RSS
Richard D. Wolff and Michael Hudson, Dialogue Works
“This transcript has been edited and formatted for clarity, readability, and flow. Minor typographical and grammatical changes have been made to improve coherence.”
NIMA: So nice to have you back, Michael, on this podcast. We’re waiting for Richard to join us. Let’s get started with the debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. What’s your understanding of the outcome of the foreign policy of the United States when it comes to the economic war between the United States and China?
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, I don’t think there was any outcome at all. The questioners were obviously supporters of the Democratic Party, and they wanted to make it all about personality, mostly Trump’s personality. They kept trying to goad him about things like how many people attended his rallies. When Trump would try to raise an economic issue, like asking if people are better off today than they were four years ago under his administration, Kamala would just say, “Well, I’m a member of the middle class, I’m all for the middle class,” and then go into a stump speech. But that’s not about policy.
They very carefully avoided talking about policy. It’s obvious that if you’re supporting the re-election of Biden and Trump and the Democrats, how on earth can you permit economic policy to be discussed without acknowledging why Americans are in a worse economic position today? And it’s not simply because of inflation. ABC’s questioners kept trying to say, “Well, inflation is down, so why are people complaining?” People are complaining because they can’t afford to live without going deeper into debt. They can’t afford to buy or even rent housing without accumulating debt, and if they buy a house, they’ll need mortgage debt. These are taboo subjects.
Whenever Trump tried to bring up topics like that, they would divert the issue. Trump didn’t point out that, if Kamala is middle class, when she was Attorney General of California, why didn’t she help Hispanic and Black homeowners being evicted by Mnuchin for his vast mortgage fraud? But Trump couldn’t say that because he later appointed Mnuchin as his own Treasury Secretary. So, there’s this kind of compact between both Republicans and Democrats not to acknowledge the actual economic policies at play.
The questioners also tried to goad Trump into talking about the war in Ukraine, asking him if he wanted Ukraine to lose to Putin. It was more of the same Putin derangement syndrome. Trump didn’t fall for it. He simply said, “I want peace. There has to be a peace agreement.” That was the closest they came to discussing anything economic. He didn’t talk about the cost of the military-industrial complex or the money Biden and his son received from Ukraine. So, there really wasn’t much of a foreign policy debate, just flag-waving nationalism.
NIMA: Michael, how did you find the policy toward Gaza and what’s going on there? Did you see any difference between what Kamala was saying and what Trump pointed out?
Toward Israel and Palestine? Neither of them could make any criticisms because they both receive so much money from the Zionist lobby, from AIPAC. I was amazed at how Kamala was just outright saying, “We are absolutely behind Israel. It has a right to defend itself.” The fact is, Israel has killed so many Palestinians and assassinated them that it’s afraid they’ll fight back. Because it’s hurt them so much, of course, it’s afraid of retaliation. So, they justify bombing the Palestinians because as long as any are left, they’ll be resentful. I think she lost the Palestinian vote in Michigan and Minnesota with that extreme statement.
NIMA: Richard, welcome.
RICHARD WOLFF: Yes, my apologies. Thank you. I got stuck in the New York City subway system.
MICHAEL HUDSON: That’s what I told him. I said, New York is not very good at maintaining internet access compared to more developed countries.
RICHARD WOLFF: Yes, exactly.
NIMA: Richard, we’re discussing the Trump-Harris debate. What’s your take on their foreign policy positions, especially regarding Ukraine and Israel?
RICHARD WOLFF: Mr. Trump didn’t offer anything concrete, other than saying he would have done a wonderful job. The level of discourse in that debate tells you something about a society that has lost all connection to its political processes. Are we really talking about societal problems and looking for solutions, or at least directions? I don’t think so. It’s not just the lunacy, like the absurd comments about Haitian immigrants eating pets. The real sadness lies in what wasn’t addressed.
Let me give you an example that really struck me. We are living through a massive reorganization of the world economy. The near-monopolistic position of the United States, which lasted most of the last century, is over. There’s another player now, China, which is catching up or has surpassed the U.S. in high-tech and other areas. The BRICS group is already a larger economic bloc than the G7. The U.S.’s global position is radically shifting, and the direction is now clear.
The question is, what will the U.S. do? Will it continue imposing tariffs and provocations around Taiwan, trying to hold back China? Or will it sit down and work out a way to share the planet, respecting each other’s frameworks while addressing ecological concerns? This would open up questions about the Monroe Doctrine and other long-standing policies. But we didn’t hear anything about that.
Is the U.S. going to accommodate the decline of its empire, or fight tooth and nail? What do the Republicans propose, and what do the Democrats propose? These are the dominant questions, within which issues like Taiwan, Israel, or Ukraine are symptoms, specifics within a larger framework. But we get nothing. This is what some of my friends call a “nothing burger”—you open it up, and there’s nothing inside.
NIMA: Michael?
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, Richard points out that the American decline and what to do about it should be discussed. But it can’t be, because the decline is a direct result of the policies both Democrats and Republicans are following. How can they discuss these policies without confronting the fact that they’re leading to de-industrialization and shifting global power toward East Asia?
RICHARD WOLFF: Exactly. They can’t discuss it because they can’t admit what the problem is in the first place. It reminds me of the rule in Alcoholics Anonymous: before you speak at a meeting, you have to admit you have a problem. That’s the first step. But our politicians can’t take that step. They want to be cheerleaders—rah, rah, rah for what we have. They admit a problem here and there, and promise to fix it, but they won’t admit that we have a systemic issue.
We never talk about capitalism as a problem. It’s as if we don’t have a specific economic system, and nothing about that system is up for debate. Critics joke that we have two pro-capitalist parties, and they’re right. There’s no criticism or discussion of the economic system itself.
You know what that is? It’s a hysterical refusal to even ask questions, to admit that there might be something within the capitalist system—whether it’s the profit maximization rule in investment or the structure where a tiny group in every workplace makes all the decisions on production and profits.
This hysteria doesn’t show up as yelling or screaming, though we’re getting closer to that. Instead, it manifests in an unspoken agreement to treat certain topics as taboo—whether it’s sex, religion, or capitalism—and never discuss them.
The closest the debate got to mentioning these taboos was when Trump called Kamala a Marxist and referred to her father’s Marxism. I thought she handled it well, rolling her eyes and brushing it off, as did everyone else. The comment was inappropriate and garnered no interest. Honestly, I’m glad it didn’t go further. It would have led nowhere productive, but it was a clear signal: discussions about capitalism and Marxism are out of bounds—just as inconceivable as someone taking their clothes off during the debate.
NIMA: Now, Michael, what are the proposed solutions from these two candidates? It seems like Trump’s plan is more tariffs—particularly targeting countries not trading in U.S. dollars. Do you think Trump can convince these countries with tariffs?
MICHAEL HUDSON: The Biden administration is already convinced. It’s not just Trump talking about tariffs. Congress has passed a law set to take effect on January 5, 2025, doubling tariffs to 25%-50% on Chinese imports like semiconductors, solar cells, needles, and syringes. Plans are also in place for a 100% tariff on Chinese-made electric vehicles. Trump is just going along with this pre-existing U.S. policy.
The 100% vehicle tariff was scheduled for August 1st but was delayed to allow for public review, likely to avoid backlash before the election. Meanwhile, Canada has already announced its own 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles starting October 1st, along with 25% tariffs on aluminum and steel.
What Trump has focused on most is steel, and it’s worth discussing because it highlights how self-destructive American foreign policy can be. U.S. strategists seem to operate under the assumption that they can impose aggressive economic or military policies, such as tariffs, without expecting other countries to retaliate. It’s as if they believe that countries will simply accept U.S. actions, just as Germany did when the U.S. destroyed the Nord Stream pipeline, which had been supplying the gas essential for Germany’s chemical, fertilizer, and steel industries.
Now, when the U.S. imposes tariffs on China, what can China do? It’s not likely to complain to the World Trade Organization (WTO) because, for years, the U.S. has effectively paralyzed the WTO by refusing to appoint referees, leaving it without the quorum needed to make decisions. Even though China might win damages in such a case, it knows the WTO operates under U.S. influence and functions like a kangaroo court. So China will likely respond in other ways.
If the U.S. imposes a 100% tariff on vehicles or steel, China can retaliate with something much stronger—let’s call it triple damages. China could impose a 300% export fee on materials critical to the U.S. economy, like aluminum, germanium, gallium, and rare earths. Or China could simply refuse to continue trade under such conditions. A 100% tariff would mean that the entire value of Chinese exports to the U.S. would go to the U.S. Treasury to finance military operations that encircle China and other East Asian countries. Essentially, the more China exports, the more the U.S. strengthens its military presence against China. At some point, China—and other countries—may just say, “We’re fed up,” and cut off trade altogether.
The bigger issue here is that the steel tariffs themselves have been around for a long time and remain a problem.
About ten years ago, I discussed the problems with steel tariffs on Democracy Now! with Lori Wallach, and those concerns are still relevant today. In the 19th century, American protectionists developed a strategy to strengthen the nation’s industrial base, a policy known as the American School of political economy. The logic was simple: import raw materials, and use those materials to produce high-value finished goods, because that’s where the real economic value lies—both in technology and in higher-wage jobs.
America’s strategy, like Britain’s before it, should have been to convince other countries to produce the raw materials and send them to us, allowing American industries to thrive by creating finished products. This concept, based on the comparative advantage theory developed by David Ricardo, assumes everyone benefits from such a division of labor. But instead, raising tariffs on steel increases costs for industries that use steel to manufacture complex, high-value goods like machinery, airplanes, and vehicles, ultimately making American products less competitive on the global market.
Trump’s attempt to raise steel tariffs to court labor union votes in the steel industry might help him politically, but it’s one of the most anti-industrial policies imaginable. And it’s not just anti-China; it’s anti-Japan, too. Just last week, we saw the Biden administration block Nippon Steel from purchasing and modernizing the rundown U.S. Steel company, despite Nippon Steel’s plan to invest $15 billion to upgrade its production facilities and make it competitive again.
Meanwhile, Cleveland Cliffs, an American steel company, is pushing for a merger with U.S. Steel, not to reduce costs, but to create a monopoly. This monopoly would allow them to raise prices and control the U.S. steel market, even though their steel remains high-cost. The Biden administration supports this because higher-cost steel means higher wages, which secures the union vote. The goal is to win over the unions before Trump can, and that’s why both parties are committed to raising raw material prices, even if it means squeezing industrial producers out of global markets.
This is the essence of a self-destructive policy. As Richard pointed out, nobody wants to raise these issues because they expose how U.S. electoral politics are damaging the economy. American foreign policy doesn’t consider the full effects of these decisions, nor the inevitable blowback on U.S. industry.
RICHARD WOLFF: Nima, let me expand on this because it’s crucial. For nearly a decade, tariffs have been a central part of Trump’s approach, as if he discovered them like a child playing with a new toy in a sandbox. He throws tariffs around without understanding them. He continues to claim that tariffs are paid for by China, but in reality, the tariff is a tax paid by American importers—the businesses that bring foreign goods into the U.S.
This is a key point: a tariff is essentially a tax, and yet Republicans, the self-proclaimed party of low taxes, have made tariffs a cornerstone of their economic strategy. In earlier days, tariffs were called import duties, but the effect is the same. The business bringing in French wine, Japanese electronics, or Chinese-made products has to pay the cost of the goods, and then pay the tariff to the U.S. government.
Let’s take the example of a Chinese electric vehicle that costs $30,000. Companies like BYD, which have outpaced Tesla in producing high-quality electric vehicles at competitive prices, would try to sell this car in the U.S. for $30,000. But under a 100% tariff, that price would double to $60,000—$30,000 for the vehicle, and another $30,000 in taxes. This puts the American businesses which are purchasing electric vehicles for transportation, at a severe disadvantage compared to their global competitors, who can purchase the same vehicle for $30,000.
Meanwhile, Elon Musk can benefit from these tariffs. With a “friend in the White House,” he can sell his Tesla truck for $55,000, still more expensive than the Chinese vehicle, but cheaper than the tariffed version. Americans will be forced to buy his truck for $55,000, while their competitors abroad pay $30,000 for an equivalent vehicle. This scenario destroys U.S. competitiveness because American businesses are burdened with higher costs.
What’s happening to Americans now is similar to what’s going on in Europe—they can’t get cheap energy, and we can’t get cheap Chinese goods. If the U.S. wanted to avoid this situation, it would have had to stop China’s development 35 years ago. But now, it’s too late. Yet, none of this gets discussed—not in the debate last night, nor in the press. The focus is simply on tariffs.
As an economic historian, I want to point out the “infant industry” argument. This old argument is based on the idea that, if you’re developing a new industry—one that’s just getting started and surrounded by tough competitors—tariffs might be necessary for a while. They give the industry time to get up to speed, grow production, and eventually compete in the market. But this is understood to be a short-term solution, only valid under specific conditions. The problem we face now is that the U.S. isn’t dealing with an infant industry; it’s dealing with a dying one, at the end of its life cycle.
These policies—justified by isolating China—are actually isolating the United States. We’re cutting ourselves off. Michael just scratched the surface of the potential retaliation. The rest of the world is hoping that this is a temporary phase for the U.S., but the longer it persists, the more it becomes clear that both parties, including the Democrats, are doubling down on it. Biden has continued most of Trump’s tariffs, and the world is beginning to realize that this represents a fundamental shift. Now, they’re considering how to respond.
We might think Europe is stable, but it isn’t. Below the surface, European politics, which have aligned with the U.S. for half a century, are undergoing a shift. Leaders like Macron, Scholz in Germany, and the Tories in the UK, have built their careers around supporting the U.S. But beneath them is a vast group of Germans, French, British, and Italians who don’t support what’s happening. The biggest topic of discussion in Europe is de-industrialization. There’s real anxiety about Europe being caught between two global powers—China and the BRICS on one side, and the U.S. and the G7 on the other. Europe is becoming the sacrificial lamb, as the superpowers negotiate their dominance by exploiting a disintegrating Europe.
These voters don’t want to be sidelined, and it’s starting to show. You can already see the rise of the far right, taking advantage of the working class’s frustration. But you can also see it in the shift of votes toward left-wing coalitions. In the recent French elections, Macron’s party came in third. His political career is essentially over. What emerged is a new coalition called the New Popular Front, composed of the French Socialist Party, the Communist Party, the Green Party, and the largest group, La France Insoumise (France Unbowed), led by Jean Mélenchon. Mélenchon is a Marxist, and unlike Kamala Harris, he always has been.
Yet, if you watched last night’s debate, you wouldn’t have a clue that any of this is happening.
NIMA: Michael, do you want to add anything to what Richard said?
MICHAEL HUDSON: Yes, it’s not just the European population talking about de-industrialization—it’s the leadership, too. Mario Draghi, the former president of the European Central Bank, recently released a report for the EU Commission recommending an investment of 800 billion euros in industrial projects, hoping to position Europe as a rival to the U.S. and China. But how can a U.S. colony compete with the U.S. when its leadership is essentially on the U.S. payroll? It’s a fantasy.
The bigger question is, where will that 800 billion euros go? Even if Europe built new chemical plants or steel mills, who would operate them? Europe is paying four to five times more for gas than the U.S. or China, as well as higher prices for oil and other inputs that the U.S. has sanctioned from Russia and China. Europe simply can’t cope with the corner it’s painted itself into.
MICHAEL HUDSON: That’s why, as Richard mentioned, in the recent elections in Thuringia and Saxony, the parties opposing the anti-Russia war and Cold War policies came out on top. Of course, Germany’s response was to label the leading party in Thuringia, the Alternative für Deutschland, as a “terrorist” party.
Well, who are they terrorizing? They’re “terrorizing” Jake Sullivan, Antony Blinken, the U.S. military, and the neocons. The rest of the Europeans, having listened to your show and to what Richard and I have been saying, realize they can’t even be a rival or a third wheel in this Cold War as long as they have to go along with U.S. sanctions. NATO has gone as far as saying, “We’re an Asian power now; we belong in the North China Sea to defend Europe.”
Kamala Harris reinforced this last night, telling Americans that if we don’t support Zelensky, Russia will march right through Poland on its way to Germany. The idea that any country, including Russia, could field an army capable of invading a modern nation while facing resistance, without being utterly destroyed, is absurd. Yet Kamala keeps pushing this “Russia, Russia, Russia” narrative. Meanwhile, Blinken and U.S. generals are meeting in Ukraine to figure out how to wind down the war and shift focus—much like how the U.S. walked away from Afghanistan when it became clear it was in their interest to do so.
The bigger problem is that, after two years of framing Russia as the invader, what do they do when it’s clear they’ve lost? NATO’s arms have been decimated by the Russians, nearly a million Ukrainians have been killed or wounded, and Ukraine’s skilled population has fled. Ukraine is effectively finished, serving as a grim example for Asia, Africa, and Latin America of what happens when you fight on behalf of the U.S.
Germany and the rest of Europe aren’t going to fight to the last person, but will they be willing to be unemployed to the last German worker? The U.S. has sacrificed them economically, claiming that the GDP decline isn’t severe. But what’s more important—GDP or actual employment and industry? The problem is, Europe has abolished political freedom and is attempting to silence any parties that oppose the U.S. Cold War, which is polarizing the population.
Putin has already stated that it would be nice if Europe stopped trying to fight Russia and stopped supplying Ukraine with bombs. But he admits that it will be at least a generation before Russia can trust Europe again. European countries would need to demonstrate their independence from the U.S., but just like AIPAC’s influence on U.S. elections, the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy plays a similar role in Europe by funding non-governmental organizations that undermine governments there. Countries like Georgia have recognized this and are banning these NGOs because they are essentially agents of U.S. influence.
NIMA: I want to pick up on something Michael said regarding Kamala’s comment about Russia marching across Europe if they aren’t stopped in Ukraine. This argument is reminiscent of the Vietnam War, when the U.S. justified its intervention by claiming that if they didn’t stop communism in Vietnam, it would spread across Asia. Yet after the U.S. was defeated in 1975, none of the dire predictions about communism came true. No country was taken over by communists in the way that was feared.
A similar argument was made about Afghanistan: if the U.S. didn’t stop the Taliban, radical Islam would spread everywhere. Yet after the Taliban won and the U.S. left, where is the global Islamic takeover? How many times will Americans and Europeans believe these arguments that never come to pass?
This is what any elementary school psychologist would call projection. It’s when you project your own motives or actions onto someone else because you can’t admit to them yourself. Who’s really trying to hold on here? It’s the United States. Every conflict and failure—from Vietnam to Afghanistan—represents a loss of U.S. control. Look at the problems Putin is having with Ukraine. The idea that he could move on to invade another country is absurd. No matter what happens, it will take Russia a generation to recover from this war. Yet, the same neocons who failed to predict the consequences of Vietnam and Afghanistan claim to know what Putin’s next move will be. It’s childish.
Even more childish is being upset when reasonable people don’t buy into these simplistic narratives. The world is far more complicated than these stories of inevitable conflict. But when you can’t admit the reality of what’s happening, you start creating wild, fanciful alternatives.
Take NATO’s expansion, for example. Russia’s anxiety about NATO forces moving closer to its borders is entirely understandable, especially given the history of the Cold War. It’s a terrible risk. They waited a long time before acting, and whether or not it was the right decision, it’s clear that the situation is complex. But instead of acknowledging this, instead of admitting that maybe NATO shouldn’t have expanded and broken its commitment, you get another narrative: demonizing Putin. He’s portrayed as a new Stalin—minus the Soviet Union, minus communism.
Now, let’s draw a parallel from the debate last night. If you can’t acknowledge that the U.S. is grappling with the decline of its empire, which poses entirely different challenges than during its rise, you turn to simple-minded alternatives. In the U.S. and Europe, that alternative is to demonize immigrants. It’s a childish and silly distraction.
I sit with people I admire, people who are my friends, but they seriously believe that a country of 330 million people is somehow endangered by 10 to 15 million undocumented Central Americans—among the poorest people in the world—arriving and asking for one thing: a job. That’s it. They’re not here to take over or eat your pets. But this avoidance of reality is what happens when people can’t confront the actual issues.
So, to answer the question you posed to Michael earlier: What’s going to happen? My answer is, nothing. Nothing much is going to change.
Is it better to have Kamala Harris in office? In my judgment, yes. I agree with her on abortion and on many other issues. But I can’t agree with the man she debated—he’s frightening in what he represents, regardless of what he says. Take his response when she confronted him about his call for the execution of five young Black men who were later proven innocent. The issue isn’t just that they were innocent; he wanted them executed before they even had a trial. That’s it—that’s the core of his stance. He even spent his own money on a full-page ad in The New York Times to promote this, making sure everyone knew where he stood.
Yes, there’s a clear difference between Harris and him. But if neither of them addresses the fundamental issues we’ve been discussing, then the decline of Western capitalism will continue. What they’re doing has little to do with addressing those deeper problems. And you can’t have a sustained policy when you refuse to have a real conversation about the root issues.
It’s like someone struggling with alcoholism who goes to an AA meeting and asks, “Which arm should I scratch?” The group would be confused, saying, “What are you talking about?” You insist, “I need to know which arm to scratch to fix my alcoholism.” Eventually, someone would explain that scratching your arm won’t solve your addiction. It won’t make the problem go away. It’ll be just as bad next week because you’re avoiding the real issue.
As an economist, that’s how I see the United States. There’s a denial so profound that it’s genuinely frightening. And last night’s debate was just another chapter in that ongoing denial.
MICHAEL HUDSON: We’re talking so far about the problems with U.S. policy, and Richard is quite right. This poses a question: why don’t China, Russia, and other countries understand what the U.S. is doing to threaten them? Why don’t they anticipate these sudden, self-destructive moves? For example, why didn’t Russia anticipate the Ukrainian surprise invasion of Kursk?
Putin, like Stalin, expected other countries to act in their own self-interest. Stalin didn’t expect Germany to attack Russia, because it would be suicidal for Germany. Likewise, Putin didn’t expect Ukraine to sacrifice so much for a PR stunt.
Why would Ukraine throw all its elite troops and NATO-supplied arms into Kursk, a rural and undeveloped part of Russia? Putin and his generals likely thought it was a waste of resources for Ukraine, one that would essentially destroy the remaining core of its military. And it was a waste – a militarily suicidal one. This invasion seems to have been planned by British intelligence, with U.S. support, which aligns with their historically questionable decision-making.
That brings up the question of why more countries do not act more decisively against U.S. interests. President Biden and the Democrats repeatedly declare that China is the America’s number one enemy. So, why doesn’t China react more defensively? President Xi continues to talk about “win-win” policies, thinking that if he convinces other countries, they’ll follow. This is reminiscent of what Gorbachev and Yeltsin thought when the Soviet Union dissolved and when Russia wanted to join NATO.
NIMA: Both Yeltsin and Putin wanted Russia to be part of NATO
MICHAEL HUDSON: Imagine if the U.S. had treated Russia like an ally instead of an enemy. It could have imposed neoliberal policies on Russia just as it did on Germany and the rest of Europe. But instead, the U.S.’s ham-fisted, self-destructive approach has led to the current tensions. While China continues to grow by linking its economy with East Asia, the U.S. persists with a lose-lose strategy: countries that don’t agree to the Cold War agenda face military intervention, sanctions, and U.S.-backed color revolutions.
U.S. foreign policy relies on threatening or harming other countries, while China offers cooperation and economic growth. This fundamental difference is what’s splitting the world into two different blocs with different social philosophies. U.S. diplomats fail to see this because they’re locked into a mindset where coercion is the only way to influence others. At some point Russia, China and other countries will realize that the U.S. isn’t seeking mutual benefit, but rather is willing to destroy its own economy by pursuing Cold War strategies that have already alienated its NATO partners in Europe.
NIMA: Richard, let me bring up this article I sent to both of you. It’s by former European Central Bank President Mario Draghi, addressing the economic problems in the European Union. He says the era of open global trade, governed by multilateral institutions, is coming to an end.
— “Growth in Europe has been slowing down for a long time in Europe. But we’ve ignored it. I would say until two years ago, we would never have such a conversation as the one we’re having today, because things were sort of going well. We were doing well out of globalization. Unemployment was steadily falling. And now we cannot ignore it any longer. We’ve lost our main supplier of cheap energy, Russia. And now we have to start for our defense again for the first time since the Second World War. At the same time, this is the first year when Europe cannot count on population growth for its increase. And population is set to decline steadily, so much that by 2040, there will be 2 million workers disappearing from the labor market every year. Productivity is weak. It’s very weak. So if we were to maintain our current average productivity of the last five, of the last 10 years, say, it would only be enough to keep GDP constant until 2050. The investment share will have to rise by around 5 percentage points of GDP to levels last seen in the 60s and the 70s. And if Europe can no longer provide them to its people, it will have lost its reason for being.”
MICHAEL HUDSON: It’s amazing that the left, especially in the U.S. and Britain, hasn’t picked up on this. Instead, it’s the right-wing parties like Alternative für Deutschland,making these points, aside from some leftists like Sarah Wagenknecht.
RICHARD WOLFF: Yes, and I think this underscores the growing tension beneath the surface of European politics. Draghi’s report brings to light conversations that have been ongoing for years about how Europe’s policies are destroying its future. Europe faces a choice: confront these issues or become an irrelevant, aging region that no longer plays a central role in the global economy. This is a consequence of the way capitalism has shifted, moving from Europe to the U.S., then to Asia.
Now, some African leaders are preparing for the next wave of capitalist investment.
The question is how to deal with a system that constantly moves in search of new opportunities, leaving destruction in its wake. But to even have that conversation, you must admit that capitalism operates this way. It’s been 50 years since Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring warned that capitalism would destroy the environment if left unchecked, yet many still refuse to listen. They also refuse to acknowledge the reality of U.S. imperialism. The American empire rose by mimicking Europe’s colonial model, and now it’s struggling to adapt as the global center of capitalism moves elsewhere.
The last ten years have repeatedly proven it, but they still don’t want to see it. Notice the strange return to tariff policies, which were used early on when the U.S. was emerging from its colonial status to compete with Britain. They’re trying it again now, but the situation is completely different. You can’t use the same policy forever. One of the key lessons from Hegel and Marx is that if you keep doing the same thing over and over, you’ll make mistakes. Just because something worked at the beginning doesn’t mean it will work in the end. You have to be as inventive in knowing when to stop using a theory or strategy as you were when you started it. It’s a mistake to think you can stick with a discovery or strategy for the rest of your life. That misunderstands how the world works—and what contradiction means.
The fact is, Americans don’t study Hegel, and that’s their loss. If they did, they’d be aware of the need to constantly question their approach, to understand how changing circumstances affect their chances of success. Otherwise, they’re bound to make terrible mistakes. Yes, Putin made his share of mistakes, but the West thinking it could arm and fund Ukraine to fight Russia? That was a bigger mistake. Thinking they could cripple Russia by refusing to buy its oil and gas? They didn’t understand what the BRICS was. Russia simply turned to the BRICS—problem solved. The U.S. failed to foresee this, and it stands as a glaring example of their inability to understand how the world really works.
That The Washington Post and The New York Times could watch the debate, listen to the nonsense said about tariffs, and then discuss it seriously as though it wasn’t idiotic, tells you something. It’s not just a moment of crisis for the U.S., but a clear example of a profound incapacity to understand what’s going on. It makes programs like yours, Nima, very important, but also a bit unusual. I don’t want people to think that Michael and I are anomalies. In American economics, maybe we are. But we’re trying to help people see perspectives that are otherwise met with blindness or denial.
MICHAEL HUDSON: I think one thing that clarifies the discussion is realizing there are different kinds of capitalism. We’ve said on many of our shows that we’re no longer in industrial capitalism—we’re in finance capitalism. Industrial capitalism took a long-term perspective because it required time to invest in factories, develop markets, and build supply chains. That’s why it doesn’t happen in America anymore. Finance capitalism lives in the short term. As I mentioned earlier, the tariff policies of the 19th century worked because America imported raw materials and exported finished products. Now, it’s the opposite: we’re trying to maximize the price of raw materials, and it’s killing the manufacturing market. This is because finance capitalism makes quick money by breaking up economies and grabbing assets.
In Russia in the 1990s, they called this “grabitization” during privatization. You could say the logic of American finance capitalism today is similar—it’s about grabbing as much as possible. That’s what de-industrialization is. You’re not just running down your industrial plants; you’re also running down infrastructure—your bridges, roads, and even your internet systems, which is why Richard had trouble connecting earlier.
This isn’t the capitalism of 150 or 200 years ago. It’s not the capitalism Marx described, where there was at least a collective understanding of how to make industrial capitalism succeed. Back then, capitalists wanted the government to cover basic needs—education, transportation, healthcare—so that employers didn’t have to. As we’ve said before, if you were an industrial capitalist in the 19th century, whether in America or Britain, you wanted the government to pay for public services, like schools and sewers. Today, everything is privatized by the financial sector.
This is the difference between long-term capitalism and short-term capitalism. Long-term capitalism was evolving into socialism—and back then, socialism wasn’t a dirty word. Everyone was talking about it. The debate was about what kind of socialism the world would develop. Now, instead of having that conversation, finance capitalism is leading to a new Cold War, where other countries are forced to hand over their economic surplus to the U.S., which then uses it to fund massive military expenditures, bases, submarines, battleships, and NGOs to surround them.
This is not the capitalism anyone envisioned in the 19th century. So the question becomes: where did capitalism go wrong? Is this really the kind of capitalism people expected? If not, maybe we’re dealing with a whole different capitalist dynamic than the classical economists described.
Under the old system, profits were made by paying workers less than the value of what they produced, but those profits were reinvested into expanding production. Marx called profits an element of value, while rent was empty—monopoly rent, land rent, or, most significantly, financial rent, as we see today.
We’re dealing with something systemic and evolutionary, but heading in two different directions. Short-term finance capitalism is going down because it’s short-term, negative, and punitive. Long-term industrial capitalism was about expanding markets and building diplomatic relations—what President Xi calls “win-win”—while today’s finance capitalism, driven by neoliberalism and the neocons, is all about “lose-lose.”
NIMA: Richard, do you want to add anything?
RICHARD WOLFF: No, I think we’ve opened up a lot of issues we’ve discussed before. The only thing I’d suggest is that we haven’t fully touched on the danger here. The leaders of the U.S. are frustrated because they don’t understand, and they refuse to listen to alternatives. As Michael said, until the mid-20th century, socialism was considered a legitimate option. Working-class people discussed it regularly. Political parties committed to socialism grew steadily from 1850 to 1950. But the Cold War shut all that down, turning every discussion into a simplistic battle of good versus evil. Rational debate became nearly impossible.
That’s why last night’s debate felt so empty. It was political theater, but barely even that. My hope is that we can return to talking seriously about capitalism—about its different forms, industrial and financial. We should also be discussing socialism, which has evolved in various ways, and maybe even talking about new forms of socialism that we haven’t yet considered.
I’ve spent my life wondering if anything I’ve said has had an impact. Is it because of what I said, or simply because I went to the “right” schools and earned the “right” degrees? Both Michael and I understand how the American academic world works, how the pecking orders are maintained. I really wonder—if I didn’t have those credentials, would I even have a voice?
That’s why I’m so grateful to you, Nima, for organizing these conversations. They’re crucial, and they shouldn’t be constrained by anything. A lot of people could do this work, perhaps even better, but they aren’t. That leaves it to us. Michael does it his way, I do it mine, and you’ve created this platform to keep it going, which is so important.
NIMA: Thank you, Richard and Michael, for joining me today.
RICHARD WOLFF: Same here—and again, my apologies for being late. I’ll try to avoid that next time.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
We are looking hints for the next step when real humanity hating elite is already planning the 99th with almost all scenarios covered.
It is only up to Divinity to intervene in a (w)holy unexpected way to – temporarily at least – save as much humanity is really up to it.
We love listening to both Dr. Hudson and Dr. Wolff together.
They are wise and practical because they know that under US Capitalism, the US society of people are simply not going to survive – IF we have a president like Harris or Trump
That debate clearly revealed how anchored both Harris and Trump are towards their wealthy donor class. Should Trump or Harris explain how they would introduce how to employee millions of unemployed, or how the US govt could EASILY pay off the TRILLIONS OF $$$S US citizens owe to the banks and the Big Creditors…………well, if one of them did that, the Captitalists would remove either one as a presidential candidate.
Meaning, that we don’t live in a democracy; we live in an Oligarchy wherein the Super Wealthy only do one thing: INCREASE their PROFITS.
What a tragic fate awaits millions of Americans who don’t even realize what’s happening to them.
If you’re looking towards the heavens for help, good luck.
“US Policy”
US policy boils down to taking whatever measures are necessary to ensure that the globalists’ agenda is scrupulously followed.
They want to destroy the dollar and switch to another form of currency so that they don’t have to repay the 35 trillion dollars they maxed out on their credit card.
“You cannot serve God and Money.” – Jesus
So Jesus has to take down the Mammonite god (aka the US$) as controlled by the Jews.
http://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2015/08/14/when-money-is-the-problem/
http://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2015/07/28/how-the-ashkenazi-jews-conquered-the-west/
Imho – the wizards behind the curtains pulling the strings are completely addicted to their delusions; extortions, exploitations and enslavements this all that they know how to do.
Anything else is only a ruse to further their agendas. Trying to ” reason ” with them is entirely futile; it is a waste of time and energy.
What a great discussion. Hudson and Wolff are mental giants compared to Harris and Trump. Why can’t we get intelligence and understanding in our politicians and leaders?
Mostly agree with their diagnosis on economic issues, but its r*tarded to think culture and race play no part in society, and that 15 million poor south americans (concretly n-amount of Haitians, who are low IQ and bad mannered) is not a concern because they are just “looking for jobs’
No, these people commit more crimea than the natives, they adapt worse, and they end up either jobless or as cannon flesh for low wage verging on slavery jobs
Wolff: “It’s a hysterical refusal to even ask questions, to admit that there might be something within the capitalist system—whether it’s the profit maximization rule in investment or the structure where a tiny group in every workplace makes all the decisions on production and profits.”
Imagine my friends if Dilma responded at this point: This tiny group you mention Mr. Wolff, some say this is elite Jewish power, what do you think?
Would Dilma have a channel on Youtube? Would Wolff respond with anything but ‘Harrumph anti-semitism!’ Would Wolff and Hudson appear on future podcasts with Dilma?
I admit, it’s hypothetical. But hypotheticals are not entirely useless for mental stimulation.
We can see, however, non hypothetically, that my often expressed niche theory can be used for analysis here: the dissenting tribal member or members, dissenting against the ‘powers that be’, gets a lot of exposure, is never cancelled. Thus while disagreeing vehemently apparent opponents can work together for a common goal, promoting the tribe, which is mutually beneficial.
niche filling theory:
https://www.unz.com/lromanoff/jews-and-revolutions/?showcomments#comment-5544713
So true.
Enjoyed the discussion, but always annoyed when US tariffs are discussed as if VATs and GSTs did not exist. These are just “flat tariffs”.
That they’re uniform and mostly indiscriminate is preferable to sweetheart subsidies disguised as tariffs, but it can’t be ignored that US/WTO trading partners get a competitive advantage by charging 10 to 20% VAT on US imports, when in many cases their products can enter the US VAT and tariff free.
For the car example discussed, China charges 13% VAT on a Tesla shipped from USA and refunds 13% VAT to BYD when it exports a car to USA. Certainly, not the same as a 50 or 100% tariff but also not zero.
A US politician that promised a flat 15% tariff on all imports in exchange for cutting the IRS tax rate on wages by 15% (though not equivalent in govt revenue) would get my vote.
LOL, you ask a most relevant question.
Sadly for us, these questions were already asked and answered 2500 years ago in Athens….the birthplace of Western Democracy.
Because Democracy is has a fatal inbuilt weakness; its vulnerability to populism….where leaders are chosen not for their ability to rule well, but for their ability to be popular.
There is a huge difference between the two.
“This is because finance capitalism makes quick money by breaking up economies and grabbing assets”.
As I read those words, I had a sudden vivid visualisation of what they mean. I imagined a rotting corpse, with insects, bacteria, and fungi breaking down its tissues to grab the nutrients within.
Great for the insects, bacteria, and fungi – but a sure sign that the animal that once was alive and vigorous is now dead.
Wstern civilisation has evolved into a body whose controlling nervous system is deliberately causing it rot.
I am not sure I am following you.
The way I understand GST or VAT is that it is charged within the jurisdiction where the item is sold.
So if a
$10,000 Tesla is sold in China, the buyer pays $11,300
$10,000 BYD is sold in China, the buyer pays $11,300
However if China is like many other jurisdictions, when the buyer who already has bought a car costing $11,300, decides to send it to his friend in the USA, therefore leaving Chinese jurisdiction, the Chinese tax authority would refund him $1300.
But if the Chinese car exporter BYD sells the car DIRECTLY to a car importer in the US, BYD only receives $10,000
The US importer pays BYD $10,000 and the US government $1300.
Where does he get this said refund from?
oops, I didn’t catch the error till too late.
Should read:
Where does BYD get this said refund from?
A complete ban, rather than a 100% tariff, on the import of electric cars is better, IF domestic EV manufacturers agree not to raise prices beyond inflation for 10 years AND agree to make their EV’s as efficient and user friendly as the best EV’s made elsewhere. The retaliation of China and others is acceptable simply because there is a world of difference between potato chips and microchips.
It took a lethal epidemic to demonstrate to the ruling oligarchs the economic cockamamie of free trade and finance capitalism.
And I bet you believe government should take care of you and your misfits? Do you really think your god will have mercy on ANYONE in the US….if you believe that stuff?
Welcome to third world status. You earned it by being complacent and expecting someone else to “take care of the situation”. Get some training in groveling….it might help!
they seriously believe that a country of 330 million people is somehow endangered by 10 to 15 million undocumented Central Americans—among the poorest people in the world—arriving and asking for one thing: a job. That’s it. They’re not here to take over
Try 30 or 40 million, thus far. And, compared with distant wars or transient drivel about tariffs or monopolies or Marxism, those millions of invaders are the United States’ only real problem. They are here to replace the native population. Do each of these imps personally have genocide on the brain? Probably not. But for the Mayorkas’s of the world, that’s the entire point.
I got a question for the readership here:
Wolff and Hudson talk here about the roots of the western (actually now faux-west) problems without mentioning that the world reserve currency, the petrodollar, is a 3-way partnership (1 – American military hegemon; 2 – the House of Saud; 3 – Jews with apparent hard-ons for the Israeli Zionist project, that also control the investment banks at the actual controls of the daily money-flow operations in this vein).
Why is it like this with Hudson and Wolff? Does either Hudson or Wolff ever put it together accurately, around this elephant in the room (the 3-way petrodollar deal), that then explains so much of the geopolitical action we now see? If not, … then I gotta wonder, why not?
Beat me to it, I was about to post a similar observation.
Also, the actual number of foreigners inside the United States is far higher than 15 million; I have seen estimates as high as 50-60 million, which I find believable.
Legal immigration is another form of invasion and IMHO even worse than illegal migration-invasion, since the imported population are made immediately equal to Citizens. Legal migration is net subversive.
But it probably doesn’t matter much. Ancient Rome did not survive foreign invasion, and the United States of America won’t survive it, either.
Cheers …
Sorry to disappoint you, the native population has already been replaced. They are now living in Reservations.
Everybody else is an immigrant.
It really depends on whether you believe whether Israel or the US is the dog head, and which is the wagging tail.
You apparently believe that Israel is the dog’s head.
Whereas they believe it is the USA.
‘Trump called Kamala a Marxist and referred to her father’s Marxism. I thought she handled it well, rolling her eyes and brushing it off, as did everyone else. The comment was inappropriate and garnered no interest. Honestly, I’m glad it didn’t go further.’ — Richard Wolff
Some of us beg to differ. Everywhere it has gained power, Marxism has been associated with human misery, totalitarianism and destruction of economic opportunity.
Were I a student of Wolff’s at U Mass Amherst, I’d organize my posse to drown out his Marxist lectures by chanting the infantile Marxist slogan:
Thirty hours work for forty hours pay!
Thirty hours work for forty hours pay!
Marxist clown, we wish you good day!
Everything you have said, I agree with.
But it is my view that the US government is doing it on purpose.
Of all the many countries that I have been to, the USA is the only one that does not check passports of visitors LEAVING the USA.
Yes, the immigration authorities check passports and visas for people entering the US, but NOT when the leave.
To me, it is done on purpose so that the actual number of non-citizens living inside the USA cannot be accurately known.
The reasons why the USG does this, would be interesting speculation.
I had a higher opinion of unz, just a day ago.
To waste time on commie Richard wolf, should be embarrassing to unz.
Notice how many of Richard’s wolf’s conversation entries start with words like:
Yes,
No,
Exactly.
It’s not just that he is a classic 1960s American religious commie, but he also has such a modest IQ. Not worth debating, or discussing with.
‘They seriously believe that a country of 330 million people is somehow endangered by 10 to 15 million undocumented Central Americans—among the poorest people in the world—arriving and asking for one thing: a job. That’s it. They’re not here to take over or eat your pets. But this avoidance of reality is what happens when people can’t confront the actual issues.’ — Nima Alkhorshid
How obnoxious! How presumptuous! Here’s some ‘reality’ for you: Americans wanting to move to HIS country, Brazil, must be retired and deposit $2,000 a month of external income into a Brazilian bank account. Why? Because Brazil asserts its sovereign right to protect its citizens from having their jobs taken by foreigners.
Likewise, the US is under no obligation to offer jobs to non-citizens. It’s astonishing that uppity Third Worlders now feel entitled to lecture us on our supposed obligation to them. We owe them nothing.
Kamala Harris is a true socialist – when the SHTF, if elected, she will want to bring in more socialism. But America’s elite group will not touch socialism – the best they will do is a compromise with socialism for the Blacks – with the White working class descending into prole status (i.e. – paying for it all – both the Black gravy as well as the usual elite privileges).
Now you have the basis for a new Revolution.
I am no Marxist.
You must realise that our view of Marxism has been tainted with 70 years of Cold War “education” aka propaganda against a perceived enemy?
In its essence Marxism provides a useful tool to view Capitalism in A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE.
Unless one believes that Capitalism is perfect and without blemish?
Nothing is perfect, if one wants to improve our system, we must first be able to criticise it and see its faults…..and that is what Marxism is useful for.
US policy would be more accurately labeled Democrat-Zionist uniparty policy.
The uniparty’s policy is a welfare-warfare state that promotes Zionist warmongering, diversity entitlement supremacy, totalitarian democracy, and crony capitalism that favors federal protected class victim cultists and uniparty leaders.
Inflation is caused by uniparty policies that regularly borrow trillions of dollars to finance a self-serving welfare-warfare state, and crony capitalism that destroys the normal wealth creation process of free enterprise.
The Democrat-Zionist uniparty has fused some of the worst elements of both Jewish fascism and Jewish bolshevism.
As it is now, the US dollar’s value is based solely on the military might wielded by the American Democrat-Zionist uniparty.
I wish Richard Wolff would not just say “capitalism.” There are different kinds of capitalism. Michael Hudson goes to great pains to delineate Industrial Capitalism vs Finance Capitalism.
Here is Richard:
Here is Michael later explaining some of the differences:
Of course Richard is partly right, it is a systemic problem. The Western system is a corporatocracy, and finance capitalist. Finance capitalism is based on indebting and then foreclosing. For example: Blackrock has made huge loans to Ukraine in exchange for future mineral rights. But, the real plan is to foreclose on the country and its people. This hidden international finance oligarchy then string pulls the Ukrainian polity from behind. Ukrainian politicians become puppets dancing to their masters tune. Ukraine then passes into the hands of the “international” creditor class. The international then imports a new people, creating a Xenocracy.
Xenocracy is rule by foreigners, a scheme employed regularly in history by parasitical oligarchs. The U.S mainland now being bombed by immigration is because U.S. is a finance oligarchy – and xenocracy. Imported new people become an internal army directed by the parasites. The new people do not have blood and soil, and even better, they can be indebted.
China is already in the process of deleting this western finance corporatocracy system that came into being after our (((friends))) were expelled from Spain in 1492.
I believe Kevin is onto something (see below youtube link) about a new tether like trading currency. China has somewhere near $4T in dollars in reserves. It’s a simple hop and skip for China to copy Tether, or work out some blockchain like system, where Bric trades are outside of finance corporatocracy reserve highway. Western banking corporations will be blinded, as they will have no visibility on how their “liabilities” are being used within their global system. (When banks create money, it is their liability.)
Western banking systems want some sort of easy unit of conversion. The dollar has been that unit. This bank credit unit travels on a corporate banking “reserve highway.” The reserve highway is the node where western private banks balance their double entry ledgers, worldwide. Reserve loops, or reserve highways, are not just for holding reserves – they also are a network.
Think on this very carefully. China’s dollars will not be traveling on the reserve highway. They will be within a different network, one that is distributed and cannot be targeted.
The dollar is already done for, there is nothing the U.S. and the western finance corporatocracy can do about it. The fix is in, so to speak. The “Industrial Capitalism” of BRICs will supplant finance usury capitalism system of the west.
And we need to start calling a spade a spade. China’s economy and politics have very large overlap with national socialism, especially including state banks/sovereign money. China does not have a communist top down command economy, it is mixed economy.
China appears to have absorbed an important economic lesson, “Never allow your national money to stand in as an international trading currency.” China will use their dollars in this role, but not their yuans.
Video Link
I tried to finish reading the article but I can only take in so much garbage at one time before I quit. Hudson and Wolff are always spitting out marxist drivel and hating capitalism all while giving examples that we do not have anything like capitalism in the US. If they knew what was actually going on in the world they would have completely different ideas unless their motive is to confuse and deflect blame away from those who are really responsible for the mess the world is in.
Wolf is not a communist. He is so-called democratic socialist. There are no communists in America especially after 1960s.
BRICS Meeting to Develop Multipolar World
Video Link
What you have is capitalism in the stage of monetary imperialism according to Hudson. The “real capitalism” of 19th century does not exist anywhere.
Thanks for the reply. Well I have heard Hudson, at least, say it that way (not sure about Wolff though), thus implying (I think) that Hudson believes the fact that the investment banks that do the daily petrodollar clearinghouse tasks for the petrodollar scheme, that also happen to be extremely wealthy/influential Jews with hard-ons for the Israeli Zionist project, are actually part and parcel of the overall American military hegemonic component of the petrodollar partnership, thus rendering it a 2-way partnership (instead of the actual reality of it being a 3-way partnership) between America and the middle east Sunni oil-rich kingdoms as best exemplified by the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia, to Hudson’s mind, … sort of like the many professional commentators we have observed as published right here at TUR among other places, thinking along the lines that the American neocons are primarily American, and not American turncoats for Israel (with many such neocon individuals being of Jewish ethnicity, to boot, though, … I guess that fact a nothingburger, then?).
That is a nice trick (that the likes of Hudson and other commentators with nice platforms, constantly pull). But it’s just a trick – no? If one pretends that the petrodollar partnership is in fact only a 2-way deal, then one is leaving a whole lot of potential worthy analysis, around motives for geopolitical action, left un-analyzed – no?
Look, the reality is that the 3 parties are consonantly jockeying for the upperhand among the other two, for decades and decades now. That explains a whole lot of the geopolitical action that we have actually observed. It’s a tripod. There is no ‘head’. Conceptualizing a ‘head’ would only make sense under a 2-way petrodollar partnership explanation, with the Jewish bankers grafted onto the American military hegemon, as one entity. But these two parties clearly are not one entity, though (i.e. – work at cross purposes to each other, some of the time). And Hudson is smart. So what gives?
Bubbles within bubbles within bubbles.
I will plug my nose and vote for Trump, even though his blind support for Israel may get us all killed. That said, Mr. Wolff’s idea that Harris is the stronger candidate based on judicial and legal integrity with regards to unjust prosecution and civilian deaths/executions is a sick, demented joke. Dude probably thinks Tulsi is a Russian asset, and looks to me like a victim of the “progressive” (LOL) academic bubble that goose-steps alongside the Democrats purely out of habit.
Mr. Hudson’s ideas about a jubilee, combined with a crackdown on the predations of hyper-financialized capitalism, might get us somewhere. Except the oligarchs and merchants of death run the show now, so we have to crash first and then hopefully pick up the pieces later. ☮️
And who would enforce these agreements? Have the government set prices and dictate engineering and marketing? The government taking over means of production is never successful.
Thank you for the clarification.
I don’t really see a distinction between the jews/zionists and the US military machine. In fact, I don’t even see a useful distinction between those two and the US elected leadership. But maybe you see more than me.
Eisenhower’s grand daughter has revealed that when Eisenhower made his famous “military industrial complex” farewell speech, he originally meant to use the term “military-industrial-CONGRESSIONAL-complex”. Only he still had some bills that he was eager to get through Congress so he decided not to antagonise them.
So I view all three elements … the military, the jewish/zionist/oligarchs, and US leadership as intricately linked and pointless to distinguish from each other.
If this is so, then the House of Saud is really just a willing partner of the US to enrich itself, but they do not have much ambitions beyond that.
This is interesting. I have not noticed anything like that. Please can you give an example of such geopolitical event, and how each party played a part in it.
Jul 12, 2024 World Shaking Up! Epic Political & Economic Earthquakes Rock the Globe!
He is the author of Super-Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (Editions 1968, 2003, 2021), ‘and forgive them their debts’ (2018), J is for Junk Economics (2017), Killing the Host (2015), The Bubble and Beyond (2012), Trade, Development and Foreign Debt (1992 & 2009) and of The Myth of Aid (1971), amongst many others.
Video Link
What say we keep it simple – DaUS is ruled by DaSynagogue of Satan. How so?
Read – https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/search?q=SYNAGOGUE+OF+SATAN&updated-max=2024-04-19T08:01:00-07:00&max-results=20&start=0&by-date=false&m=1 – a list of headnotes to articles archived in DaLimbraw Library. In a few days or weeks, your reading should discover the common thread which now rules all of Western Civilization – or more correctly – what was WC!
Why is America like as a rabid pit bull after WWII?
Cognitive military officers will say it’s all in defense of the dollar.
You ‘n I say it’s because of dah-Jews.
Jews are cheek by jowl with the dollar.
So which is it?
Six to one, half dozen to the other.
That’s right profnasty, I completely agree.
Kim Iverson is hot! This is she; a 20min interview with a fellow who definitely knows his ass from his elbow on economics etc.
No charge. Enjoy.
Video Link
Hudson is always an interesting and entertaining, if blatantly uninformative read. The Palestinians are just a convenient bunch of patsies goaded into fighting Israel on behalf of camel breeders and goat fuckers throughout the middle east. Egypt fell for this—willing to fight Israel to the last Egyptian!— for a long time.
Mossad probably sent all those “Lesbians” in Beirut back to the days Morse Code and Smoke Signals. MAGA!
The house of Saud were offered a deal they could not refuse. Below is a comment I made in 2019, it deals with the 73 Petrodollar agreement.
https://www.unz.com/chopkins/making-globalism-great-again/#comment-3039691
Also, consider that the house of Saud was installed in a coup, helped along by MI6. It was part of the “Great Game.”
MI6 was itself, created from the mercenary army wing of British East India Corporation. England became finance capitalist and a hidden corporatocracy by 1694, when our (((friends))) from Amsterdam installed their system by stealth. The English call it the “crossing of the Dutch.” The bank of england was the first private finance corporation to host a country. Installing debts onto the English population, where the debts originate in a private bank, and then on-selling said debt instruments into finance centers, effectively make people into finance commodities. The scheme also turns them into debtors, who are milked and put on a treadmill to pay the creditor class.
Saudis are trying to figure out a way to extricate themselves from the international finance capital system. It has benefited them in the past, as their oil could find markets, and they were protected with a military umbrella. They will join the BRICs, and eventually some sort of new security military guarantees will be made. For now, the U.S. could just seize the country and take their oil, so the kingdom has to tread carefully.
The current model of banking and currency is based on the Bank of England model, founded in 1694. Benjamin Franklin stated that the main reason for the American Revolutionary War was the insistence by George III that the American colonies accept Bank of England banknotes, which were issued as promissory notes, rather than use the increasingly successful American fiat script, issued by the colonies in the CORRECT quantity and not bearing debt! We must be prepared for a new monetary system, an honest one, when our present debt-based banking cartel collapses. Kindly read and critique this proposed Constitutional Amendment. But first, a little background…
From “The Truth in Money Book” by Theodore R. Thoren and Richard F Warner:
QUOTE Someone had to borrow at usury to bring that money [checkbook balances, bills and coins] into existence. The money goes out of existence as the usury and the debt principal are paid back to the bank. These amounts are huge: several billion dollars go out of existence each day. [Actually this money goes into the reserve accounts of the Federal Reserve Banks, out of the hands of the public! This book was first printed in November 1980. The amounts which are withdrawn presently are much larger.] If the money is not replaced with new loans, a shortage occurs. Soon individuals and businesses experience serious cash flow problems. These result in more and more loan applications to banks—the only place where money is being created to replenish the supply” UNQUOTE
Here is one possible solution—-To Hell with Fractional-Reserve Debt-Based Banking Constitutional Amendment
(1) Rescind the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and rename existing Federal Reserve notes and check book balances, in all U.S. banking and credit-creating institutions as well as foreign holdings of dollars, on a 1-to-1 basis, as U.S. Treasury Dollars and U.S.Treasury-Denominated bank balances. All currently existing financial contracts of the Federal Reserve Banking System, including United States Treasury Bills, Notes, Bonds, and Inflation-Protected Securities, remain in effect.
(2) Henceforward, ex nihilo credit creation by banking and financial institutions in the United States is prohibited. Loans are required to originate from previous savings of U.S. Treasury Dollars and U.S. Treasury-Denominated bank balances from accounts only authorized by account holders for lending purposes. Each loan is held in and paid from a specified, sequestered loan account by the various financial institutions, with interest charges and term limits for each loan to be determined solely by the bank management and the contracting party. Non-cash reserves held in the regional Federal Reserve Banks in accounts of the member institutions of the Federal Reserve System no longer form the basis for credit creation and are extinguished via accounting erasure. Any further payments of principal and interest on currently-existing promissory notes owned by any bank are required to be distributed to holders of savings accounts and checking accounts in that bank in a manner to be determined by each bank, such procedures to be transparent to savings or checking account holders at that bank in terms of amount and frequency of payment. Regional Federal Reserve Banks continue to provide check-clearing operations for the member banks.
(3) Monetary transactions of the regional Federal Reserve banks or of its member banks with international banks, including the Bank of International Settlements and the International Monetary Fund, can not include ex nihilo credit creation.
(4) The U.S. Treasury supplies Treasury Dollars as needed to any member bank of the Federal Reserve system to satisfy demands for cash by deposit and savings account holders in excess of cash reserves held by banks at the time of enactment of this amendment.
(5) Fund the U.S. government and its agencies and projects directly via Treasury Dollars authorized by the Congress in its yearly federal budget. The borrowing of money from the Federal Reserve system of banks or from other institutions or individuals to pay for federal government expenditures is prohibited. All outstanding Treasury Securities are henceforward redeemed on demand via payment with U.S. Treasury Dollars.
(6) Abolish the Federal Income Tax on individuals, corporations, and business enterprises while maintaining a social security tax on individual incomes. Social security retirement revenues are strictly sequestered in Federal Government Retirement Accounts held by the U.S. Treasury and managed by the Social Security Administration. The Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is hereby rescinded and the Internal Revenue Service disbanded.
(7) Institute a federal sales tax with a varying yearly tax rate adjusted by the U.S. Congress in session, the sole aim of such adjustments being to maintain a stable or decreasing Consumer Price Index based on data collected by the Federal Government. Any such federal sales taxes taken in by the Federal Government are extinguished from the currency supply to keep the Consumer Price Index stable or decreasing and are not utilized for further funding.
(8) Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution is amended to read as follows: The Congress shall have Power to collect customs duties on imports and exports, uniformly applied throughout the United States, and to provide for the Defence and general Welfare of the United States.
(9) Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2 of the U. S. Constitution is rescinded.
(10) The adoption of this amendment does not prohibit the use by the citizens of the United States of any alternative currencies they should choose to use in their private or commercial transactions, provided both parties to the transaction agree to the medium of exchange.
Those who lambast US economists as “Marxists” always make us laugh. Inevitably, these are always illiterate Americans who have never read a word of Karl Marx’s books. Instead, they picked up this PR term via the capitalist propaganda machine.
It boggles the mind the level of illiteracy by common US citizens that don’t even understand that using credit cards, bank loans for mortgages, car loans have turned most of them in DEBT SLAVES.
“America” has always been based on Ad-Hoc approaches in attempting to become an actual Civilization. Tragically, because of the power of Capitalist, the US will NEVER, EVER become an actual CIVILIZATION.
We’re “The Odd Man Out’ in that regard.
There are 2 types of capitalism: Finance capitalism and Labour capitalism.
The former we are experiencing now: Rapacious greed and “A billion dollars is not enough”.
Labour capitalism was so successful that two arch enemies made common cause to destroy the small nation that had the brains and guts to try a third way with such success that it was seen a threat to both the capitalists and communists.
Agreed.
The socialist Chinese are so miserable that only 96.0 percent of them own their homes (link). Meanwhile, in the US, in the land of economic opportunity, the home ownership rate is 65.9 percent.
More evidence that the Chinese are so economically miserable: they can buy an EV for half the price that a totally free citizen of non-totalitarian America is forced to pay.
Yet more evidence: as they are socialists, the Chinese are so impoverished that 170 million of them went abroad as tourists in 2019, and 228 million of them are expeced to do so in 2030 (link).
‘Marxism provides a useful tool to view Capitalism in A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE.’ — littlereddot
Agreed, except for the adjective ‘useful.’
Marxism dates from the days of rhetorical economics, based on argued logical assertions rather than data. The reader is merely exhorted to agree, rather than shown any proof of efficacy. Historical examples of marxist revolutions all have ended badly. Dirt-poor Cuba suggests that marxism is a kind of magic formula to destroy personal wealth and national prosperity.
Today’s hideous, politically-tainted US welfare-warfare state — call it military Keynesianism, for lack of a better term — certainly could use a different perspective. But leftist critiques such as Modern Monetary Theory are even more vapid and incoherent than marxism.
Property rights, limited government, sound money are all that’s needed for economic advancement. We know this. But no government permits these conditions of prosperity. The US scores only one out of three. So the people suffer, and the false prophets of marxism hawk their tainted intellectual wares on seedy street corners and dying campuses of intellectual benightment.
Every thinker tries to persuade his reader to see from his point of view. In this way Marx is no different from Smith.
The problem is, that we have been habitualized to associate words like Marxism with negative connotations.
In the same way that a child growing up in a vegan household would associate consumption of meat or dairy with negative connotations.
To fairly assess a politcal/economic system, one needs to examine not just the worst examples, but also the best.
Even with examples like Cuba. Can one really say that its troubles are because of Marxism alone? Is it not fair to say that US sanctions and ostracism has some part to play in it?
China has seen bad and good times under different flavours of Marxism. One can say that they are “totalitarian” but do our opinions of their system really matter if their people give it a consistent 90% approval rating? As determined here by a long term Harvard study?
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/
‘To get rich is glorious.’ — Deng Xiaopeng
Does that sound like marxism to you? Brother Karl would be appalled.
https://www.cato.org/regulation/winter-2012-2013/book-review-how-china-became-capitalist
Examine a nighttime satellite photo of the Korean peninsula. South Korea glows like a skein of jewels. North Korea is as dark as the Amazon jungle, save for a faint glow at Pyongyang.
Are we getting the picture?
‘Even with examples like Cuba. Can one really say that its troubles are because of Marxism alone? Is it not fair to say that US sanctions and ostracism has some part to play in it?’ — littlereddot
Absolutely. US sanctions have played a part in Cuba’s immiseration, along with its own homegrown incompetence and verbose caudillo posturing.
I vigorously oppose these sanctions, along with ALL US sanctions. Yanquis are not a Chosen People, though they fervently believe so.
Military Keynesianism is as bankrupt as marxism — as we shall soon see, close up and personal. 🙁
According to Lenin, labour capitalism inevitably degenerates into finance capitalism (imperialism), as the ruling capitalist class seeks profits from investments abroad. Next stage of degeneration is monetary imperialism, described by Hudson in his book super imperialism, when the capitalist ruling class prints money for themselves.
The American Democrat-Zionist uniparty uses the US military as the enforcer of a protection racket under the guise of a world policeman for world peace (on uniparty terms).
The American uniparty sells military protection to foreign countries and organizations like NATO in exchange for tribute paid in US dollars or for favorable trade treaties or for US access to foreign military bases or for favorable military and diplomatic cooperation.
Foreign tribute paid in US tax dollars bolsters the value of US currency.
US currency is further bolstered when foreigners buy US Treasury securities using US dollars.
The American uniparty gives the impression that the US military is an all-powerful world policeman, and that it will always provide stability for the US and for friendly and cooperative foreign countries in the world.
“Why can’t we get intelligence and understanding in our politicians and leaders?”
Because intelligent people that understand what’s wrong with politics, will want to fix the problem.
Politicians are just part of it.
“The dollar system created financial stability but gave the US near total control over the global financial system. US banks became the clearinghouses for global trade. A Japanese company buying goods from India had to buy dollars to pay its supplier in India. The centralized system enabled the US to ban any person, business or country from the global financial system.”
“While a BRICS common currency is unlikely in the immediate future, China is working with several other countries on mBridge, a blockchain-based platform that accommodates financial transactions in multiple currencies.
Jointly developed by the central banks of China, Thailand, the UAE and Hong Kong, mBridge facilitates instant, peer-to-peer transactions without third-party involvement. The platform reportedly uses blockchain technology similar to cryptocurrency Ethereum and accommodates Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC).”
Asia Times
https://asiatimes.com/2024/09/bric-by-bric-de-dollarization-only-a-matter-of-time/
That is dishonest. They are probably also asking for a room to live in, food to buy, public transport, schooling for any children that appear, healthcare, and so on. I’m not saying they’re asking for freebies, but even if they all work and pay their way, it still puts strain on the system.
The Russian commies can hope for the collapse of the Yankee $$$, but this will usher in a new & permanent Dark Age! Collapse of…. law & order, infrastructure, government, military, Christianity, white race..
That’s too much micromanagement for a constitutional amendment. If you are going to do it, it has to be done by statute passed by the elected legislature.
Don’t spend your life charging around on a hobbyhorse.
Marxism is a science, not an ideology. The main immediate goal of Marxist-Leninists is not building of utopia, but defeat of imperialism, whatever it takes. According to Marx, capitalism is a stage of history preceding socialism. Soviet Union also allowed private ownership of means of production during NEP period to build up the forces of production. As long as the capitalist class remain in check, there is nothing anti Marxist in allowing its existence.
The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them. – V. I. Lenin
These are very helpful discussions, because they help me polish my own thoughts.
Sometimes, the various “isms” bleed into each other, and overlap that it is hard to define one “ism” from another “ism”.
Supposing you have a country where
1. 80% of the population lives in State built apartments
2. The economy is highly regulated by the State.
3. State run/owned companies hold the major stake in the economy,
4. There is a mandatory pension scheme where people save 20% of their income
5. Only one political party has been in power since the creation of the state.
6. There is legislation against hate speech, incitement to racial/religious animosity etc
7. Legislation on ethnic quotas in the State built housing areas, to avoid forming ethnic enclaves/ghettoes.
Would you consider such a country Marxist?
And look at a lot of them. In the 2000s, I did door-to-door marketing and surveying for home improvement.
The number of people even in supposed middle class neighborhoods who could not maintain their homes anymore was astounding. Rotted carpeting. Decaying bathrooms. Leaky windows. Leaky roofs. You name it. A lot of them, if they hadn’t been still making a 1980s house payment in 2008, would have been in deep s***. Some of them bought into a high-end neighborhood when they were at the peak of their earning power and now were hanging on but had no cash to spend whatsoever. This group could have sold out and bought into a cheaper market, but they were living where they had been all of their lives. Maybe their kids and grandchildren were in the area too.
In the market as of 2024, someone who is paying off a 25-year-old mortgage can stay in their house for less than it would cost them to rent. In other cases, they have refied into a new thirty and gotten their payment down even lower. They still have no money for maintenance and their house will never be paid off in their lifetime.
Home ownership is just the way of life in America. It doesn’t mean people are living in a nice home and are solvent financially.
“The ETR system is applicable to goods exported outside China’s borders. Sales within the domestic market are not eligible for tax rebates. Legitimate Business Entities: Only legally registered businesses with valid export licenses are eligible to apply for tax rebates.”
https://acadiaadvisory.com/export-tax-rebates-in-china-eligibility-and-applicationprocess-for-exporters/#
Wolff can’t hold a candle to Hudson. He obviously has nothing to say. What he wants to really say is that immigration is just hunky-dory. But then he couldn’t pretend that he is solid with Hudson. And I assure you, he is not approving of Thuringia’s AfD like Hudson is. He’s just a simple-minded ideologue.
You are a fucking ijut. You know nothing. China owns the banks. Therefore it is communist. You didn’t know that. Because you are a fucking ijut.
And how do you know about North Korea? And how do you know that leaving all the skyscraper lights on all night for the janitors is a sign of prosperity? More like stupidity.
Sounds like the good old US of A.
Thank you for the elaboration,
From the 1st paragraph of your link:
The the bold and capitalisation is mine.
….The system allows eligible exporters to claim a refund on the INDIRECT TAXES paid during the production process of goods meant for foreign markets…..
China has a 13% VAT which affects all the products it makes, including those that are eventually exported.
But VAT is meant only to apply for goods sold within Chinese jurisdiction.
So it follows that when goods are exported, the VAT is deducted…..this is perfectly normal and reasonable.
I see nothing nefarious about it.
Dr. Hudson clearly has better understanding of how current stage imperialism works. Wolf is a western campus socialist. I think he does not understand the extend of the fall that is coming.
Hudson makes alot of sense. But his verbal delivery is his weakness. His speech pattern makes him quite hard to follow at times, and he has a rambling way of conveying his ideas.
This is why I generally try to avoid listening to Hudson speak, and would rather read a written transcript instead.
While Hudson is no orator, Wolff does much better in this sense. He presents simple ideas in a punchy and succinct way.
Sometimes I wish Hudson would ask others, maybe a bright student of his, to deliver his ideas on his behalf….then many more people would be able to understand his ideas.
You could not refute even one of my three examples of socialist prosperity in China, so you talk about the North Koreans instead. Hello? Anybody home? It’s not the North Koreans that are sending USians into nearly constant rage and fear.
So your excuse for the increasing prosperity in China is that it is capitalist. It is not. Deng Xiaoping also said, “It does not matter if a cat is white or black, so long as it can catch the mice.” A cat is a pet. It’s nice to have around but it’s not vital. Capitalism is another pet flying inside the Middle Kingdom’s birdcage economy (link). Note that China was already growing 6% a year while Mao was still alive; this rate, if sustained, would have been fast enough to make the Chinese economy gigantic. Capitalism was obviously not vital.
China is socialist: the government owns all the land in the country, every square inch.
China is socialist: as people want affordable housing, Beijing used its control of land to pop the real estate bubble in China, causing all the richest Western institutions to scream in pain. Beijing was clearly not working for the capitalists. If we compare China’s home ownership rate (96.0 percent) to the US’s (65.9 percent), it is glaringly obvious that China has a socialist government, a government that works for the people, not for the oligarchs.
The Usual. If one of the parties to an agreement didn’t keep his word, the other parties sue or arbitrate it. If the non preforming party flips-off the arbitrator, it goes to court.
The appropriate government sets engineering and safety standards for the floors you walk on everyday.
Governments set minimum engineering and safety standards for cars, including EV’s. Auto company
standards are usually higher. Government is just preforming its duty to protect the life and property of all motorists.
Nima’s guest economists( two of the best) talked about tariff negatives. So I mentioned that an outright ban on imported EV’s would have the same effect w/o tariff negatives. US EV manufacturers need an even break with China. So a tariff/ban is not enough.
Rather than government doling out hundreds of $billions to corporations to sequester carbon, stop creating carbon. Fed Government should buy 1,000 US produced EV’s a day for 3 years. Raffle them off for free every Saturday morning, online. Winners must agree to drive the car to and from work for 3 yrs. Title restrictions automatically expire 1st day of 4th year as stated on title.
The government would not buy EV’s from manufacturers that didn’t agree to the requirements I mentioned above.
With an even break US EV manufacturers can compete with China EV’s all the way to Tierra Del Fuego.
jewish and judaized propaganda control the west today…utterly and completely. The ADL censors everything in the msm and everything on msm comment boards.
Just yesterday, as a test on msn news on a hezbollah story, i did the following:
-I wrote “sociopaths stand with quebec” then saved. It went through fine.
-I the wrote “sociopaths stand with nigeria” then saved. It went through fine.
-I wrote “sociopaths stand with Ireland” then saved. It went through fine.
-I wrote “sociopaths stand with israel” then tried to click save. MSN came back with the message ….
and it would not save
Now, to alert MSN users of this hypocrisy and censorship, I wrote down the steps and asked other users to do the same (but without using the word israel). It saved.
5 minutes later, I tried to use the same comment to tell users how to test the censorship, and then it blocked that too.
So, not only is the censorship on MSN likely controlled by the ADL or other jewish NGOs, when you try to alert users to the censorship, they will block that too.
Everything in the west now is viewed through an ADL and world jewish congress lens.
The west has never been this unfree. All the msm is now is jewish/judaized/kosherized propaganda and one side of the story.
So, it seems as though the options for western European nations are thus:
1. Stay within the current jew-led western “order” that proposes utopia will be achieved in the west if Europe and the Anglosphere imports infinity sub-80 IQ niggers to flood Europe and the Anglosphere and turn those areas into mulatto cesspools much like the dominican republic. In addition to this wonderful jewish plan (to actually destroy Esau/Europeans for “being mean to jews”) Germany and other continental nations should destroy their manufacturing bases and become backwards, poor, agrarian states…. like what the jew henry morgenthau wanted for his hated Germans:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan
OR
2. Support SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) and join them….supporting nation states that desire peaceful cooperation between the distinct peoples of Eurasia (Europeans/Russians, east Asians, and middle eastern peoples). NOTE: these peoples have been interacting with each other for thousands and thousands of years.
To me, the choice seems obvious.
There is no future for Europe under jewish (u.s.) rule. The only future is to ally with Russia, China, and other sane countries against the judeo globohomo open borders agenda.
Sorry to disappoint you, littlereddot, 85% of people in the US were born here. We did not immigrate. so are not immigrants. There are so many of us that we are the nation. So the US is a nation of the native born rather than a nation of immigrants. Immigrants don’t create nations they join existing nations.
Today ‘the nation of immigrants’ malarkey is the PMC way of telling the native born working class that we are no better and deserve less than an illegal alien who stepped across the border this morning.
I’ve never quite understood this argument that an economy has to grow, grow, grow forever, and import more people and keep growing for eternity.
Why?
Thailand doesn’t behave like this. Neither does Japan or Korea. They are doing fine. They aren’t importing infinity low iq africans so they can “keep growing” for infinity.
So, why is it that these talking heads insist that countries…economies, etc must grow, grow, grow forever? What is wrong with stability….ethnic/racial homogeneity, and steady technological advancements? Seems more like utopia to me than infinity non White invaders that replace us.
Yahoos like NIMA never seem to explain the need for infinity growth…
“China is socialist: the government owns all the land in the country, every square inch.
… If we compare China’s home ownership rate (96.0 percent)”
You can’t have it both ways. Either the government owns 100% and the so called “homeowners” own nothing, it it does not own 100%. Putting both these statements in one post is ridiculous.
You think it’s ridiculous because your mind has been poisoned by Western culture.
In China, the government owns the land — but the people own their homes. When the Chinese government starts a megaproject, it doesn’t force the people out; the government usually builds new, better homes elsewhere and gives them to the people for free. This was what happened at the Three Gorges dam, and is why there were no riots.
Of course, Western propagandists are careful not to mention the humanitarian, benevolent aspects of China’s government. It’s not a nanny, but it is nowhere near an evil empire.
(More evidence that the Chinese people own their homes: an example of a “nail house” (link) where some families refused to move out for a road, and the government respected their choice by building the road around the house.)
The Usual. If one of the parties to an agreement didn’t keep his word, the other parties sue or arbitrate
it. If the non preforming party flips-off the arbitrator, it goes to court.
The appropriate government sets engineering and safety standards for the floors you walk on everyday.
Governments set minimum engineering and safety standards for cars, including EV’s. Auto company
standards are usually higher. Government is just preforming its duty to protect the life and property of
all motorists.
Nima’s guest economists (two of the best) talked about tariff negatives. So I mentioned that an outright
ban on imported EV’s would have the same effect w/o tariff negatives. US EV manufacturers need an
even break with China. So a tariff/ban is not enough.
Rather than government doling out hundreds of $billions to corporations to sequester carbon, stop
creating carbon. Fed Government should buy 1,000 US produced EV’s a day for 3 years. Raffle them off
for free every Saturday morning, online. Winners must agree to drive the car to and from work for 3 yrs.
Title restrictions automatically expire 1st day of 4th year as stated on title.
The government would not buy EV’s from manufacturers that didn’t agree to the requirements I
mentioned above.
With an even break US EV manufacturers can compete with China EV’s all the way to Tierra Del Fuego.
If all things were equal between China and USA, same level or zero tariffs, same level of taxes, no bans on “national security” grounds etc….US EV manufacturers would be able to compete with China when US wages match China’s.
Vidi has already explained the situation in China very well.
I would like to expand on it.
Westerners, and Americans in particular need to appreciate that there is more than one way of living in the world. What is the norm in the USA is not always the norm everywhere else.
I will give you another example from a discussion I was having in another thread.
I live in Singapore, and I was discussing Cost of Living with an American.
The American insisted that Singapore’s cost of living was much higher than USA because he pulled up a website that used data for NON Singaporeans.
You see, in Singapore, and unlike the US, there are two classes of homes.
1. Private homes sold on open market …. which is what you see in the USA
2. Subsidised state built homes sold with restrictions…..only Singaporeans/PR are eligible.
The vast majority, 80% of Singaporeans live in such subsidised housing.
The price differences between the two are stark, $200,000 for subsidised housing, and $3 million for an equivalent private housing.
So when we use the data with the subsidised housing market correctly applied, the cost of living in Singapore is actually significantly lower than the US.
Now I have been trying to explain this to my American interlocuter, and he does not seem to be able/willing to understand…..because he assumes what is true in USA = what is true elsewhere.
Thanks for explaining Singapore’s property situation. I had no idea it was like that.
Yesterday, by sheer chance, I learned that many Singaporeans affectionately call their city the Little Red Dot. That probably explains your handle. 🙂
LOL. Yes. it is actually term used originally in defiance of our small size.
You see, some decades ago, there was argument between Singapore+Malaysia VS Indonesia.
The Indonesians had been allowing the indiscriminate burning of their forests to make way for oil palm plantations. And Indonesia being so big and so close to our countries, the dense smoke that it produced soon blew over to Malaysia and Singapore causing a air pollution crisis.
So when Singapore complained to the Indonesians, their then president Habibie dismissed Singapore as just “a little red dot on the map” and should go buzz off.
Funnily enough, Singaporeans really liked that term, and have used it as a form of defiance against larger countries ever since.
So you will see Red Dot cafes, Red Dot museums etc it is everywhere. It even made it to our 50th Independence/National Day celebrations…..LOL
Also, consider that the house of Saud was installed in a coup, helped along by MI6. It was part of the “Great Game.”
After Edward VII became king (20Jan 1936 to Dec 1936), his entirely Jewish advisors – the infamous “Jewish Seven” sought out the Saud family, then a tribe of Jewish bandits located near the geographic center of the Arabian peninsula.
The Saud family was armed by the British. They received modern Lee-Enfield rifles, the same weapons then used by the British army.
The new-found firepower and support, allowed the Saudi to capture the mud walled village of Riyadh.
The Saud family was given consistent Zionist support, and they were later to expand to nearly the whole of Arabia.
The dates for the four phases of the Saudi slow-moving coup from Wiki (which included changes in religion):
The House of Saud has had four phases: the Sheikhdom of Diriyah (1446–1744); the Emirate of Diriyah (1727–1818), marked by the expansion of Salafism; the Emirate of Nejd (1824–1891), marked with continuous infighting; and the current state (1902–present), which evolved into the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932
(After 1932 with Zion’s help, the entire Peninsula fell).
i bet there’s not that many niggers in singapore.
That is true, there are not as many as whites.
Its a shame, I find black folks quite likable.
Video Link
Video Link
Not at all!
Long gone are the times of Roman justice. Greek paedeia and Orthodoxy as far as government is concerned.
And we are near to the point where common sense, reasoning and individual responsibility will be very scarse indeed.
But as long as we are alive we must keep up the good fight to be children of God through Grace.
You can’t serve it but you can sure SPEND it….
In fact, there may be a small group of people in America today that can qualify as real USA communists. They’re intelligent enough to put the word MAGA in front of communism, and embrace conservative cultural values; and radical enough to embrace Lenin and Stalin; and young & fit enough to survive the defeats and disasters of the forthcoming future. So, they may grow into people that their country can rely upon. Now they’re in the process of organising their own party: https://acp.us/
Their promise:
they like you too, they like to rob, rape, and murder you gooks. haven’t you seen them beating on asian females in new york and oakland among other US cities?
stop posting lovable nigger bullshit here, if your nigger ratio went up in singapore your crime rates and decay would quickly follow. that was my point but it went right over your head.
What I find absolutely baffling about the economic argument is that at the same time the governments are importing hordes of functionally illiterate people into Western countries, they are telling the people, that universal basic income is needed, because automation is going to destroy most low-skilled-jobs.
No way that would happen. We are a practical people.
We keep immigration of non-integrable ethinicities down to lowest possible levels.
That is why it is very rare for Whites to get citizenship either.
Of course. Low life segments of any society will create trouble any where they go.
You might be surprised to hear this, but in Singapore, White people are associated with causing trouble, especially with the cops.
This is why ever so often when some altercation happens with police, the first question people ask is “Is it another Angmo (white guy) again”? Eye rolling usually follows.
Being so close to Australia, we get disproportionate numbers of Aussie Bogans. Watch the videos below:
You should read the comments, plenty of references to “yet another entitled Angmo causing trouble”
Our police try too hard to de-escalate the situation. With Bogans/Rednecks, they should just shoot them immediately like the Yank police.
Video Link
Video Link
Video Link
Video Link
Video Link
Immigration causes an immediate rise in GDP figures.
Quote:
“What I find absolutely baffling about the economic argument is that at the same time the governments are importing hordes of functionally illiterate people into Western countries, they are telling the people, that universal basic income is needed, because automation is going to destroy most low-skilled-jobs.”
Caroline, I am going to attempt to reply to this quote and also to the question posed by the title of this column written by Mr. Hudson.
First of all, I believe that “they” (the really Big Money Interests that actually run our government and ALL of the other governments in the rest of the so-called “free world”) do not care what happens to the dollar. The dollar is but one small “tool” that they use to implement their long-range goal of establishing a one-world fascist dictatorship government, where a very few at the top own everything and the rest of the people (that is, the ones who are ALLOWED to live) will be their slaves. The World Economic Forum “think tank” has publicly said as much.
ALL of the problems facing the United States and the rest of the so-called “free world” ARE PLANNED. There is nothing that happens by chance. It all goes back to what I just stated about the aims of the Big Money interests. Since the founding of our country, there have been groups intent on destroying our republic and implementing a one world fascist dictatorship government. A very good book which goes into great detail about the REAL history of the U.S. government since its days of founding is a book that was written by Anton Chaitkin, titled “Treason in America” and I encourage you to read it.
Treason was occurring since the founding of the USA and it is occurring right now. There are a multitude of “think tanks” and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) actively working to destroy our republic and toward the implementation of a one world fascist dictatorship government and I believe that BOTH national political parties are complicit in this. In my opinion, ALL members of the House and the Senate and all living presidents are guilty of treason – shirking their sworn oath to protect our country from all enemies, both domestic and foreign. I believe that they should all be charged, tried, found guilty and jailed for the offense of treason.
I realize that these are very strong words, but in my opinion, ALL are guilty of not upholding the Constitution of the United States – most notably in the areas of the “Federal” Reserve System issuing fiat currency and the IRS unconstitutionally collecting personal income taxes. Lest anyone think that I am advocating the violent overthrow of our government, I AM NOT. I am for the peaceful change BACK TO a Constitutional Republic. For an excellent summary of this, watch the following video:
ALL of the “problems” facing that of the USA and the rest of the so-called “civilized world could be solved, if it was desired to solve them. This includes the phony “wars” on drugs and “terror,” the fentanyl / opioid “crisis,” the fiat currency / personal income tax problem, the influx of millions of ILLEGAL ALIENS over the past few decades, the adulterated food problem, the SCAM known as the American healthcare system, and a host of other problems facing our country. And I am NOT referring to the phony climate-change / global warming scam.
In regard to the upcoming presidential election, I personally believe that it will matter very little who sits in that office. The President controls NOTHING; the Big Money Interests CONTROL EVERYTHING. Possibly if Trump gets into office, the destruction taking place in our country will slow a bit, but it will not stop. The bankers and the rest of the “financial industry” have ruined everything – The Wreckers – and I believe that they are unstoppable.
At its founding, the United States had the world’s most perfect union. But it is purposely being destroyed, just as surely as I am composing this post to whomever will read it. As Lenin is reported to have said, “Give the Americans a rope and they will hang themselves.” If he actually did say this, truer words have never been spoken.
Thank you.
Great point. Exactly (((their))) rhetoric never matches (((their))) actions.
If mexicans and haitians “make countries wealthier”, then why aren’t they making them wealthier when they stay in their countries, littleredhypocrite?
GDP up……and my people replaced by chinese, pakis, mexicans, and nigerians that hate us?
No thanks littleredhypocrite.
You’ve shown your hand. You hate White gentiles and will use any sophistry/excuses you can to harm my people. Go push replacement immigration for china, japan, korea, and thailand. Feck off with your anti White subversion.
If foreigners replacing the indigenous people was so great, then why don’t you chinese do it in china, or taiwan? Why don’t the japanese do it….or the koreans?
Asswipe
Who are “they”? They….meaning the jewish ruling class and their shabbos goys in Europe and the Anglosphere do NOT run the governments of nigeria, or thailand, or north korea, or iran, or china, or mexico.
That is why the replacement level mass third world immigration is ONLY occurring in Europe and the Anglosphere.
The ruling classes of east asian and subsaharan african countries don’t HATE their people the way the jewish ruling class hates the White gentiles of the west.
As you can seem I am very jew-critical. But it drives me bonkers when people say “jews run the world”. They absolutely do not. They only rule where they are phenotypically like the majority (ie Europe and the Anglosphere). The jews WILL never control ss africa or east asia because those people would easily see that the jews are foreigners.
KEI,
As best as I can tell, the “they” are the REALLY BIG money people of the world – Gates, Soros, Fink, the Hunts, the Rothschilds, etc. Probably many names that we have never heard of. The Bilderbergers, the Club of Rome, etc., all fronts for the Big Money.
And it is all based on DEBT – fictitiously created “money” that is used to make more money.
As I have said on this website many times before, everything in this country is a scam, a conspiracy or a combination of the two. The MAJOR theft in this country is not by “bank robbers” or petty criminals. Most theft is committed by people wearing business suits (or dresses or pantsuits). And, for the most part, it’s all “legal.”
Here is a website that delves into the fraud concerning the financial industry –
https://wallstreetonparade.com/
And for all you sports fans –
https://www.fieldofschemes.com/
I am the world’s worst sports fan. The ONLY team that I have any respect for is the Green Bay Packers, out of Green Bay, Wisconsin. The Packers are OWNED by the public. They accept absolutely no government money FOR ANYTHING. All of the workers at their sporting events are volunteers. They have an absolute minimum of paid employees and all of the money for the maintenance and modernization of Lambeau Field is DONATED by the fans.
Yes, I am sure that there are a LOT of Jews that are responsible for the way things are. But there are also a LOT of Gentile associates working hand-in-hand with them. Their enablers, if you will.
Thank you.
KEI,
I forgot to mention the Rockefellers. In my opinion and from what I have learned in the past 25 years, there are many, many “foundations” and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that are all doing the bidding of the Really Big Money interests. And most, if not all, enjoy tax-exempt status with the Internal Revenue Service.
Thank you.
From my comment:
From your response comment:
Well here is a recent article:
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/rabobank-iran-just-made-huge-strategic-error
Quoting from this article:
Iran is in a war with Israel and may therefore have to attack assets of the House of Saud. Makes sense – no? Why can’t Iran just target Israel, though? Or just America? Because in this escalation ladder that won’t work – right? Ask yourself why not? It’s because what is being protected is the petrodollar regime which is a 3-way partnership, each with different motivations. How else could it be? (because otherwise, all agree, Israel and America are not the same thing, at all, because they are different physical entities in different locales, for starters, upon which Iran may attack, escalation-ladder-wise, among a myriad of other important differences of all kinds between the two entities).
Of course, the 9/11 events are another example. It is much easier to make sense of those events, once one sees that those events were used by the Jewish component of the 3-way petrodollar partnership to smear the Saud component, in order to block them from renegotiating their end of the deal (they wanted more geopolitical say-so, by 2001, which would have meant a discounting of the Jewish component).
Thank you for taking time to explain.
I think I see our point of divergence.
I am thinking of a 2 camp relationship in a world wide context, where it can roughly be seen as West vs Rest.
You are looking at the 3 power relationship within the Western camp.