Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Interview with Dr. Michael Hudson – Part I: Trouble in Europe - Eric Janszen

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Interview with Dr. Michael Hudson – Part I: Trouble in Europe - Eric Janszen

    Originally posted by chr5648 View Post
    The system is like this by design. There is no left vs. right they are the same thing.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A
    I can only add that readers should view the opensecrets.org page and take a good long look at the influence buyers who are shown "on the fence". While everybody thinks of the ones with lots of elephants or jackasses, it is those "on the fence" who wield their power through that holy grail of "bipartisan" congressional action. The remainder spend money to counteract bad things happening whether it is unions or the Chamber of Commerce - neither gets what they want, but both pay money and continue the stalemate. If they both quit there would still be a stalemate but a lot fewer TV ads.

    There are important lessons to be learned. If you want to get your way, buy both parties. If you want to support the parties of "NO" buy just one.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Interview with Dr. Michael Hudson – Part I: Trouble in Europe - Eric Janszen

      Originally posted by reggie
      Hence, my confusion with Hudson is that he employs these left vs right terms, which appear to me to lost all meaning, unless speaking historical.
      I reiterate EJ's point: Dr. Hudson talks like a Marxist, but his views are what would once have been considered Progressive.

      When Dr. Hudson says 'Left' - he means the political movement to reform government and in so doing, rebalance the Labor vs. Capital economic relationship.

      When Dr. Hudson says 'Right' - he means the oligarchy, financial or otherwise. The entrenched interests. The feudal owners. etc etc.

      Dr. Hudson has never advocated Marxism - either classical or Leninist. He might be termed Socialist in some sense, but his views have always been focused specifically on taxation: that it should be primarily on capital and not on labor.

      You'll note he has little or nothing publicly stated on health care, for example.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Interview with Dr. Michael Hudson – Part I: Trouble in Europe - Eric Janszen

        Originally posted by EJ View Post
        But, like all of us, Michael is imperfect. The imperfection that I'm most sensitive to is that Michael is a Marxist by training, although his position might be better described as Progressive according to the old meaning of the term, that is, libertarian with respect to individuals but interventionist with respect to banking and business.
        Originally posted by c1ue View Post
        I reiterate EJ's point: Dr. Hudson talks like a Marxist, but his views are what would once have been considered Progressive.
        Listening to Dr. Hudson's many interviews, he has pointed-out that all economists of his day read Marx in school, but that that academic requirement has since changed.

        Comments such as "Michael is a Marxist by training" or "Dr. Hudson talks like a Marxist" can have negative connotations attached to them. It is in a large part a direct result of this fundamental training that Dr. Hudson is able to clearly articulate how the neo-classical system deviates from the classical system, thus creating some the issues that we are experiencing today.
        The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge ~D Boorstin

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Interview with Dr. Michael Hudson – Part I: Trouble in Europe - Eric Janszen

          Originally posted by Rajiv View Post
          In Hudson's view, it is the top 0.1% vs the bottom 90% which is a class issue, which therefore makes it a classic left vs right issue.
          "far right" typically refers to those (myself included) who espouse the typical views of the world that were common prior to the French Revolution. This means a rejection of utilitarianism and materialism, i.e. that the state and society exists to provide maximal pleasure through material goods to the most people.

          Those on the far right subscribe to the view that communism and marxism destroys the body while liberalism rots the soul. Under a far right regime, banking as we know it would cease to exist and all debts would be eliminated.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Interview with Dr. Michael Hudson – Part I: Trouble in Europe - Eric Janszen

            Originally posted by Rajiv View Post
            Do read the discussion at the two threads I linked to earlier -- I have outlined where I think the problem is coming from - namely
            Intergenerational transfer of wealth,
            and the nature of economic exchange and the power relationships that are inherent in that.
            These cannot be fixed so long as all power is concentrated in a central authority. Economic wealth and political power ride in the same bus.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Interview with Dr. Michael Hudson – Part I: Trouble in Europe - Eric Janszen

              This neo-feudal order that BIS according to Dr. Michael Hudson wants to introduce how would look like ? There will be rich owners(bankers in the past) of a cities with technology and industry and between wild deindustralized areas ? This interview shouldn’t be in conspiracy area?;)
              Last edited by sandwind; 04-19-10, 02:14 AM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Interview with Dr. Michael Hudson – Part I: Trouble in Europe - Eric Janszen

                EJ: Where would we find this contract to verify these facts? If we were to scout around on the Internet where would we find the rules that specifically disallow…

                MH: In the past Iceland has asked America to mediate. For instance, when Iceland had an argument with Britain over fishing territory, it asked the United States to mediate and the US came down on the side of Iceland. I think it already raised the debt issue with Hillary Clinton but the State Department didn’t give an answer and Iceland worries that America and England may stand up to the financial interests in this case. So I don’t know. No government looks like it wants to get involved so Iceland is basically saying, “okay, we’ll look around in Asia or we’ll look around at our nearest neighbors across the Arctic Circle, in Russia and China, for help.”

                So they’re certainly looking there. The other problem of course is domestic debts in Iceland that are indexed to the Consumer Price Index that in turn reflects the exchange rate, because consumer products are mainly imported. So obviously there’s an argument there that the practice of tying interest rates to the CPI violate the constitution; the Constitution of Iceland explicitly prevents this practice. And yet this has been the practice for decades that’s bankrupting Icelanders. People are trying to get it into court. The government, the current social democratic government, which is on the right-wing political spectrum there, is blocking at this.
                It seems that he didn't answer your question . . . .

                Is this a transcription error, bad phone connection, or what?
                raja
                Boycott Big Banks • Vote Out Incumbents

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Interview with Dr. Michael Hudson – Part I: Trouble in Europe - Eric Janszen

                  I agree, Hudson is not a Marxist. I think he would agree with the following . . . .

                  Here's where Marx got it wrong:

                  It is important to recognize that Marx viewed the structure of society in relation to its major classes, and the struggle between them as the engine of change in this structure. His was no equilibrium or consensus theory. Conflict was not deviational within society's structure, nor were classes functional elements maintaining the system. The structure itself was a derivative of and ingredient in the struggle of classes. His was a conflict view of modem (nineteenth century) society.
                  The reality is that it is an equilibrium, a homeostasis.
                  That's why you haven't seen a class revolution in the US.
                  When the working class feels it's getting a fair shake, they accept the existence of a Financial Elite.
                  However, when the balance between the Elite and the rest of us gets too far out of whack, as it is now, then the People get cranky. If it gets too bad, heads will roll.

                  To have any reasonable society at all, there must be classes. Otherwise, who's going to clean the toilets?
                  But sometimes the Financial Elite forget that, and actually think that they are "doing God's work when they drive the Middle Class into Debt Servitude. That's not only stupid, it's self-destructive.

                  When the Elite forget, which they periodically do, they have to be reigned in by force -- force of law, or pitchforks and torches.

                  It's foolish to think that socialist (i.e., for The People) financial reforms are unnecessary . . . look where where we are today after years of weak laws constraining the Financial Elite . . . .

                  -> Webmaster . . . Fonts are still not right. When typing in the Reply window, the fonts are much larger than the normal post fonts. This makes it hard to respond, since it's only possible to see a few lines at a time.
                  raja
                  Boycott Big Banks • Vote Out Incumbents

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Interview with Dr. Michael Hudson – Part I: Trouble in Europe - Eric Janszen

                    Originally posted by sandwind View Post
                    This neo-feudal order that BIS according to Dr. Michael Hudson wants to introduce how would look like ? There will be rich owners(bankers in the past) of a cities with technology and industry and between wild deindustralized areas ? This interview shouldn’t be in conspiracy area?;)
                    This video clip is circulating around the tech world describing some of what is being worked on now (from a Feb 2010 tech conference). This provides a little insight into some of the influences and control systems that might be in place in a future 'neo-feudal' society.



                    http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/c...on-of-the-year
                    Last edited by reggie; 04-20-10, 02:00 PM.
                    The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge ~D Boorstin

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Interview with Dr. Michael Hudson – Part I: Trouble in Europe - Eric Janszen

                      Originally posted by raja View Post
                      I agree, Hudson is not a Marxist.
                      .
                      .
                      .

                      The reality is that it is an equilibrium, a homeostasis.
                      That's why you haven't seen a class revolution in the US.
                      When the working class feels it's getting a fair shake, they accept the existence of a Financial Elite.
                      However, when the balance between the Elite and the rest of us gets too far out of whack, as it is now, then the People get cranky. If it gets too bad, heads will roll.

                      To have any reasonable society at all, there must be classes. Otherwise, who's going to clean the toilets?

                      But sometimes the Financial Elite forget that, and actually think that they are "doing God's work when they drive the Middle Class into Debt Servitude. That's not only stupid, it's self-destructive.

                      When the Elite forget, which they periodically do, they have to be reigned in by force -- force of law, or pitchforks and torches
                      .
                      In light of this post, perhaps it is appropriate to review and more closely examine Zbigniew Brzezinski's book and speech tour, for the elite appear to be well aware of the implications of their actions:

                      http://www.amazon.com/Choice-Global-.../dp/0465008003
                      Last edited by reggie; 04-20-10, 02:32 PM.
                      The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge ~D Boorstin

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X