The hidden history of economics and socialism

So, lately been listening to Michael Hudson. The man seems to have a vast grasp of the history of economics back to Sumerian times, and shows how today’s economists and schools teach nothing resembling how our economy actually works. He also explains how the banks and elite have changed the definitions of socialism in order to force the populace to blame themselves for the problems created by the banks and oligarchs. Extremely interesting.

I’ve been a member for decades with thousands of replies and discussions, but this is my first link to a video so forgive me if it doesn’t upload correctly.

m.youtube.com...

a reply to: pexx421

a reply to: Propagandalf
Thanks so much!

a reply to: pexx421

From your description, this sounds really interesting. I started listening a bit, but will have to resume it later. Does the author support socialism? I know he started talking about the rich and poor a little bit at the beginning.

What you do think? For myself, I love freedom and personal responsibility/accountability. Socialism usually has no parts that are compatible with freedom. But sometimes I look at our society and wonder if there should be some type of equalization somewhere. That train of action usually leaves everyone poorer except for the rich and powerful that seem to thrive under most systems. We were never meant to be a democracy and we appear to be a mere shadow of our capitalists past.

I would be nice if people didn't obsess so much over power and position titles. Maybe the structure really doesn't matter in the end. Maybe it is all about the morals and philosophies of the citizens. If the wants and desires are just, the end system will be just, even if it is capitalist or even of a socialist design.

a reply to: ClovenSky
He is actually the godson of Trotsky. And his views are really interesting. Apparently he’s written a book about the history of economics, which he studied with museums, linguists, and experts of ancient cultures. He also goes very much into the origins of socialism and according to him, there was a class war between the rentier class, the banks, and other groups against the working class. The banks et al won, and then erased the history of the clash, and changed the meanings of the terms in order to erase the ideology of the founders of socialism.

According to him, the free market, under Adam Smith, and the classical economists, meant a market free from interest, taxes, and monopolies. Taxes, as we all know, were originally on the top earners. But it’s more. Taxes were only supposed to be on unearned income ie income that we exploit others for. Interest, rent, and speculation. Now free market means the opposite, a market free from any protections where capital has unfettered reign to exploit without any regulation.

Then there’s the word reform. Reform used to mean changing the business model so that workers kept the majority of the profit their work created. Now reform means austerity, allowing businesses to extract and monopolize all public works and the citizens foot the bill.

He goes on to many different subjects. He talks about how modern economists don’t calculate debt in any govt gdp statistics. And how all bank interest, rent, etc is added to gdp when in fact it should be subtracted because it removes that money from the economy without creating a product.

He was the one who predicted the crash in 08. He also talks about how the whole point of offshore accounts (which the govt went to him to create) were there to allow drug money to create liquidity in the us economy, and this is largely what kept our economy going the past few decades. Drug lords deposit their money in offshore amnesty accounts, it’s then available for banks to lend, and allows US dollars to circulate. Really phenomenal story.

a reply to: pexx421

Dang, for the most part, this guy sounds spot on.

Michael Hudson, I will definitely have to go down the rabbit hole he digs.

Thank you very much for the additional summary. I really like the idea of only taxing unearned income, heavily. : ) I just hate how much our financial markets have become a scam and wealth extractor from us sheep. The select few sheeps think they are making out like bandits, gaining 50% on their investments, while at the same time the purchasing power of the fiat has gone down 50%. Brilliant I tell you, simply brilliant.

The only way to create true wealth is to grow it, mine it or manufacture it. Our entire financial system is a wealth sink for the majority of us. But I guess since we are merely a service economy anymore, we have nothing else but scams.

a reply to: ClovenSky
He goes on extensively in some of his talks about wealth extractors vs producers, and about how our economy for the last few decades has been based off of extractive acquisitions. In fact, our banks don’t lend to finance new business, they lend exclusively for corporate take overs and cannibalization. He also talks about how Obama had a choice in 08. He could spend several trillion writing down debts and disperse it to the people to actually save the economy, but instead he gave it to banks, who just used it to buyback stocks and save their fraudulent bets. Similarly to how trumps tax breaks on the wealthy didn’t go to creating new business, it went almost solely to stock buybacks and dispersments to shareholders, to falsely bolster the stock prices.

a reply to: pexx421

I was able to watch that series and continued through his Vancouver speech focusing on the housing market. At first, I was getting upset listening to him and thought it was because he was not correct or distorting the truth. But after a while I realized that he was making complete sense and it was a section of my values and beliefs that were being challenged. His way of explaining taxes and regulation also made a lot of sense and was simple to understand with time. It challenged me because I don't like the idea of government control and socialism. But he had a completely different take.

It was also weird that I really enjoyed the Q&A session after the Vancouver speech, usually those are very painful to sit through but this was almost mesmerizing and the information he produced on the fly was just as enlightening as his main presentation. Kind of cool.

I like his explanation that both sides are corrupt and have been since 1980's. When Sheila Bair tried to sanction and jail some of the fraudsters at Citigroup, obama said 'no'....'Citigroup is our biggest bank of the democrats and campaign contributor along with managing the democrats money stream'.

I really liked what his separation between true wealth creation and the parasites or rent seekers who are simple blood suckers. We should be able to fund our society on the backs of capitol gains taxes and unearned income taxes.

He makes a good case for socialism against the very upper holders of wealth concentration. It is like he is at peace there will always be sociopaths and the dishonest in our society and we should use their greed to improve society.

He also has some very unique and original ideas on the housing problem that will smack us in the face(imo) shortly.

I wonder what his thoughts are on the need for failure to keep us honest. If he ever had the thoughts of dialing back his socialistic stance for proving common shelter or if that would lead to corruption.

a reply to: ClovenSky
I’m glad you enjoyed it! I found his explanations made everything fall into place, like a big part of the puzzle was revealed that had been intentionally hidden. I have been compelled now to listen to his talks on YouTube on my commute for the last week every day now. I’d also recommend his YouTube biography. It’s disruptive sometimes with his “ummm”s and “errrr”s but his life story was pretty amazing, and completely interesting, with his works with the banking sector, Rockefeller, us govt, Canadian govt, etc.