Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Interview Summary: Dr. Michael Hudson

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

  • Interview Summary: Dr. Michael Hudson

    Interview Summary: Dr. Michael Hudson

    by Eric Janszen - August 21, 2007

    It's unanimous, at least between the two presidential candidates who have ideas about economic policy that are more than just more of the same: "Get rid of the Fed"

    We caught up with Dr. Michael Hudson for an update interview last week. We interviewed him back in March 2007 and interviewed him again in light of recent events in the markets and his yet to be officially announced appointment as Chief Economic Policy Adviser to Dennis Kucinich's presidential campaign.

    Regardless of whether readers think Kucinich has a chance at winning the Democratic party primary or the election, in his new role Hudson's ideas will influence the economic debate just as Rep. Ron Paul's have. We are arranging an interview with Ron Paul to get his perspective on the same issues. (I spoke with a member of the Paul campaign yesterday and we are working on a time to talk either at the Hard Assets Conference in Las Vegas September 10 - 11 where I am delivering the keynote speech, if Sen. Paul attends again this year, or on the phone. We'll let you know when we know.)

    You can already see Hudson language showing up in Kucinich statements on the economy, such as this one that uses the Hudson-esque phrase "debt-financed capitalism."
    Kucinich calls for federal oversight to quell market volatility

    Focusing on largely unregulated hedge funds and the scandalous practices of unscrupulous sub-prime lenders, Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich told a San Francisco audience that the Securities and Exchange Commissions and the Federal Reserve must step up their oversight responsibilities.

    In a major economic policy address at the Commonwealth Club yesterday (Friday, August 10), Kucinich also warned that the "debt-financed capitalism" is reaching an economically dangerous level and could lead to a recession.

    Kucinich's economic policies, now coming as they do largely from Hudson, appear virtually indistinguishable from Ron Paul's.

    Both believe radical reform of the tax system is needed. But whereas Paul wants to abolish the IRS, Hudson believes that the income tax system needs to be rolled back to reflect its original intent, which was to support the growth of a strong middle class. Whether the new tax policies are carried out by the IRS or some other institution is not as relevant to Hudson as the tax policies themselves. In his view, tax policies need to encourage capital formation and capital investment in industry rather than in asset speculation, and Americans need to be rewarded for building wealth from productive work over earning capital gains from asset inflation. Sen. Paul is known to hold similar views.

    In the interview, this perspective came as a surprise: Hudson, like Paul, believes that the Fed should be abolished. Hudson sees the Fed as an institution designed to support financial interests against the U.S. government.

    The major difference between Hudson and Paul is that Paul's philosophies are rooted in Austrian economics whereas Hudson, as an economics historian, draws on an extended historical perspective. Paul is known to express the belief that government can be eliminated from economic planning, and that capitalist markets if allowed to work without interference from the Fed and other government and quasi-government agencies will take our economy in the right direction. Hudson, on the other hand, believes that conception is unscientific when viewed in the context of the past few thousand years of political economic development. To Hudson, the concept of free market economic determination is ideological, that the utopian ideal of a pure free market economy has never worked in practice.

    According to Hudson, implementation of a pure free market economic model in practice means ceding economic planning to financial interests. Naturally, the economic planning that results tends to be self-serving, eventually leading to the kind of debt based money system and credit laden economy we see today. Paradoxically, in Hudson's view, the Fed–so loathed by the free market believers–is a creation of free markets, an institution designed to protect the interests of financial institutions which grew to fill the economic planning power void created by free market politics.

    It's an intriguing argument. If that strikes readers as radical, some of the solutions that Hudson proposes, such as government participation in corporations as a shareholder, will make Milton Friedman libertarians jump out of their skin.

    Before we dive into the interview, a quick note on iTulip's approach to gathering expert opinion.

    iTulip seeks out expertise from across a broad spectrum of opinion on economics and finance. Our objective is to develop the best understanding of how the political economy actually works, versus how we'd like to imagine it works, in order to have the best chance of improving the predictive value of our models. We then talk to insiders to determine where we are in the process. Our record to date (Note: One call each, not over and over like a broken clock):

    NASDAQ Bubble
    Housing BubbleEconomics and politics are inextricably intertwined, so our models take into account how possible economic outcomes may impact political outcomes and, conversely, how possible political outcomes may affect economic outcomes. However, we attempt to avoid political discussion to maintain our focus on finance and economics, and strive for as much political neutrality as possible. We consider ourselves to have succeeded at achieving political neutrality when we receive a more or less equal number of complaints of bias from both the right and the left.

    These days we find the distinctions of left or right, Keynesian or Austrian, and so on, increasingly inutile.

    The economists we interview generally fall into two categories: economists on the finance economy payroll and economists not on the finance economy payroll. One can usually tell whether or not an economist is on the finance economy payroll or not by his or her position on three key test issues. Call it the iTulip Economist Independence Test.

    Finance Economy EconomistIndependent Economist
    Housing BubbleTwo years ago: "There is no housing bubble."

    One year ago: "Ok, there was a housing bubble but it was no big deal."

    Now: "Ok, it was a big deal, but not enough of a big deal that its collapse will lead to a recession."

    One year from now, "Ok, it was enough of a big deal to cause a recession, an asset price deflation and decline of the finance economy, but when this is all over it's back to business as usual."
    Two years ago: "By holding interest rates down too far too long in the early 2000s the Fed created a housing bubble to prop up the economy after the collapse of the technology stock bubble, which was created when the Fed kept interest rates down too long in the 1990s."

    One year ago: "The housing bubble is now collapsing."

    Now: "The collapse will badly damage the economy, certainly leading to recession and quite possibly worse."

    One year from now: "Told you so."
    Financial Assets CrashThere is no crash, only temporary volatility that will quickly pass once loans to banks from the Fed calm investors. The DOW will soon resume its inexorable climb to 20,000.The asset markets are in a crash process that will not end until trillions of dollars in fictitious value reflected in inflated asset prices is written off or inflated away.
    Free MarketsA "free market" is when you get laid off from your job making parts for GM cars because GM made bad bets on products and failed to compete effectively with foreign auto manufacturers. A "free market" is also when the Fed loans money to banks that made a fortune selling mortgage-backed securities to foreign pension funds when the bets turn out wrong and those securities turn out to be worthless. A "free market" is when you get laid off from your job making parts for GM cars because GM made bad bets on products and failed to compete effectively with foreign auto manufacturers. A "free market" is also when the Fed does not loan money to banks that made a fortune selling mortgage-backed securities to foreign pension funds when the bets turned out to be bad and securities worthless but instead allows the market to determine their fate. Or, if the Fed is going to loan money to failing banks because they made bad bets, then it should also loan money to the auto parts business so it can stay in business, too.

    By this test, Dr. Michael Hudson is in the Independent Economist group.

    Our interview with Dr. Hudson is available to iTulip Select subscribers here.

    iTulip Select: The Investment Thesis for the Next Cycle™
    __________________________________________________

    Special iTulip discounted subscription and pay services:

    For a book that explains iTulip concepts in simple terms see americasbubbleeconomy
    For macro-economic and geopolitical currency ETF advisory services see Crooks on Currencies
    For
    macro-economic and geopolitical currency options advisory services see Crooks Currency Options
    For the safest, lowest cost way to buy and trade gold, see The Bullionvault
    To receive the iTulip Newsletter or iTulip Alerts, Join our FREE Email Mailing List


    Copyright © iTulip, Inc. 1998 - 2007 All Rights Reserved


    All information provided "as is" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice.
    Nothing appearing on this website should be considered a recommendation to buy or to sell any security or related financial instrument. iTulip, Inc. is not liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. Full Disclaimer
    Last edited by EJ; 08-22-07, 05:48 PM.

  • #2
    Re: Interview Summary: Dr. Michael Hudson

    Great summary on the economists. Funny how the guy who runs the NYC market operations for the Fed, Dudley I believe his name is, is from Goldman. Let me ask though from a practical standpoint, what does inflating asset value away mean for housing and stocks? For housing, do you mean they'll cut rates such that wages and rents rise so high that they catch up to the price of houses for instance? It suggests that you're stuck investing in stocks and real estate despite the huge risk that such assets end of deflating despite the Fed's efforts.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Interview Summary: Dr. Michael Hudson

      I've come to the viewpoint that this debate (at least, among those who acknowledge that our system is horribly broken) between "the free market as utopia" and "government as wise overseer" is a false dilemma. In actuality, what we need is for the people to be ever-vigilant and never to surrender their self-sovereignty to ANYTHING; not "the man from the government", nor the corporate boss, nor the man from Wall Street.

      What we're observing is that when society surrenders its self-sovereignty, either out of sloth or greed or ignorance, SOMEONE will come along and enslave it.

      I certainly find it difficult to characterize what we have as "purely" a takeover of the country by Wall Street: at some point the rules that enslave us need to be voted in or passed as legislation by someone who was voted in, or put in place by executive order by some despot. It requires a complicit government status quo and a complicit or apathetic people.

      A strong government is at the root of the problem: strong government will pollute any sort of regime that is in place, whether prevailingly socialist or prevailingly capitalist. I view the "proper" sort of government as one largely absent of coercion; representing the congress of a free and self-sovereign people coming together to create beneficial order -- not to enslave some portion of itself for the other's benefit.

      All that said, I think a way to achieve a lot of this IS specifically to abolish the central bank. Why should there be a monopoly on money? Why should there be centralized control of the banking system? Why should the price of money be fixed, not determined by market forces like almost everything else? This system represents the worst of both capitalism AND government, and is certainly not free.

      A system (or more accurately, non-system) where only the hardest money comes closest to being standard is a better one. It is the system that prevailed during the time when this country had its rise to greatness. It is the only system that allows the average man to save money simply by storing it securely as opposed to giving it up to some shylock, and to earn more as opposed to LESS every year by default. It is the system that two central banks prior to the Fed were dissolved to defend. And Wall Street/the Fed hopes that these facts stay wiped from the pages of history as we know it.

      My great hope, and that which I see encouraging signs toward, is that the internet will help people to be more self-sovereign. Then, no matter what system is put in place, it will be harder to "pull one over" on everyone. I think the 20th century will be remembered as a historical oddity, where most information most people encountered came to them through broadcast mass-media channels that were especially easy for concentrated interests to control, while at the same time local communities were broken down, removing natural checks on these corrupting influences.

      Now we have reversal: broadcast media being challenged by the freer, decentralized flow of ideas the internet facilitates. Sure, there are bad ideas and information out there, but there is a greater diversity of ideas and it is difficult to "drown another viewpoint" out. And person-to-person communities can form more easily, with distance much less of a factor. All of this is perhaps why the concentrated interests try so hard to simply shut the medium down (e.g., the Great Firewall in China, and SLAPP attacks in the US, such as the ml-implode lawsuit).

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Interview Summary: Dr. Michael Hudson

        Originally posted by akrowne View Post
        I've come to the viewpoint that this debate (at least, among those who acknowledge that our system is horribly broken) between "the free market as utopia" and "government as wise overseer" is a false dilemma. In actuality, what we need is for the people to be ever-vigilant and never to surrender their self-sovereignty to ANYTHING; not "the man from the government", nor the corporate boss, nor the man from Wall Street.

        What we're observing is that when society surrenders its self-sovereignty, either out of sloth or greed or ignorance, SOMEONE will come along and enslave it.

        I certainly find it difficult to characterize what we have as "purely" a takeover of the country by Wall Street: at some point the rules that enslave us need to be voted in or passed as legislation by someone who was voted in, or put in place by executive order by some despot. It requires a complicit government status quo and a complicit or apathetic people.

        A strong government is at the root of the problem: strong government will pollute any sort of regime that is in place, whether prevailingly socialist or prevailingly capitalist. I view the "proper" sort of government as one largely absent of coercion; representing the congress of a free and self-sovereign people coming together to create beneficial order -- not to enslave some portion of itself for the other's benefit.

        All that said, I think a way to achieve a lot of this IS specifically to abolish the central bank. Why should there be a monopoly on money? Why should there be centralized control of the banking system? Why should the price of money be fixed, not determined by market forces like almost everything else? This system represents the worst of both capitalism AND government, and is certainly not free.

        A system (or more accurately, non-system) where only the hardest money comes closest to being standard is a better one. It is the system that prevailed during the time when this country had its rise to greatness. It is the only system that allows the average man to save money simply by storing it securely as opposed to giving it up to some shylock, and to earn more as opposed to LESS every year by default. It is the system that two central banks prior to the Fed were dissolved to defend. And Wall Street/the Fed hopes that these facts stay wiped from the pages of history as we know it.

        My great hope, and that which I see encouraging signs toward, is that the internet will help people to be more self-sovereign. Then, no matter what system is put in place, it will be harder to "pull one over" on everyone. I think the 20th century will be remembered as a historical oddity, where most information most people encountered came to them through broadcast mass-media channels that were especially easy for concentrated interests to control, while at the same time local communities were broken down, removing natural checks on these corrupting influences.

        Now we have reversal: broadcast media being challenged by the freer, decentralized flow of ideas the internet facilitates. Sure, there are bad ideas and information out there, but there is a greater diversity of ideas and it is difficult to "drown another viewpoint" out. And person-to-person communities can form more easily, with distance much less of a factor. All of this is perhaps why the concentrated interests try so hard to simply shut the medium down (e.g., the Great Firewall in China, and SLAPP attacks in the US, such as the ml-implode lawsuit).
        like your spirit but, uh. i'm reading today words about utopia.

        they are leaving the internet open now to collect data on who is who. later they will use the data.

        i am so worried about how this will turn out...

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Interview Summary: Dr. Michael Hudson

          Originally posted by akrowne View Post
          I've come to the viewpoint that this debate (at least, among those who acknowledge that our system is horribly broken) between "the free market as utopia" and "government as wise overseer" is a false dilemma. In actuality, what we need is for the people to be ever-vigilant and never to surrender their self-sovereignty to ANYTHING; not "the man from the government", nor the corporate boss, nor the man from Wall Street...

          ...I certainly find it difficult to characterize what we have as "purely" a takeover of the country by Wall Street: ... It requires a complicit government status quo and a complicit or apathetic people...

          ...All that said, I think a way to achieve a lot of this IS specifically to abolish the central bank. Why should there be a monopoly on money? Why should there be centralized control of the banking system? Why should the price of money be fixed, not determined by market forces like almost everything else? This system represents the worst of both capitalism AND government, and is certainly not free...

          ...My great hope, and that which I see encouraging signs toward, is that the internet will help people to be more self-sovereign. Then, no matter what system is put in place, it will be harder to "pull one over" on everyone. I think the 20th century will be remembered as a historical oddity, where most information most people encountered came to them through broadcast mass-media channels that were especially easy for concentrated interests to control, while at the same time local communities were broken down, removing natural checks on these corrupting influences.

          Now we have reversal: broadcast media being challenged by the freer, decentralized flow of ideas the internet facilitates. Sure, there are bad ideas and information out there, but there is a greater diversity of ideas and it is difficult to "drown another viewpoint" out. And person-to-person communities can form more easily, with distance much less of a factor. All of this is perhaps why the concentrated interests try so hard to simply shut the medium down (e.g., the Great Firewall in China, and SLAPP attacks in the US, such as the ml-implode lawsuit).
          As one with libertarian inclinations I have a great deal of sympathy with akrowne's views. Two observations:
          1. I no longer believe the Fed controls "the price of money". This week's gyrations in market yields is but the latest evidence. EJ wrote that the Fed will be behind the curve cutting rates all the way down and then all the way back up in the next reflation. It seems that the Fed following, not leading, rates has been the historical pattern also. The breathless attention paid to Fed rates by the financial media seems entirely misplaced.

          2. I am more optimistic than metalman. What akrowne describes is happening in spades over here in the Middle East where I live. There is no effective separation of religion and state in Islam. Governments use this as reason to try to control virtually every aspect of citizen's lives. Governments here levy no income or property taxes and therefore have the luxury of adopting "no representation without taxation" (essentially the ruling family is the government). The kids have figured out how to make bootleg connections to the internet using salvaged/scavanged gear so even the poorest Shiite village is now able to bypass the official media/information sources and the secret police wiretaps on their government monopoly phone. The middle class in Saudi and Syria have smuggled in thousands of sat dishes (where they are officially banned), to the point where the authorties have largely given up. The "freer, decentralized flow of ideas" that Aaron describes is happening, there's no stopping it now, and this part of the world will be all the better off for it.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Interview Summary: Dr. Michael Hudson

            The Itulip select inspired my new Tshirt



            http://www.cafepress.com/radicaleconomic.162647182

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Interview Summary: Dr. Michael Hudson

              I would like to learn the ideals and values around "self-sovereignty."

              Since there are good reasons to believe our financial models are un-sustainable, how will sustainable models be implemented through social institutions that promote "self-sovereignty."

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Interview Summary: Dr. Michael Hudson

                Some of your questions may have an answer here

                Many resources at Complementary Currency Resource Center

                also Introduction to the foundation and practice of appropriate economics

                the Principles of Complementary Currency Systems

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Interview Summary: Dr. Michael Hudson

                  Originally posted by EJ View Post
                  We caught up with Dr. Michael Hudson for an update interview last week. We interviewed him back in March 2007 and interviewed him again in light of recent events in the markets and his yet to be officially announced appointment as Chief Economic Policy Adviser to Dennis Kucinich's presidential campaign.
                  Let's review some of Mr. Kucinich's statements from the Iowa debate between democratic candidates on August 19.

                  STEPHANOPOULOS: We saw, on Friday, the Federal Reserve lowered the discount rate for banks. Should they lower rates for everyone else, yes or no?
                  Obvious nonsense. Fed's charter does not let it control "everybody's" rates, but let's ignore it for now and concentrate on the answer. Let's skip the answers of other candidates and go directly to Mr. Kucinich.

                  KUCINICH: The answer is no. The Fed is actually looking at bailing out the creditors. And what we're looking at is a continuation of the problem and a postponement of the day of reckoning.
                  So far so good.

                  We need to have a government take strong action where we'll loan money to those who are in trouble. But we need to do that in exchange for having the power, the money-lending power that the banks have right now, come back to the government;
                  "back to the government"?!! The gov't never had this power. The only "back" here may be back to the free maket, (i.e the gold standard).

                  government spends money into circulation; and then government can maintain control over the economy.
                  OOPS! This is not enough for the gov't to have control over money, it also has to control the economy!

                  If Mr. Hudson works for this guy, I'd stay away from him. Granted, he may be a brilliant economist, but so is Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan, and so was Karl Marx.

                  m.
                  медведь

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Interview Summary: Dr. Michael Hudson

                    Medved,

                    I have some questions for you --

                    according to Section 8 of the US constitution

                    The Congress shall have Power To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
                    So the US Govt can create money -- so how does it bring this money into circulation?

                    Does it lend it?
                    Does it spend it?
                    or
                    Does it give it away?
                    and how? and to whom?

                    Additionally

                    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
                    We can argue, that The Government shall borrow money for its own expenditure, and pay those debts by taxing and collecting fees for services.

                    But the question still remains as to how does the newly coined/printed money come into circulation?
                    Last edited by Rajiv; 08-23-07, 09:24 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Interview Summary: Dr. Michael Hudson

                      In an article you posted on 4/13/07, "Are We Idiots?" (accurately calling Carl Steidtmann a fool), you also made a point of calibrating your skeptic credentials by mentioning your skepticism of Michael Hudson's integrity:
                      Source of paycheck needs to be factored into any expert's opinion. We interviewed Dr. Hudson and interpret his views from the perspective of an expert who consults to the Chinese government. We'd be surprised if Dr. Hudson's public statements on China were wholly inconsistent with the interests of his clients.
                      But I see no such questions about who's paying Hudson now. No mention of China. And no mention of who's paying for his advice to these presidential campaigns. Is it just the regular donors to these underfunded campaigns?
                      Are we sure he isn't being subsidized to insert his advice into campaigns that will not win the election, but will get policies inserted into the debate surrounding it?

                      I'm looking for a way to reconcile Hudson's symbol as covertly owned, secretly biased advice, with his presentation here as the voice of reason. The only difference between the two views is that they're presented in two different pages, one largely forgotten.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Interview Summary: Dr. Michael Hudson

                        I think if you look at the body of Michael Hudson's writings, they are pretty consistent in terms of how his thinking has evolved over the years.

                        And yes politics is always a part of how one proposes, presents and implements policies.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Interview Summary: Dr. Michael Hudson

                          Originally posted by medved View Post
                          Let's review some of Mr. Kucinich's statements from the Iowa debate between democratic candidates on August 19.



                          Obvious nonsense. Fed's charter does not let it control "everybody's" rates, but let's ignore it for now and concentrate on the answer. Let's skip the answers of other candidates and go directly to Mr. Kucinich.



                          So far so good.



                          "back to the government"?!! The gov't never had this power. The only "back" here may be back to the free maket, (i.e the gold standard).



                          OOPS! This is not enough for the gov't to have control over money, it also has to control the economy!

                          If Mr. Hudson works for this guy, I'd stay away from him. Granted, he may be a brilliant economist, but so is Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan, and so was Karl Marx.

                          m.
                          Hudson is promoting an idea that is heretical both to the left wing and the right wing. Editorially, it is not our role to agree or disagree with his perspective. We encourage heretical viewpoints based on the premise that learning happens when we intellectually stress test our favorite stories.

                          One of my own favorite stories is that free markets deliver better and more fair results to society than planned economies. Hudson challenges this, using his credentials as an economics historian, by saying that government organized around the concept of "free markets" has always led in the real world to economies planned by and run by financial institutions. He sees the Fed specifically as an institution designed to maintain banking and debt creation as the central force in the economic planning process in the U.S. He proposes as a solution that the economic planning process be restored to elected government where it can be focused on supporting the interests of the electorate, specifically the middle class.

                          If you are curious to know my personal opinion on this, I would say that I am listening to his solutions but the thought of government participation in private enterprise via securities ownership is so far outside my way of thinking that at this point don't see how I'd get there. I nervously watch the intellectual sea change that has occurred over the past 20 years years on the acceptance of government participation in markets and private enterprise. When the Bank of Japan stepped in to buy stocks to support the NIKKEI in the early 1990s, there was a huge outcry by free market thinkers about government interference in markets. A line had been crossed. The Fed recently said it is ready to step in and support mortgage securities prices at the discount window. It hasn't happened yet, but some day when the Fed buys asset backed securities and other mortgage paper this will raise the interesting question from a free markets perspective that is less relevant when the Fed is buying government paper: when should the Fed sell, to whom, and at what price? Yet I have heard little objection to the Fed's expansion into this area.

                          Another recent development is the rise of Sovereign Wealth Funds. Initially, more than $2 trillion in government funds are being invested in domestic and foreign private companies. Whether we like it or not, the fact of government and central bank participation in private enterprise via securities ownership is becoming a reality no matter who we vote for. I believe this development will have a profound impact on how markets and investments behave and a worthy topic of discussion here at iTulip.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Interview Summary: Dr. Michael Hudson

                            Originally posted by Vanderbilt View Post
                            In an article you posted on 4/13/07, "Are We Idiots?" (accurately calling Carl Steidtmann a fool), you also made a point of calibrating your skeptic credentials by mentioning your skepticism of Michael Hudson's integrity:
                            Source of paycheck needs to be factored into any expert's opinion. We interviewed Dr. Hudson and interpret his views from the perspective of an expert who consults to the Chinese government. We'd be surprised if Dr. Hudson's public statements on China were wholly inconsistent with the interests of his clients.
                            But I see no such questions about who's paying Hudson now. No mention of China. And no mention of who's paying for his advice to these presidential campaigns. Is it just the regular donors to these underfunded campaigns?
                            Are we sure he isn't being subsidized to insert his advice into campaigns that will not win the election, but will get policies inserted into the debate surrounding it?

                            I'm looking for a way to reconcile Hudson's symbol as covertly owned, secretly biased advice, with his presentation here as the voice of reason. The only difference between the two views is that they're presented in two different pages, one largely forgotten.
                            Everyone has bias: experiential, temperamental, ideological, not to mention a natural bias toward the client signing the paycheck. I consistently suggest that readers make themselves aware of potential sources of bias. In Hudson's case, I might have been unfair by suggesting that his views may conform to the interests of his government clients. There are people in this world who do not adapt their beliefs to their clients' desires but instead forge ahead with their convictions and principles, and it is for this reputation for sticking to their beliefs that they are hired in the first place. It's up to readers to weigh the evidence and decide whether Hudson is one of those.

                            Hudson has worked for many governments over the past several decades: Russia, China, Canada, Mexico, the USA. Before the U.S. went off the fractional reserve gold standard in the early 1970s, the White House hired Hudson to review a plan they had to go onto a treasury dollar based standard. What might happen? His report was that such a policy was destined to result in massive trade deficits as U.S. trade partners purchased dollars to prevent the trade value of their own currencies from appreciating and thus limited their trade with partners other than the U.S. The process would continue until the U.S. absorbed the entire economic surplus of its trade partners. Rather than taking this as a warning not to do it, the White House took it as a prescription for sound economic policy.

                            Hudson's views are interesting because of his decades of first person participation in events. Same goes for Martin Mayer and others we interview here. Whether or not you agree with Hudson, one thing you can say about him is that he's not a one handed economist–none of this "on the one hand this and the other hand that." At the end of the day, the measure of an economist is the predictive value of their forecasts. While the economists on the finance economy payroll, as we define them, have a consistently lousy record, only time will tell whether Hudson's is more accurate.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Interview Summary: Dr. Michael Hudson

                              Originally posted by Rajiv View Post
                              I think if you look at the body of Michael Hudson's writings, they are pretty consistent in terms of how his thinking has evolved over the years.
                              And yes politics is always a part of how one proposes, presents and implements policies.
                              So are you saying that the same people, including the Chinese government, have always "sponsored" Hudson's "politics"? And that therefore Hudson's advice to these presidential campaigns need not mention that mutual interest with those kinds of clients?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X