more than it taxes it is called a "net borrowing requirement" - or 'deficit". Governments spend and it competes against the private sector pushing up prices - i.e. simple demand supply stuff.
Wiping a slate clean is easy. But it wont settle the grudges of those who feel they've been deprived of their dues.
It won't encourage the slackers to step up and Pay their dues either.
Perhaps the Pharaohs dropped the tradition once they realised that the rest of their reign would consist of little more than presiding over an endless barrage of litigation.
Their retirement plan wasn't up to much either. They either fell off the perch still in harness, or got stabbed in the back by a gang of greedy, lazy, parasites who chose the easy way to clear their debts.
Maybe, some time in the not too distant future, when all the greedy, lazy, parasites have finally stabbed each-other to extinction, the rest of us can just call it quits and start again from there.
Who knows?
whats a fair interest rate?
@@fredmoss3515 - as little as possible & NEVER usury
You are confusing money as a currency with wealth creation. Wealth creation comes from people performing activities. Money (legal tender and financial institution deposits) comes from government issuing it to facilitate finance, commercial activities, private jobs and private houshold purpuses. Government taxes trade and private income to raise money so it can re distribute it and do public works. Not the other way round since the government money (US dolars) is worthless without these jobs.
MMT is not some socialist thing, it is more a modern take on Keynesian economic principles. It is not left wing or right wing.
Furthermore you dont understand it because if you did you would understand that fed govt debt is different to personal debt. Please get a little understanding before making ill informed comments.
Don't listen my Libertarian friends. Actual history and facts not logic, conjecture and assertion.
Great reasoning: don't listen, think about, challenge previous notions and discuss them. Just put your hands over your ears and plod on, determined to keep the same mindset and behaviour.
Here's a suggestion: if a 'libertarian friend' has enough of an understanding in the robustness and integrity of that which he or she understands, listening to challenges is exactly what he or she should want, in order to refine it. It wasn't after all a success story for China to block itself from other cultures and ways of reasoning in the world once they saw themselves as the most advanced of people.
Which 'conjecture' do you specifcally dispute: the annulling of debts?
filosofo eduardo For me Hudson slaughters the whole mythology that is libertarianism. So I don't see them evolving
filosofo eduardo sir I have a degree in economics and voted for Ron Paul in 1988 and have been a libertarian for many years. I listened to Hudson and others who cite history and real behavior.
Anthony Danes
Now it's totally unclear to me whether you support Hudson's views, or a contrary view still somewhat libertarianism or otherwise. I have however learnt that you have a degree in economics, and have some vague somewhat unrelated responses. Is the initial comment a sarcastic one?
He talks to fast and moves between ideas without connection
too
Read his writing Start with forgive them their debts
Speaking on the same topic , at many, many occasions causes anyone to easily loose one's place
Dinan5iver2 - Your assumption is wrong. Money doesn't create wealth, Wealth is created by various activities like co operation between people or organisations. Money is a means to store, correlate, pass on, or record wealth. It does not create wealth. Wealth must be created by demand and supply before money comes into existence or it is worthless. That's THE PROBLEM! Wealth existed and exists without money such as it still does in barter economies. You explantion pre supposes existing wealth.
Widows and orphans the richest people in society today??!! I think it would be best to imagine oneself in the shoes of such people before making statements like this.
I disagree. Wealth is reflected in the goods/services we produce not those we desire. I might desire a trip to the moon and back but I have no hope of getting it. Same as a luxury motor launch - same pointless dream. It is reseach and technology that makes us wealthier. First lesson of life since forever is scarcity and the second is work to alleviate it then allocation of what has been produced. Other desires are based on an assumption that the former exist already which pure assumption. .
Slave humanity with toilet paper
This guy is making a number of incorrect statements - He states that in Australia they say " the nail which stands up from the wood gets hammered down"! That is incorrect. The Australian saying is "the tall poppy syndrome" where taller trees get lopped first. It is not economics or finance at all. He has a myopic undertanding of commerce and trade if he thinks that someone makes money "off someone else" - what happens is there is mutual profit at an agreed price. He only looks at the price.
This guy is amazing but his presentation skills are horrible and confused
You missed the point. If someone says the money just disappears then they are talking dribble. Have you heard of a money trail. Money does not just disappear. If so your money you earned would disappear unles you foolishly lose it. It's as clear as that. One needs no figures for evidence or nobody else to support that fact. Neither do I need to call someone a moron to get that point right. You appear annoyed at having to think this through since it offends your ill conceived statements.
Have watched the youtube you suggested - It is full of contradictions. No explanation of why people should consume more to produce "jobs". Fact is it is easy to produce "jobs" and any government can do it. Just hire people and to did a hole and hire others to fill it in. You will have plenty of jobs. This is as meaningless and silly as saying consumption can create wealth which is what Hanauer is talking about. He is mistaken on basic principles. Production comes before consumption.
You lost me with cancel culture. Yeah, Dore could have turned it down a bit, but he is absolutely right AND AOC inserted herself into the conversation. Cancel culture is what has been used against the left for decades and decades. Now, all of a sudden, that the left actually is able to make demands it is suddenly a bad thing. Screw that. Not subscribing.
I know this is an older comment, but FTV wouldn't have worked anyway because the progressive caucus didn't have any leverage at the time. Stop falling for sycophant idiots who don't understand how politics works.
Many flaws...this lecture has no value
Bosniake I find your thoughtful analysis suprisingly persuasive!
How could a professor be such a bad speaker?
It's interesting to hear some of the comments in his column around money creation. People argue about is the action and effect of money creation. What's too often missed is while banks create money when a mortgage is approved they seem to ignore the fact that when a private loan is paid out it is no longer a multiplier. The opposite effect happens. On the government side the Fed creates money but almost never destroys it by paying back the money so in effect the inflation buck stops there !!
You have no understanding of money creation ....
All new spending is new dollars created ... all federal taxes are dollars destroyed .... the govt cannot have credits and debits sitting in an account because they cancel each other out.
Rob, search TH-cam or edx.org & take a Generally Accepted Accounting Principles course of instruction
@@thomasd2444 Rather than giving advice about what i should do why don't you answer the questions I previously asked you ?
The first question -MMT claims taxes drive value into and acceptance of money. If that is true then why didn't it happen in all of the countries where despite taxes inflation sent the money into a downward spiral of losing value and eventually becoming valueless.
So utterly valueless that their own sovereign governments abandoned it.
You have it wrong. There is nothing that indicates a government must spend before it taxes. That is incorrect. It is not how taxation works. They government of USA cut spending by almost half in 1946 and economic activity, and people's incomes as well as tax revenues increased. When government spends more than it taxes it is called a "net borrowing requirement" - or 'deficit". Governments spend and it competes against the private sector pushing up prices - i.e. simple demand supply stuff.
You have it wrong. There is nothing that indicates a government must spend before it taxes. That is incorrect. It is not how taxation works. They government of USA cut spending by almost half in 1946 and economic activity, and people's incomes as well as tax revenues increased. When government spends more than it taxes it is called a "net borrowing requirement" - or 'deficit". Governments spend and it competes against the private sector pushing up prices - i.e. simple demand supply stuff
So much wrong ... why do you even bother ?