Kiva Is Not Quite What It Seems

[MD] We at Money Delusions deeply want to see a “real” money process instituted. We see a lot of the world’s problems and injustices vanishing if that could be accomplished. And it could and would happen “organically” if people just knew what is going on…on what should be going on.

Occasionally we run across an initiative that is “trying to be money”. KIVA looked like just such an initiative. Their site is full of “do-gooder” gook. In groping it (looking for “what’s in it for them”) we come across their “terms of agreement”. These “terms” documents read like an enumeration of lawsuits lost. This one is 11,924 words. An average novel is said to have 70,000 to 100,000 words. So these terms are 1/3rd to 1/10th of a novel.

Now we know the complete essence of a “real” money process can be stated in less than 500 words. That’s 1/20th the number of words in KIVA’s “terms of agreement”. So how many words must it take to explain what they’re doing…how they do it…and what they get paid for doing it…and how transparent their operation is. How do we even find out?

Frankly, when you peel the onion on these do-gooder initiatives, you need to have a barf bag at the ready. This is no exception. But luckily, it looks like someone already has them on their radar. This is an article by just such a person. Let’s see what’s going on.

Skip to main content


          David Roodman

          October 02, 2009

          Update: Matt Flannery, CEO and Co-Founder of Kiva, replied to this post as a guest blogger. Kiva has also changed its site, and I have blogged more.]

          [MD] Note, this article is already over 13 years old. I noted they updated their “terms” less than 2 months ago. He says he’s “blogged more”. But that link is broken. That’s why we like to capture the actual articles as well as give the links. They can run, but they cannot hide.

          This post is so long it needs an executive summary.

          Kiva is the path-breaking, fast-growing person-to-person microlending site. It works this way: Kiva posts pictures and stories of people needing loans. You give your money to Kiva. Kiva sends it to a microlender. The lender makes the loan to a person you choose. He or she ordinarily repays. You get your money back with no interest. It’s like eBay for microcredit.

          [MD] “Path-breaking, fast-growing,….”. Questions: Where do we find an enumeration of microlenders? Actually, that’s an obvious subject for another investigation. “It’s like eBay for microcredit”. Actually, that “is” what a “real money process” is…without the eBay.

          You knew that, right? Well guess what: you’re wrong, and so is Kiva’s diagram. Less that 5% of Kiva loans are disbursed after they are listed and funded on Kiva’s site. Just today, for example, Kiva listed a loan fepor Phong Mut in Cambodia and at this writing only $25 of the needed $800 has been raised. But you needn’t worry about whether Phong Mut will get the loan because it was disbursed last month. And if she defaults, you might not hear about it: the intermediating microlender MAXIMA might cover for her in order to keep its Kiva-listed repayment rate high.

          [MD] Contrasting to a real money process: (1) It’s not about “loans”…it’s about promises. (2) There are no disbursements…just a transparent entry into a journal and ledger for all to see…immediately. (3) If she defaults you “will” hear about it. That’s the natural negative feedback loop. (4) The amount promised is not denied to responsible traders…and irresponsible one pay interest up front (which is returned if they don’t default). (5) And the “microlender” is just a federated agent…like an insurance salesman. In fact, a “real money process” is virtually identical to a mutual insurance company (where the customers “are” the company). The main difference is there’s no money to be made in a “real money process”. With an insurance company, the money is made as investment income…which may also be lost.

          In short, the person-to-person donor-to-borrower connections created by Kiva are partly fictional. I suspect that most Kiva users do not realize this. Yet Kiva prides itself on transparency.

          [MD] In a “real” money process, it’s person-to-process at all times. The person is the “trader”. The process is the “score keeper, default detector, interest collector”.

          I hasten to temper this criticism. What Kiva does behind the scenes is what it should do. Imagine if Kiva actually worked the way people think it does. Phong Mut approaches a MAXIMA loan officer and clears all the approval hurdles, making the case that she has a good plan for the loan, has good references, etc. The MAXIMA officer says, “I think you deserve a loan, and MAXIMA has the capital to make it. But instead of giving you one, I’m going to take your picture, write down your story, get it translated and posted on an American web site, and then we’ll see over the next month whether the Americans think you should get a loan. Check back with me from time to time.” That would be inefficient, which is to say, immorally wasteful of charitable dollars. And it would be demeaning for Phong Mut. So instead MAXIMA took her picture and story, gave her the loan, and then uploaded the information to Kiva. MAXIMA will lend the money it gets from Kiva to someone else, who may never appear on

          [MD] With a “real money process”, Phong Mut does not have to jump through any hurleds if she is a “responsible trader” (i.e. no default propensity). But he described the microlender as having already made the loan. Further, it assumes MAXIMA has money…it doesn’t create it nor allow Phong Mut to create it. Where does it get the money?

          Moreover, the way Kiva actually works is hidden in plain sight. On the right of Phong Mut’s page, you can see that MAXIMA lent her the money on September 8 and listed her on Kiva on September 21. So while Kiva is feeding a misunderstanding, it isn’t technically hiding anything.

          [MD] So it’s deceit in plane site?

          And finally in Kiva’s defense, its behavior is emblematic of fund-raising in microfinance and charity generally, and is ultimately traceable to human foibles. People donate in part because it makes them feel good. Giving the beneficiary a face and constructing a story for her in which the donor helps write the next chapter opens purses.

          [MD] I submit there is no such thing as altruism!

          Our sensitivity to stories and faces distorts how we give, thus what charities do and how they sell themselves. What if the best way to help in some places is to support communities rather than individuals? To make roads rather than make loans? To contribute to a disaster preparedness fund rather than just respond to the latest earthquake? And how far should nonprofits go in misrepresenting what they do in order to fund it? It is not an easy question: what if honesty reduces funding?

          [MD] Help communities? You can only do that if the community is a “government”. A “real money process” may be considered a community…a trading community. But every traders is an individual…not a member of a community. As soon as you introduce a community, you introduce community leaders, and you introduce leverage and corruption. “What if honesty reduces funding?”. What if “funding” isn’t involved at all.

          The big lesson is that the charities we observe, the ones whose pitches reach our retinas, are survivors of a Darwinian selection process driven by our own minds. An actual eBay venture called MicroPlace competes with Kiva; but MicroPlace is more up-front about the real deal. Its page for sample borrower Filadelfo Sotelo invites you to “invest in the organization that helped Filadelfo Sotelo: Fondo de Desarrollo Local” (FDL). This honesty is probably one reason MicroPlace has badly lagged Kiva. Who wants to click on the FDL icon when you can click on a human face?

          [MD] Looks like this article is rich in targets.

          Nicholas Kristof once tweeted that he “Just made a new microloan on to a Nicaraguan woman. Great therapy: always makes me feel good.” We should not feel guilty about the pleasure of giving. It should not just be eating your brussels sprouts. Indeed, Kristof might argue that’s ability to make the user feel good is its greatest strength, for it draws people into an experience that stretches their horizons, educates them about global poverty, and entices them to contribute money they might otherwise spend on potato chips.

          [MD] A “real” money process is not about “giving” or “feel good”. It’s about making a trade spanning time and space. Any time someone is in the business of making you feel good…well, don’t do business with them. Would poverty of any kind exist if we had a “real” money process. I submit a lot less of it would exist if people were just enabled to make promises and motivated to deliver on them. It a far better (and simpler) way to do life than stealing.

          Still, we should take responsibility for how our pursuit of that pleasure plays out. Surely it is better to invest in an institution such as FDL without requiring it to incur the expense of posting pictures and stories of every borrower. Historically microcreditors have scaled to reach millions of people by cutting costs to the bone. Surely it would be better for us to give in a way that allows the microfinance institutions to put more of their limited energies into helping poor people manage their difficult lot and less into making us feel good.

          [MD] This whole notion of an “investor” and “investing” is part-and-parcel to the scam which is “money as we have it today”.

          I do not know the full answer to this conundrum, this tension between the need to draw donors and operate efficiently. Still, subtle dissembling makes me uneasy, perhaps because good intentions so often go awry. If a charity obscures how it operates, should we trust its claims about its impacts?

          Long version

          My wife Mai heard someone say that the world needs both playwrights and critics—if more playwrights. I treasure this observation because, as this blog must make obvious, I’m a critic. I can testify that being a critic can be bruising, especially when the playwrights you critique are alive. It’s solace to think that the world needs me.

          [MD] If the world doesn’t need you, you’re not of value. That can be serious when it comes to trading for food and shelter.

          But the observation also helps me appreciate playwrights. They are the people who create things that weren’t there, the people who are a tad insane in the sense that they confuse fantasy and reality. They see something in their mind’s eye and believe they can make it real. Precisely because I am not like them, I hold playwrights—visionaries—in some awe. The most skillful, passionate, and lucky of them “put a dent in the universe” as Steve Jobs said. (An early employee described Jobs’s uncanny ability to create a reality distortion field that altered bystanders’ perceptions of the technologically possible.) Without playwrights, we might be still living in caves. At least, we wouldn’t have iPhones.

          [MD] “Playwrights confuse fantasy and reality”? Actually, writing a novel is a very effective way to introduce ideas. For example, suppose someone knowing the essence and importance of a “real money process” wrote a novel about it. Suppose the premise of the novel was that the “real money process” was already in wide use. Suppose the premise is that the corrupt money-changer instituted process we all know and hate was being “sold” as a replacement. That would be an interesting novel. I submit a good way to test an idea is to (1) assume that the idea is actually in place and working. Then (2) take the existing working process and sell it against the idea. This puts the existing process on defense…rather than the proposed process. It reveals the warts of the existing process.

          We also probably wouldn’t have the Grameen Bank, BRAC, and dozens of other successful microfinance institutions (MFIs) made by driven visionaries. And we wouldn’t have Kiva, the person-to-person microcredit web site founded by Matt Flannery and Jessica Jackley.

          [MD} More rich targets. Need to look into Flannery and Jackley. Fannery’s Wikipedia article has been removed. Is this a thickening plot?

          On the other hand, without critics—analysts driven to understand the world rather than change it—we might not have mastered electricity. So we needed them too to get to iPhones. Critics and playwrights are yin and yang. Of course the two essences exist within all of us.

          Critics seem to parse matters into quantities and concepts while playwrights seem to speak, and perhaps think, more in pictures and stories. (Or am I over-reaching here?)

          Like most innovations, Kiva is not entirely new. Rather, it is an ingenious fusion of older ideas. One is child sponsorship, which Save the Children pioneered in 1940. A family in a rich country sends $10 or $20 each month to a designated child in a poor country via a charity. In return, the family receives a photo and an update at least once a year. When I was perhaps eight, my family sponsored Constance, a Greek girl about my age, through Save the Children. I remember looking at her solemn face in two successive black and white portraits, trying to judge how much she had grown in a year.

          [MD] “ingenious fusion of older ideas”. Refinement of a bad idea? Send money…help a child…feel good. There’s a outfit near me that does this with donkeys. What’s not to love?

          Child sponsorship grew explosively in the United States in the 1990s, thanks mainly to groups with names like the Christian Children’s Fund, Children International, and Childreach (now Plan International). Then an exposé in the Chicago Tribune in March 1998 brought it crashing down (hat tip to Tim Ogden). Starting in 1995, editors and reporters at the paper sponsored a dozen children in such countries as Guatemala and Mali. Then the reporters tracked down the children:

          The Tribune’s yearlong examination of four leading sponsorship organizations…found that several children sponsored…received few or no promised benefits. A few others received a hodgepodge of occasional handouts, such as toothpaste, soap and cooking pots. Some got clothing and shoes that frequently did not fit.Sick children were sometimes given checkups and medicine, but not always.One child, a 12-year-old Malian girl sponsored through Save the Children, died soon after being sponsored, although the charity continued to accept money on her behalf for nearly two years after her death. A subsequent investigation by Save the Children found that at least two dozen other sponsors had sent the charity money on behalf of dead children in Mali for varying periods of time, in two cases as long as five years.

          [MD] It’s all about leverage. The beneficiary may get a little…but the organizer gets a lot. And it’s like so much that happens downstream of our flawed money process. In order to dodge inflation and avoid taxation, scams abound. With a real money process there would be no inflation to dodge. And taxation would be less necessary since there’s no interest collection in it for the money-changers (that’s where your taxes go folks…the stuff government actually does it does through counterfeiting…impossible with a real money process)

          There was more to the story. Clover and John Dixon of Bellingham, Washington, received faked New Year’s letters from a West African child who had died in a donkey cart accident. Sponsorship peddlers sent heart-string-tugging appeals for extra $25 contributions on birthdays, Christmas, Easter, and the purpose-built International Hug Day. Childreach ran a disastrous experiment in Ecuador with a novel intervention called “microcredit.” Local workers embezzled funds; in protest, borrowers burned loan documents.

          [MD] Valentines day, Mothers and Fathers day, Easter, Christmas, …etc. They got instituted for a “commercial” reason. “Burned loan documents”? Now there’s a novel idea. Wonder why they didn’t think of that before with the money-changers and the governments they institute?

          Undoubtedly some hard-sell charlatanry was at work. But the problem was deeper than that: a tension between creating the psychological experience of connection that raised money and the realities of fighting poverty. Often the fairest and most effective way to help poor children is by building assets for the whole community such as schools, clinics, and wells. Often charities contract with locals to build these things. Often things go wrong because of corruption, bad luck, or arrogance among outsiders thinking they know what will work. In the best cases, charities learn from failure. All these factors break the connection between giving and benefit, sponsor and child. But admitting that would have threatened the funding base:

          [MD] Here he goes again with the “collective” being the solution. Nonsense!

          “For a segment of the public, there will be nothing else that will reach those people the way that child sponsorship does,” says Charles MacCormack, the president of Westport, Conn.-based Save the Children, the nation’s oldest and best-known sponsorship agency….As MacCormack puts it, “An awful lot of people who sign on to a personal human being will not sign on to a well.”…”[The charities] are addicted to it, because if they stop, they lose their identity as Save the Children,” says Michael Maren, a veteran aid-agency worker in Africa and author of “The Road to Hell,” a book critical of private foreign assistance organizations including Save the Children.”That’s their thing,” Maren says. “They invented it. That’s their problem. The Catch-22 is that the only way to raise money is sponsorship, but that is not the way to development. The show is the biggest part of what they do. So, they say, let’s keep the show going, but try to find ways to make it better.”

          [MD] “The only way to raise money is sponsorship”. Nonsense. Raise it like the rich people do. Create it yourself. The only thing that keeps you from doing that right now is the rich people’s claim that that advantage is their exclusive domain. It is not!

          Within a year of the Tribune series, the Missouri attorney general had slapped restrictions on Children International while the non-profit umbrella group InterAction committed to developing a set of voluntary industry standards. Many of the rule changes related to how clearly the charities disclosed how they operated.

          [MD] And here again we see the failure of “legal” solutions. Laws dilute the only law we need…that being the golden rule. If someone disputes what you’re doing, make your golden rule argument in your defense. You quickly see that such a defense doesn’t exist under virtually everything that is disputed.

          Matt Flannery penned a history of Kiva’s first two years for MIT’s innovations journal in 2007. Two years later, he wrote a second installment in the same periodical. Flannery’s authentic, conversational voice makes both articles readable and engaging. As he tells his own story, he comes across as an approachable man of vision, passion, and action.

          [MD] More rich targets. I wonder if we can locate that history and the installment (the link supplied is broken). “…a man of vision, passion, and action…”. How does his golden rule defense come across?

          Flannery tells how another Kiva ingredient, microcredit, first mixed in his mind with child sponsorship. Fittingly, it happened through hearing a story:

          One night, [Jessica] invited me to come hear a guest speaker on the topic of microfinance, Dr. Mohammed [sic] Yunus. Dr. Yunus spoke to a classroom of thirty people and shared his story of starting the Grameen Bank. It was my first exposure to the topic and I thought it was a great story from an inspiring person. For Jessica, it was more of a call to action that focused her life goals.

          [MD] Another target. Need to reach Dr. Yanus and get him to read I suspect that’s easier said than done.

          Some months later, Jessica went off to East Africa to perform “impact evaluations” for the Village Enterprise Fund, which works intensively with poor farmers, providing grants (not loans) and training to help them start business activities. Jessica’s work gathered data on indicators of poverty among participants, asking “questions like ‘Do you take sugar with your tea?’ and ‘Do you sleep on a mattress?’.” The couple kept in touch by phone. Then came the epiphany:

          [MD]”…providing grants, not loans…”: Another bad idea. Institute a real money process. A really good idea.

          When the words “Sponsor a Business” entered our phone conversation, it set off a chain of ideas. We had both grown up sponsoring children in Africa through our church and families. Why not extend the core of that idea to business? However, instead of donations, we could focus on loans. This seemed like a dignified, intellectual, and equitable extension that appealed to us at this point in our lives. Instead of benefactor relationships, we could explore partnership relationships. Instead of poverty, we could focus on progress.

          [MD] “Sponsor a Business”? Again, this isn’t how successful businesses come to be. They begin by someone providing a service or good to someone else. And the business grows. When the business is “sponsored”, if it grows at all, it grows into the hands of the sponsor.

          Soon after, Matt joined Jessica in Africa. He brought his video camera, which embodied the third key ingredient in Kiva, information technology. “I planned to spend most of my time making a short documentary of small business stories. I was also intent on investigating the viability of our new idea.”

          Back in the United States Matt and Jessica began their impressive passage across the desert in pursuit of their vision. She networked for advice and support. He built the website after-hours, and eventually quit his job. Together they wrote the business plan.

          Once the site was ready, we needed loan applications in Africa to post on the site. That’s where our friend Moses came in. Moses Onyango is a pastor in Tororo, Uganda, whom Jessica had stayed with after I left. Moses is a community leader in Tororo and is highly connected to the Internet. We had been in close contact over the past year and Moses was ready to post and administer the loans of seven entrepreneurs in his community….Once Moses had posted the seven businesses, the site was ready to go. We sent out an email to our wedding invite list and waited to see what would happen. We emailed about 300 people, and all seven businesses were funded in a weekend. That was April 2005, and we raised $3,500 in a few days. We were blown away; everything worked.

          [MD] And now comes the question asked of me (to my embarrassment) about one of my ideas: “How do you make money with it?”. I didn’t have an answer. I just felt if you do something of value, the money will come as a result of that trade. Actually I think it does. But MBA’s are taught to look at everything as a “value” proposition…as a “business model”. If people looked at the money-changers that way, the money-changers would be out of business.

          Right there, Kiva hit the tension in the sponsorship—more currently, “person-to-person” (P2P)—model: the need to find and post enough stories to keep up with demand. It led instantly to fraud, though Matt Flannery didn’t know it when he wrote the two-year history. As he recounts in the four-year history, a Kiva Fellow (volunteer) sent to Uganda discovered that Moses was producing many stories about individual borrowers the easy way, from whole cloth. Flannery flew to Uganda:

          I spent two weeks organizing a clean-up operation. We hired accountants and lawyers. I spent hours with Moses, trying to figure out exactly what happened. He was very apologetic, but our conversations didn’t go anywhere. The money had vanished into a series of bad investments and a new house. Moses had a growing family. His new son was named for me: Matthew Flannery Onyango.

          [MD] “We hired accountants and lawyers”… where did the money come from for that?

          Admirably, Kiva went public with the information:

          …we alerted our users that not all of their funds made it to the intended recipients….The reaction from our user base was telling. Overwhelmingly, they thanked us for our honesty and poured their refunds back into loans to other MFIs on the site. They reinforced an important lesson: whenever possible, be completely transparent. Transparency pays huge long-term dividends….If you are running an organization and are considering withholding valuable information from your customers, just don’t. There are a million reasons to withhold information. Lawyers will warn you about liabilities. Marketing people will preach about tarnishing the brand. Investors will encourage you to look bigger and better than you are. Most of this is just tired and outdated thinking.Operating transparently is a great way to keep an organization accountable for its actions. Before you act, ask yourself: would you be OK doing this if you had to tell your entire user base about it? Would you be proud if your actions were described on the front page of the New York Times? These are great tests that I often use to vet a decision.

          [MD]”…whenever possible, be completely transparent…”: If it involves money creation and isn’t transparent, that’s a show stopper. “…before you act, ask yourself…”. Hmmm. Where have we heard that before. The golden rule. Don’t hear it any more do we.

          Flannery describes the “story factory.” Running one—collecting and posting stories—imposes a significant expense on MFIs but is evidently offset by the low 2% 0% (hat tip Ben Elberger) interest rate that Kiva charges on capital:

          [MD] Notice how getting it wrong to begin with, they redouble their efforts…in the same wrong direction.

          Out in Cambodia, I got to watch firsthand how a sophisticated MFI gets content on the site. It is quite an operation….In the field, loan officers carry Kiva questionnaires along with a host of other loan documents. When they visit a village, they gather women and tell them about the opportunity to apply for a loan. If a woman decides to apply, the loan officer takes down information on paper—some for the Kiva site and some for other business purposes. The Kiva questionnaire asks for information that interests lenders. For instance, how many children do you have? And how will the loan make an impact on your family? This is all done in the local language—Khmer. They also take photos of the applicants.Returning to the branch, the loan officer enters the data into a computer and sends the information—via Yahoo! Messenger—to the Kiva coordinators at the headquarters in a major city. Kiva coordinators are typically young, Internet-savvy males who get paid a few thousand dollars a year. It is a desirable job and about ten of them are now working in Phnom Penh. We train them in the art of synthesizing the Kiva questionnaire into a readable narrative; then they spend their days writing stories and uploading pictures….As a kid, I would write letters to [sponsored] children a few years younger than me in Africa and South America. I imagined my letters being delivered to a thatched-roof hut halfway around the planet. It sparked my imagination and gave me a sense of connectedness. Through Kiva, we can provide some of that to a new generation of kids.Looking back now, I imagine that the transaction wasn’t as simple as I had thought. A lot of intermediaries were involved, lending a certain production quality to the experience. Plus, it was expensive. Delivering the child sponsorship experience was often as expensive as the child sponsorship itself. At Kiva, it’s not as simple as it seems, either…

          [MD] And this whole gambit is based on a “tug the heartstrings” business model. What if they proposed “make a promise and keep it” model?

          The back-story

          innovations invited to Sam Daley-Harris, who was central to teaching Americans about microfinance and serves on Kiva’s advisory board, to comment on Flannery’s four-year retrospective. While praising Kiva’s “profound contribution to the field of microfinance and international development,” he worried about the transaction costs, and noted one other concern:

          [MD] Again we find “comment on Flannery’s four-year retrospective” link is now gone.

          …there is still a bit of deception in the notion that the moment that a loan is funded, the client in Kenya or Cambodia receives his or her microloan with those particular dollars. Indeed, there are real people receiving real loans to start or grow real enterprises, but if a client in a remote village qualifies for a loan, the MFI will not likely make that client wait for the Kiva lenders to put up that last $25. Said another way, loan funds are fungible, and a larger MFI on Kiva’s website will use Kiva’s loans as one important source of their lending pool, but it’s not actually those precise dollars going to that precise client.

          [MD] This describes a “non-issue” for a “real money process”. When a trader makes a “money creating promise spanning time and space”, it’s “his” promise to the “process”. No one else is involved. Nothing else is involved. And the promise, and the delivery on the promise, is fully transparent for all to see. If he changes his reason for making the promise, that is of no import. The only thing important is the delivery as promised…or mitigation by interest collection and marking as an “irresponsible trader”. There are no heartstrings at all.

          As I noted at the top, Sam is right. In fact, I wrote a little program in Excel to extract data from It shows that for September 2009, only 4.3% of loans were disbursed after Kiva users had fully funded them through the site. And probably some of those the local lender had already committed to make before Kiva users had funded them. And in a new report on what happens to investors when microfinance institutions collapse, Daniel Rozas computed from data on that the failure of just three lending institutions caused 93% of all Kiva defaults to date. No doubt many of those institutions’ borrowers were faithfully repaying at the time of collapse. Conversely, if a borrower defaults, the lender will often cover for him in order to maintain a good reputation on Kiva. So whether you get your money back as a Kiva user depends overwhelmingly on the solvency of the lenders, not the borrowers.

          [MD] “The failure of 3 caused 93% of defaults”: But that’s irrelevant. A real money process has no third party at all. The only one that can fail is the trader. Now there would be a “servicer”. But a servicer doesn’t fail. If they can’t collect, the default is immediately applied as interest on their “irresponsible” trader pool wanting to create new money. But it would be interesting to know KIVA’s default experience.

          Kiva deserves kudos for being transparent enough for Rozas and myself to extract such data. But I wondered whether Kiva might become the Save the Children of P2P microcredit, the reasonably responsible pioneer who is imitated and overtaken by less scrupulous actors who pull the whole industry down a muddy slope into hucksterism. So I checked out MYC4, Wokai, and Babyloan (motto: “micro credits, great stories”; and no, it doesn’t make loans to babies: it’s French). To my surprise they were more honest about the P2P relationships they (seem to) forge. Here’s Babyloan in enjoyably imperfect English:

          Note: Babyloan works as a REfinancing platform and not as a direct financing system. It can happen that the MFI already “advanced” the microcredit to the entrepreneur when you make the online social micro loan. Indeed, as we are still in a launching phase and particularly for seasonal projects , we did not want to make the realisation of the project  “dependant” on the Internet users’ good will and click. Babyloan is no microfinance reality show of ! However, we limit the funding time of the project not to create too much time discreprency between the projet and your micro loan, so your money is really used to finance the project. After the delay of 3 months maximum , we send all the money even if the funding has not been completed by the Internet users. The MFI will complete the funding.

          [MD] “Refinancing” is just another way of saying “rolling over” defaults. A real money process tells it like it is…a default. That default can be eradicated by delivering on both the original default, and the refinance covering default. Regarding “time discrepancy”? With the “real” process, everything is in “real” time. There is no latency whatever.

          So these sites are refinancing mechanisms. Kiva-linked microlenders make loans, then “sell” them to Kiva and its users. Might we rescue the P2P conception by observing that the lenders make their loans anticipating refinancing on Kiva? Yes, but only partly. Kiva limits itself to providing at most 30% of any lender’s capital. So a lender will make at least three loans for every one it chooses to post on Kiva (hat tip to Molly’s dad).

          [MD] This is carried over from the mortgage loan scam. One party goes out and creates the loan. That loan is then sold to another party. And a third party “services” the loan (i.e. collects the payments…principal and interest; pays the taxes; and pays the owner of the loan. ) The loan may be sold and resold many times before the creator of the loan (the trader) makes the final payment and is released from the lien. With a “real” money process, this all happens transparently. There is no reselling of the loan…because it isn’t a loan. It is a promise.

          The end

          Kiva brings microcredit and microchips to child sponsorship. Like sponsorship charities, it is all about stories: it was inspired by them and it succeeds by telling them. As a result, it operates in a pincers between the giver’s desire for personal connection and the costs and constraints that imposes on business of serving poor people. In fact Kiva can be seen as an ingenious finessing of this old tension. Technology has brought down the cost of transmitting stories and images.

          [MD]…and this is all wrong from what it should be. There is no “giver” with a “real” process. There is a “trader” (like you and me) making a “promise” to the “process”. There is no begging. There is no heart-string tugging. There is no one to thank but the trader himself. There are no poor people. There are just people willing to promise and deliver; and those not willing to promise and/or deliver. The world doesn’t need to deal with the latter. They are entitled to be their own worst enemy. They can choose to stop being that any time they want. And do-gooders, if they really want to do good, would be about educating these so-called “poor” people. There’s never any excuse for it when a “real” money process is in place. When you don’t have a “real” money process, poor people are not a consequence…they are an intention. It’s got to stop.

          Indeed, Kiva’s P2P connections are more solid than those of child sponsorship 15 years ago. The people in the pictures, we can assume, really do get microcredit. Following in the Tribune‘s footsteps, Nicholas Kristof tracked down one of his borrowers, a Kabul baker, with little difficulty.

          On the other hand, the P2P connection comes at a cost, is one-way, and is partly synthetic. The baker was surprised by the encounter because he had never heard of Kristof. For his part, Kristof might be surprised to learn that most of the Kiva loans he helped fund were disbursed before he saw them on Kiva. And the cost of collecting the baker’s story, translating it into English, taking his picture,and uploading it over a balky Internet connection may still be significant relative to the small loans and the great needs in Afghanistan.

          Is it so terrible that Kiva modestly misleads in order to raise money for a cause about which it is passionate? No. But as a critic I offer these points:

          [MD] When you have a misguided and outright flawed process based on false premises, where should the criticism begin? You’re trying to put lipstick on a pig.

          • As I have discussed in connection with the interest rates on loans, the test of disclosure is whether people get the message. Technically, you see on Kiva’s site that most loans are disbursed before they are funded. But the How Kiva Works page creates the opposite impression, and my casual survey of Kiva users reveals widespread misunderstanding. In the wake of the Tribune scandal, sponsorship organizations adopted standards on disclosure, among other things, in order to “preserve and protect the trust of sponsors and other donors by ensuring the accuracy and transparency of each [child sponsorhip organization]’s approach to child sponsorship and the manner in which its sponsorship funds are used.” In this respect, Kiva is violating its stated ideal of transparency and ignoring a lesson from its family history.
            [MD] All this happens as the natural operation of a “real” money process. None of this is, nor can it be an issue.
          • Kiva may fear that complete honesty would undermine growth. If so, they might be right. But I am optimistic that Kiva will make and survive the leap of faith in its users. So take this interesting, small hypocrisy as the camel’s nose under the tent, a way into the larger theme of how our behavior as donors rewards charities for distorting and contorting themselves. Why has Kiva succeeded by doing microfinance as opposed to community-level projects such as well and school construction? Such construction would stray from the P2P construct. Why has it succeeded by doing just credit despite the longstanding idea that services such as savings are at least as valuable and less dangerous? Because only well-regulated institutions should hold other people’s money; building them is hard and is neither photogenic nor atomizable into P2P.
            [MD] When you have a “real” money process, the notion of “savings” is strictly an insurance policy. The misguided process we have no considers savings to be the source of funds. It multiplies it by ten and gives the money-changers the advantage over the rest of use…calling it a loan and collecting interest on it. And a “regulating institution” is just another place to inject corruption. It isn’t needed when the process is totally open and transparent for all to see…and to discipline. No OPM (Other People’s Money) is involved at all.
          • And why has Kiva, like most other microcredit fundraisers, succeeded while mythologizing the power of microcredit? You already know: storytelling works. Indeed, the most misleading thing about is not obfuscation about sequencing that this post has dwelled upon but the smooth telling of the simplistic story about microcredit. In this Kiva is not unusual. The borrowers are all “entrepreneurs” even though we know the poor often use loans to pay for food or school. Meanwhile, as I have discovered over the last year, the evidence on the effects of microcredit on poverty and empowerment is rather ambiguous. “Kiva lets you lend to a specific entrepreneur, empowering them to lift themselves out of poverty.” What part of that home page slogan is grounded in reality?
            [MD] “Credit” of all stripes is myth. Story telling is not needed. Rather what is needed is “responsible behavior”. And it’s much easier to be responsible when some money-changer or regulator isn’t able to pull the rug out from under you on a whim. And if the poor are using these loans for food, the problem is clearly not in the ability to make and deliver on a promise. You need to know why these people are poor. And that’s not at all hard to find out. It’s because of their own irresponsibility…or because of someone else’s actions. Both of those issues are easy to discover and mitigate.
          • Carol Adelman, among others, has argued that private philanthropy is superior to government aid in many respects because it is more flexible and subject to a market test. But we see here that we all, as private philanthropists, have our irrationalities too. Private aid therefore cannot perfectly substitute for public aid. No doubt it is best to do some of each, while striving to improve both.
            [MD] “Private philanthropy is superior to government aid”? With government taking 3/4ths of what you earn, is it “aid” for them to give it to someone who they have snuffed out with that very behavior? Does a private organization that has 10x the advantage over others (an advantage the openly grant to themselves) do a better job of stealing than government? Aid isn’t what’s needed here. What’s needed is a level trading field…and a tiny bit of re-indoctrination for both the rich and the poor.


          CGD blog posts reflect the views of the authors, drawing on prior research and experience in their areas of expertise. CGD is a nonpartisan, independent organization and does not take institutional positions.

          Is a common Latin American Currency feasible?

          [MD] If you know what money really is, it’s obvious: A common currency is “always” feasible. But that assumes that a “real” money process is employed. All currencies employing a real money process will be common…i.e. they can exchange directly in all space and time with a constant exchange rate. Further, if they are dependent on “policy” they cannot be common. When you don’t know what money is, you’re not going to be able to deploy a currency. Knowing this, let’s dissect this article.

          Is a common Latin American Currency feasible?

          Is a common Latin American Currency feasible?

          Rohit YadavbyRohit Yadav

          January 28, 2023

          in Americas

          common currency



          Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

          Latin America is no stranger to foreign intervention and instability. Subject to global power play, the continent has seen extreme political turmoil and economic instability. Many leaders have tried to circumvent foreign powers and domestic chaos. The most recent ones are Argentina and Brazil.

          [MD] This issue is not accidental. It is imposed, like all things economic, by the money-changers. They institute the governments. The governments then institute the money process. The money process dictates trading issues. So to eradicate this issue, get rid of the money-changers. They’re not needed and never have been. All that is needed is traders like you and me. We are the “creators of money.”

          Argentina and Brazil are planning on introducing a common currency. The project has rocked the financial market. As usual, it has attracted severe criticism from the West. Several countries in Latin America have cherished the idea of a common currency, like the Euro in European Union. It may not be far, when the region will indeed realise its dream.

          [MD] Why is this a “project”? And why is it left to countries? Countries are a fiction of money-changers? Don’t believe it? Examine the history. Look at how easily money-changers get boundaries changed. All traders have to do to institute a currency is to “do it”. Adopting the principles of real money, their currency will be impenatrable. Imposers can only work to copy it. They cannot compete with it. But unfortunately for all the parasites (i.e. non-traders wanting a piece of the action) the money process, and therefore the money, cannot be manipulated. It is cast in stone.

          Also Read

          Political Instability – Latin America’s biggest obstacle

          “Stop your gun war”, Saint Vincent and Grenadines’ first iconic caveat to the United States is here!

          But, how feasible is a common currency for both the countries?

          Widespread support

          The two biggest economies in South America have discussed ways to coordinate their currencies for many years. It was a way to challenge the dominance of the dollar in the area.

          Brazil's Lula meets Argentina's Fernandez in first international trip
          Source: TRT World

          Last week, Argentina’s Alberto Fernandez and Brazil’s Lula da Silva, published a joint statement. It underlined the potential benefits of a common currency for increased regional trade. The statement read, “We have the intention of overcoming barriers to our exchange, simplifying and modernizing the rules and promoting the use of local currencies.”

          [MD] This paragraph tells us this is going nowhere. If traders issued such statements there’s a chance…that could go somewhere. Get the politicians, and money-changers who place them, out of the equation and success is guaranteed. Otherwise, failure is guaranteed.

          The project can position the Latin American region as a significant geopolitical and economic power. It would be able to export a wide range of goods in addition to being self-sustainable. Also, the fact, that Lula, a political heavyweight in Latin America, took up the issue demonstrates, that it has the potential to elicit strong political and emotional responses from people.

          [MD] Economic power derives from trade. Trade derives from having something to trade.

          The concept is not new. Fernando Haddad, an ex-presidential candidate in 2018 had proposed the idea. He even proposed the name ‘sur’, which means south. Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro too, had brought the idea last year. He recommended promoting the Sucre, a currency used by the ALBA coalition of states. ALBA is predominately made up of Bolivia, Cuba, and other smaller West Indies nations. Gustavo Petro of Colombia too, supports integration of Latin America.

          [MD] What a great name for a currency. Name it one of the points on the compass. With stupidity beginning the discussion, can failure be far behind?

          Basically, there are favourable winds across the continent for a common currency.

          [MD] Traders want and need a common currency. “Favorable winds” have nothing to do with it. Continents have nothing to do with it. What it entails is a trading domain. If all trades can be effected in a certain space (e.g. state, county, city), it’s not necessary to look further. Two issues cause extending the look: (1) The domain does not encompass all the trade; or (2) Other domains trade for different things based on the abundance of the things in the domain. Ultimately, the domain is global. But that doesn’t require global control. When everyone in the trading domain is using the same process, the domain is all inclusive and expansive.

          Read More: The siege of Brazilian democracy

          Is a common currency feasible?

          The path to a common currency can be very complicated. The countries that’ll opt for the project will have no influence over domestic policies over other nations. Thus, any domestic instability might easily derail the project.

          [MD] The path to instituting a currency is trivial. Just do it. The attributes: No one creating and destroying currency is anonymous. Everyone using the currency is anonymous. The creation and destruction of the money is perfectly transparent to all. The currency cannot be counterfeited. Perpetual currency supply/demand is guaranteed in real time. Currency is in perpetual free supply. Defaults are mitigated immediately by Interest collections of like amount. And keep in mind, the currency is money in whatever form is appropriate: Ledger entry; coin; paper money; etc. It just must be in only one form at a time for each trader using it…and can change form at any time at zero cost of time or value.

          Additionally, the organisation in charge of running the regional system will make all economic choices. It could possibly lead to internal skirmishes in the region where the majority of the nations are impoverished and the social and economic conditions are unequal.

          [MD] With a “real” money process there are no “economic choices”. Money, when it is done right, has zero economic influence. It has zero economic dependencies. It must affect trade in no way whatever. It is just a score keeper. It is just a default mitigator. It is just a counterfeit repellant. If all money creators default, a real money process can’t work. If any counterfeit is possible, a real money process can’t work. If money restrains traders in any way, a real money process can’t work.

          Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva assured from Argentina that the common currency is “something that is going to happen” - Breaking News Network
          Source: Breaking News Network

          The biggest challenge would be to establish a common fiscal-monetary policy, which is a major undertaking and a sensitive issue for the countries.

          [MD] Perfect! Prove you don’t know what money is right off the bat. Or expose your ulterior motives right off the bat. Or consider issues as sensitive right off the bat. Do any of that and you are guaranteed to fail. Assure yourself you’re not doing any of that…nor can you now or ever do any of that…and there’s a good chance you grasp what money is. You will succeed beyond your greatest expectation.

          Read More: Latin America lambasts USA as it overthrows Peru’s Pedro Castillo in broad daylight

          Hence, a common currency would initially require many negotiations between the future partners. It needs a strong political will and patience.

          [MD] A common currency requires no negotiation at all. Let all players institute a “real” money process. Let them prove that they are not manipulating the process at all; that they can’t manipulate the process. Once that is accomplished, all the players will have an identical process. The only thing that may differ is their units. If they logically adopt the HUL (Hour of Unskilled Labor) as their unit, they immediately become unified. It’s the simplest most logical result possible. But if they all want to have different names for their money and for their money to have different value, that is stupid…but not an issue. What is the issue is this: That name and that value must never ever change over time or space.

          Though, the project is not without its merits. The joint statement between Argentina and Brazil also mentions that a common South American currency will reduce their external vulnerability. It is obvious what the statement means. The countries in the region have been continuously sanctioned by USA, undermining their sovereignty.

          [MD]”Will reduce their external vulnerability”: The USA, nor anyone else, can sanction against a “real” money process.

          A common currency has the potential to be a game changer for the Latin American economy. By reducing transaction costs, increasing investment and promoting economic integration, it could lead to greater economic growth and development. Furthermore, it could be a major source of foreign exchange reserves for the participating countries.

          [MD] Since Latin America doesn’t know what money is, instituting a new “non money” or a new “common non money” is doomed to failure. Instituting a “real” money process is trivial. Operating a “real” money process is trivial. Abiding by a “real” money process is impossible for money-changers or the governments they institute. It simply deals them out the game completely…by that greatest sanction of all…competition. You can’t compete against perfect. And you’d be a fool to compete against phony.

          Ultimately, the success of the common currency will depend on how well it is implemented, and the commitment of the participating countries to make it a success. And, that’s tricky.

          [MD] There are no “degrees” of instituting a “real” money process. You either do it exactly as required…or you’re not doing it at all.

          The “Barbarous Relic” Helped Enable a World More Civilized than Today’s

          The “Barbarous Relic” Helped Enable a World More Civilized than Today’s

          • gold coins

          12/12/2022George Ford Smith

          MD: The Mises Monks are always great fodder for illustrating the spread of confusion and delusions as to what money “really” is. Let’s dissect this one.

          One of history’s greatest ironies is that gold detractors refer to the metal as the barbarous relic. In fact, the abandonment of gold has put civilization as we know it at risk of extinction.

          MD: How’s that for an opening line? The Monks never disappoint. “Greatest Ironies”; “gold detractors”;” barbarous relic”: Yet they never seem to be able to tell us what money really is. But this may be going too far. Removing “gold” will “risk extinctions”?

          Gold’s main use is in jewelry and plating electrical contacts. Once used to fill teeth, it’s been a very long time since gold was used for that (except for Negros who use it to decorate their faces.) And in no lifetime of anyone living today has gold served as money. And silver ceased serving as money in 1965…almost 10 years before Nixon declared the obvious…that the so-called gold backing of the dollar was a giant fiction…a fraud on which the French called them out.

          The only risk to extinction was use of mercury amalgamating silver to fill teeth. It was shown to be poison…like lead in paint and gasoline. Precious metals have never been money. They are just clumsy expensive stand-ins for what money really is…”a promise”. And what do these Monks call real money? They call it “fiat money”…and make it a derogatory slur. Since when is a “promise” derogatory. Let’s continue.

          The gold coin standard that had served Western economies so brilliantly throughout most of the nineteenth century hit a brick wall in 1914 and was never able to recover, or so the story goes. As the Great War began, Europe turned from prosperity to destruction, or more precisely, toward prosperity for some and destruction for the rest. The gold coin standard had to be ditched for such a prodigious undertaking.

          MD: Served economies “brilliantly”? Economic panics were as regular then as pandemics are becoming today. And in 1913 (a year before this so-called brick wall), the Federal Reserve Act began to plague us with the money we have today…a money that States freely counterfeit…and that money-changers collect interest on…and that both manipulate to deliver the so-called “business cycle”. “Prodigious undertaking”? Oh please!

          If gold was money, and wars cost money, how was this even possible?

          MD: A Mises Monk might be close to getting something right here. You can’t support a war if you can’t pay for it. And if gold is money…with only about one ounce per person on Earth (less than $2,000)…you’re not going to support war with gold. But you can by counterfeiting. They claim Lincoln did this to finance the USA Civil War in the 1860’s…and that’s correct. But when that counterfeit money (Greenbacks) was paid back, it ceased to be counterfeit. It “proved” to be “real” money. That hasn’t happened with any war since. The State just rolls its counterfeit money over by taking out new loans to pay off the old.

          First, people were already in the habit of using money substitutes instead of money itself—banknotes instead of the gold coins they represented. People found it more convenient to carry paper around in their pockets than gold coins. Over time the paper itself came to be regarded as money, while gold became a clunky inconvenience from the old days.

          MD: Well, the Monks being right didn’t last long did it? Here at Money Delusions we know money is an “in-process promise to complete a trade spanning time and space”. It is only created by traders like you and me. It begins as a ledger entry…open to all to see. And it ends with delivery on the promise and reversal of that ledger entry documenting the promise…again for all to see. In the interim it may remain a ledger entry; it may become a “demand deposit” (i.e. check); it may become a paper chit (currency); it may become a token (a coin). As such, it becomes the most common object of every simple barter exchange. But in the end it becomes a reversing entry in a ledger and is extinguished forever…for that trading promise. And if the promise is broken (defaulted) an “interest collection” of like amount is immediately made to recover the “orphaned” money. This guarantees perpetual perfect balance of supply and demand for the money itself…and thus zero “inflation”.

          Second, banks had been in the habit of issuing more bank-notes and deposits than the value of the gold in their vaults. On occasion, this practice would arouse public suspicion that the notes were promises the banks could not keep. The courts sided with the banks and allowed them to suspend note redemption while staying in business, thus strengthening the government-bank alliance. Since the courts ruled that deposits belonged to the banks, bankers could not be accused of embezzlement. The occasional bank runs that erupted were interpreted as a self-fulfilling prophecy. If people lined up to withdraw their money because they believed their bank was insolvent, the bank soon would be. People had no idea their banks were loaning out most of their deposits. They did not know fractional reserve banking, a form of counterfeiting, was the norm.

          MD: That’s not a “habit”…it’s by design. Money-changers instituted the State. The State chartered the Banks (owned by the Money-changers)…and gave them a 10x leverage advantage over traders like you and me. And when those scoundrels abused even that enormous privilege, the State they created defended them…as designed. It’s not a government-bank alliance. The State is a “creation and tool” of the Money-changers. And the State fiction of Laws sealed the deal. They pass one law that dilutes the golden rule and bammo…everything else that isn’t against the law (but violates the golden rule) is suddenly legal. And that obvious problem created here brings us 40,000 new laws each year…trying to put the Genie back in the bottle…trying to make us comply with that one simple golden rule.

          And why didn’t the people know this was going on? Because there was “secrecy” in banking. Money requires “authentication” of the trader creating it and “transparency” of the promise to all lookers. And “defaults” are evident to all lookers “immediately”…and immediately mitigated by “interest collections” of like amount.

          Here again, the Monks get close to saying what’s going down. Money “is” fiat…and that’s good. It’s what makes it so efficient in trade. But a “real” money process gives “no” trader an advantage…not even the Money-changers; their States; or their Banks. In this context, the “fraction” is not 10x…but rather infinite to the trader. And there is no reserve. Unlike a water well, you don’t have to prime the pump. But if you don’t replace the water you pump, you don’t get to pump again…until you replace that water. Lots of metaphors going on here.

          Gold coin redemption requirements put limits on fractional reserve banking. Such limits were not welcomed by banks. Since banks could loan to the government, limitations also capped government spending, so the government did not like the limitations of gold coin redemption either.

          MD: What “coin redemption requirements”? They were always a fiction. Gold coins were never used in my lifetime. And silver coins quit being used in 1964…and changed nothing in the behavior of traders… proving that precious metal was not money. Rather, it was the “token” that was money. At the same time, the paper money which said “Silver Certificate” changed to saying “Federal Reserve Note”…and as far as traders like you and me were concerned, nothing changed.

          We never asked for the silver promised by those certificates. We had no use for it. It weighed too much and was too bulky. But for non-traders, the change was large. These non-traders are called “investors”. They’re really just gamblers. And they immediately gobbled up all the silver. You can now buy it on eBay (google “Silver Roosevelt Dimes 90% Junk Constitutional Circulated *Guaranteed Cheapest!”). It sells for (i.e. trades for) $4.50 for 10 dimes…dimes that used to trade for two candy bars…before State counterfeiting withered the dollar to its current condition.

          And “government limitations”? Does anyone really believe there is such a thing as a government limitation? All governments are by their very definition “unlimited”!

          Which brings us to the wall gold allegedly hit.

          Preparing for War Means Preparing for Inflation

          In his 1949 book, Economics and the Public Welfare, economist Benjamin Anderson tells us, “the war [in 1914] came as a great shock, not only to the masses of the American people, but also to most well-informed Americans—and, for that matter, to most Europeans.” And yet, Germany, Russia, and France began accumulating gold prior to the war (with Germany starting first in 1912). Gold was taken “out of the hands of the people” and carried to the reserves of the Reichsbank, the German central bank. People were given paper notes “to take the place of gold in circulation.”

          MD: It goes all the way back to the Battle of Waterloo! … and for all time before that! All wars are “bankers” wars (i.e. money-changer wars). And if they had a “real money process” back then, they could have taken up all the gold they wanted. Traders had no use for it. There are no “reserves” in a real money process. It’s promises with which we deal. The only thing that can destroy a promise is to destroy the record of the promise…or destroy the person who made the promise. And a “real money process” mitigates such contingencies with “interest collections of like amount.” It’s simple arithmetic. Who pays the interest? Only traders who have a propensity to default pay it. And those traders have to work that much harder if they want to continue to trade at all, because once the defaults get too large, the marketplace ostracizes them.

          When war broke out in August 1914, Gary North explains that the pre–World War I policy of gold coin redemption was

          independently but almost simultaneously revoked by European governments. . . . They all then resorted to monetary inflation. This was a way to conceal from the public the true costs of the war. They imposed an inflation tax, and could then blame any price hikes on unpatriotic price gouging. This rested on widespread ignorance regarding economic cause and effects regarding monetary inflation and price inflation. They could not have done this if citizens had possessed the pre-war right to demand payment in gold coins at a fixed rate. They would have made a run on the banks. Governments could not have inflated without reneging on their promises to redeem their currencies for gold coins. So, they reneged while they still had the gold. Better early contract-breaking than late, they concluded.

          MD: Earth to Monks. You just made our case. You’ve shown that precious metals are no cure to State deviance and malfeasance. A “real money process” has no State sponsorship. It has no Money-changer sponsorship. It has only trader and their marketplace sponsorship. And it depends on “authenticating” the trader and “accounting” for the trader’s promises. By the classical triple “A”s of trade: (1) Authentication; (2) Authority; (3) Accounting; all “responsible” traders (i.e. those with no propensity to default) have equal “authority” to create money. Those with non-zero propensity to default pay insurance “premiums” which are called “interest collections”. And they’re not arbitrarily set in the smokey rooms of LIBOR . They always equal “defaults incurred”. I’ve always wondered why banks always tell us the “prevailing interest”…but never show us the “prevailing defaults”. Now I no longer wonder. It enables their “business cycle”. It enables the “front running”of economic perturbations they themselves cause by “throttling” the money supply …supposedly in the interest of controlling inflation (which they cause) and maintaining full employment (which they can’t control at all).

          If governments had not broken their promise to redeem paper notes for gold coins, they would have had to negotiate their differences rather than engage in one of the deadliest wars in history. Abandoning the gold coin standard, which had always been under government control, was the deciding factor in going to war.

          MD: Duh! How about we do an “iterative secession”. How about we do without government altogether.

          Though the US did not formally abandon gold during its late participation in the war, it discouraged redemption while roughly doubling the money supply. Blanchard Economic Research discusses the situation in “War and Inflation”:

          MD: If gold is money, how did they “double” the money supply? These Monks are beyond stupid. In a “real money process”, you can only double money supply by doubling trader promises. And traders don’t make promises they can’t see clear to delivering. But get rid of government and the money-changers that create it and bammo…a doubling of trade would be minuscule.

          War also causes the type of inflation that results from a rapid expansion of money and credit. “In World War I, the American people were characteristically unwilling to finance the total war effort out of increased taxes. This had been true in the Civil War and would also be so in World War II and the Vietnam War. Much of the expenditures in World War I, were financed out of the inflationary increases in the money supply.”

          MD: When it comes to money, there’s only one type of inflation. That is when supply exceeds demand for the money itself. And this is impossible in a “real money process”. And as we pointed out earlier, the Civil War was different from all following wars. The Greenbacks were “all” recovered (“Greenbacks then became freely convertible into gold“)

          Governments had a choice to make: fight a long, bloody war for specious reasons, or retain the gold coin standard. They chose war. US leaders found their decision irresistible. It was not J.P. Morgan, Woodrow Wilson, Edward Mandell House, or Benjamin Strong who would be fighting in the trenches.

          MD: Wars happen when the money-changers’ “economic hitmen” fail. See “The New Confessions of an Economic Hitman” by Perkins.

          When we hear that “going off gold” was the prerequisite for global peace and harmony, we should remember places such as the Meuse-Argonne American Cemetery in France, where grave markers seemingly extend to infinity. These are mostly the graves of young men who died for nothing but the lies of politicians and the profits of the politically connected. Gold wanted no part in the slaughter. But politicians and bankers knew a paper fiat standard was the monetary prerequisite to achieving their goals.

          MD: Every time I ask one of the Mises Monks how you can use gold as money when there’s only one ounce per person on Earth? …i.e. less than $2,000…1/2 what someone at Home Depot makes in a month! The line goes dead.


          John Maynard Keynes, who coined the term “barbarous relic” in reference to the gold standard, wrote about the world that was lost when gold was abandoned:

          What an extraordinary episode in the economic progress of man that age was which came to an end in August, 1914! . . . The inhabitant of London could order by telephone, sipping his morning tea in bed, the various products of the whole earth, in such quantity as he might see fit, and reasonably expect their early delivery upon his doorstep. . . . He could secure forthwith, if he wished it, cheap and comfortable means of transit to any country or climate without passport or other formality, could despatch his servant to the neighboring office of a bank for such supply of the precious metals as might seem convenient, and could then proceed abroad to foreign quarters, without knowledge of their religion, language, or customs, bearing coined wealth upon his person, and would consider himself greatly aggrieved and much surprised at the least interference. But, most important of all, he regarded this state of affairs as normal, certain, and permanent, except in the direction of further improvement, and any deviation from it as aberrant, scandalous, and avoidable.

          If Keynes had read what he wrote, he might have been a better economist. And we might be living in a better world today.

          MD: This is shades of the Red vs. Blue; The Donkeys vs. the Elephants; the Harlem Globe Trotters vs. the Washington Generals; the Keynesians vs the Mises Monks. You’re never going to solve a problem when you’re given two choices, both bad, and both controlled by a single non-choice. Such is democracy. Long live democracy.


          George Ford Smith

          George Ford Smith is a former mainframe and PC programmer and technology instructor, the author of eight books including a novel about a renegade Fed chairman (Flight of the Barbarous Relic), a filmmaker (Do Not Consent), and an advocate of stateless market government.  He welcomes speaking engagements and can be reached at



          Difference between promise to pay and order to pay.

          MD: We see a lot of articles that try to parse money and prices. There isn’t just one money. There isn’t just one kind of price. Let’s see if that’s what is going on here.

          writer bio picture

          By: Steffani Cameron

          Reviewed by: Michelle Seidel, B.Sc., LL.B., MBA

          Updated November 21, 2018

          bizfluent hero card image

          RelatedDifference Between a Bank Draft and a Certified Check

          While there are times when businesses barter and trade services for goods or vice versa, most business is conducted on the exchange of money. Everyday, people and companies issue orders to pay and promises to pay. They sound alike, and are both considered negotiable instruments, but they differ.

          MD: What makes an instrument “negotiable”? Is it a legal thing? Is it a lore thing? Is it a private agreement thing? Is it an association thing?

          What Is a Promise to Pay?

          Also called a promissory note, the most common example of a promise to pay is a utilities agreement. But loaning money to a friend or family can also be considered a promise to pay, since the stipulation in your loaning the money is that the person has promised to repay it. While oral promises to pay can technically be enforced by courts, it’s always better to issue a promissory note in writing to protect yourself. After all, your car loan, mortgage and every other loan or payment plan you’ve agreed to is in writing for good reason.

          MD: What is it about a “utilities agreement” that gives it the distinction of “a promise to pay”. Is it because I use the good or service “before” I actually pay for it? If that is the case, we at MD know that would be considered money creation…just as if a credit card was used. And we distinguish this from a pre-payment (which is a debit card) or a retainer (which pays lawyers before they deliver services.)

          Promissory notes can also be referred to as just “notes,” and typically, only two parties are involved. There’s the maker, who is the person borrowing the money or promising to pay money in exchange for a product, service or ongoing service. Two, there’s the payee, who is the person, company or institution to whom money is promised to be paid. For example, if you sign a promise to pay agreement with a Verizon sales kiosk, you are the maker of the agreement or note, and the kiosk company is the payee that will receive payments you’ve promised to make at designated intervals.

          MD: So a “promissory note” has the notion of a “borrower” and a “lender”? Why do they call the borrower a “maker”? Could it be because a “promise is being made”? And they call the “lender” a “payee”? Is a lawyer’s retainer a “promissory note”? Are we to confuse what’s going on here as “money creation”? Of course not. You can’t take any paper related to this agreement and trade it for a candy bar. That’s the sub-minimal test.

          Brought to you by Techwalla

          Meeting the terms of agreement with most promissory notes should be clearly explained in the note. If you go to to pay online and you pay that month’s bill in full, you’ve met the terms of your promise to pay – for that month, anyhow.

          MD: And the “terms of the money creating promise” clearly explains the promise and “who” is making it…and the agreed delivery terms. The “real” money process implicitly set’s the terms of the obligation…which are universal…no individual trader gets special terms…i.e. no individual trader gets special treatment regarding forgiveness or acceleration of the promise. But it’s important to remember, a “real” money process mitigates DEFAULTs immediately with INTEREST collections of like amount? Who pays the interest? Irresponsible traders (those new to the process or who have a record of DEFAULT). And those new to the process who deliver responsibility get their INTEREST payments returned to them, and they are applied to other new and/or irresponsible traders. The process, like any chemical process, requires a continuous flow and minute monitoring and adjustment. It’s a perpetual automatic negative feedback system…which is always stable.

          What makes a promissory note different from an actual loan contract is that a loan contract is more regimented in details. For instance, your car loan payment is for $469 monthly. It doesn’t fluctuate. On the other hand, perhaps your Verizon contract includes a monthly installment of $229 for your new iPhone, but while the base plan is consistent, calling totals and add-ons for your bill can fluctuate monthly. So, your agreement is that you promise to pay the monthly charges as indicated by a bill issued on or after a specific date monthly.

          MD: And what is it about a “promissory note” that requires a “more regimented set of details”? Here’s where the parsing begins. Note, the Verizon contract is really two separate trading elements…neither of which are money creating elements. You promise to buy the phone with regular monthly payments. You agree to pay for the service monthly for a specified term. But here again, neither of these are “money creation”. You can’t exchange the promise or any part of it for a candy bar…not ever. You may be able to trade it to someone else for money…but it is never money itself. Alternately, if the customer creates money in the “real” money process, he can use that to trade with the vendor. Once that’s done, the trade with the vendor is complete. But the trade with the “real money process” is just beginning.

          What is an Order to Pay?

          Also called a “draft,” this negotiable instrument is an order to pay money as opposed to a promise to pay. These can also be referred to as an “order paper” or “order instrument.” Examples of orders can be a check or a bill of exchange. Have you ever noticed that a personal check states “Pay to the order of” before the payee line? If you’re written in as the payee, once that check is presented to the bank, the bank has been ordered to pay you.

          MD: First, the “pay to the order of” is not distinctive from “pay by order to”. In fact, the latter would be more appropriate as the example is of the “bank” being ordered “by the bank’s depositor” to make the payment. They’re called “demand deposits”. Curiously that common nomenclature is not referenced here.

          Does an “order to pay” mean force may be applied…and that’s distinctive from a “promise to pay” because delivery on a promise can’t be forced? Here’s where a “real” money process has to reflect some experience. It can’t demand sale of a house if you fail to make a payment on time. It can demand sale of a house if you obviously have no intention of making up payments.

          We can probably learn much from those gaining experience with Full Self Driving (FSD). They’ve been calling this Artificial Intelligence (AI). But no “intelligence” is ever built. Rather, “experience” is perpetually collected. If a “real” money process is using these techniques in monitoring delivery on promises, in time it will distinguish between a deadbeat, and a trader who has just stumbled. One attribute to be noted might be the trader’s previous stumbling incidents and history of ultimately delivering. Since money has no “time value”, time is “not” of the essence. And since “everyone is able to watch”, that brings another measurable attribute into the process.

          Like FSD, a RMP (Real Money Process) will learn from experience…successes and failures. One thing is certain. The FSD will minimize collisions. The RMP will minimize (and immediately mitigate) DEFAULTs.

          There are typically three parties involved in an order to pay. There’s the payee, the person to whom the funds are to be paid. Then there’s the drawer, that is, the person who fills out or at least signs the check. Finally, there’s the financial institution that will issue the funds to the drawee of the check, the person who endorses and deposits or cashes it.

          MD: And none of these are money. While I can write a check, you don’t have to go to my bank to get money for it. You can “deposit” it in your bank and write a check against it there. Or you can get cash from your bank. This is because all banks form a collective. They have a “clearing house” that does all this record keeping. In the USA since 1913 the banks have been chartered by the FED. That system has been “gamed” from its inception. First, it gives the banks their 10x leverage privilege. Further, beyond just reconciling and clearing transactions, it has taken upon itself to control the economy…i.e. to have full employment and a 2% inflation target…while being totally unable to affect employment and delivering 4% inflation on average. It “is” the scam. A “Real money process” will compete the FED out of existence.

          An order to pay, such as a check, must be endorsed, or signed, to receive funds. But once a check has been endorsed by the payee, it becomes a “bearer instrument” rather than an order instrument. This means, anyone who bears or holds the check is now legally able to receive the funds. Today, most checks no longer need endorsing if they are deposited through an ATM. Otherwise, they can be signed at the last moment when depositing or cashing through a bank employee. To stay safe, never endorse order instruments until it’s time to get paid.

          MD: And this implies “controlled authentication”. And it is weak beyond belief. Very little scrutiny is made of the signature…and when it is, it is not by a professional. You can easily forge a signature. In the case of a dispute, the bank finds ways to say they weren’t at fault. But such forgeries are common in the current systems. Governments don’t even sign their checks. Rather, they use the signature as “advertisement” of someone holding government office. And governments are openly “counterfeiting”. They never pay that check. They just collect them and periodically “borrow” from the FED (who has nothing to loan) to cover the payments. And they use that borrowing to pay back previous borrowing. They just “roll over the debt”. And that’s DEFAULT. And none of the taxes that government collects goes to payment of those checks. Rather it “all” goes to paying the FED (i.e. the money-changers) INTEREST on so-called “loans” of money they never had in the first place. It’s a brilliant con…and it gets competed out of existence by a “real money process”

          Copyright 2022 Leaf Group Ltd. / Leaf Group Media, All Rights Reserved.

          Economic Rent And Exploitation

          Economic Rent And Exploitation: A podcast interview of Michael Hudson by Jonathan Brown.

          MD: I just tripped over this podcast transcript while reviewing some of may archived material about money. It’s current (e.g. June 2022). Let’s see if there’s anything in here to agree with. Note: If you’re new two Money Delusions, read the right sidebar. It’s all you need to know about what money really is. It is necessary perspective to observe what is going on.

          Part One:

          Part Two:

          Jonathan Brown
          Michael, welcome to the podcast.

          Michael Hudson
          It’s good to be here. I’m looking forward to it.

          Jonathan Brown
          Michael, I think you have one the most extraordinary upbringings and journeys into economics. And I just wanted to give our listeners just some sense of how you got from being the godson of Leon Trotsky all the way to what I consider to be probably the most important economist in the world today.

          MD: Godson of Leon. Hmmm. Communists aren’t usually renowned for their knowledge of money. In there system there is no trade…so there is no need for money.

          Michael Hudson 00:23
          There’s no direct causality there that could have been anticipated. I never studied economics in college, because I went to school at the University of Chicago. We know that there were some students at the university who were at that business school. They were such strange people that we never even thought of going near them, because there was something otherworldly about them, something abstract.

          MD: Interesting perspective on the U. of Chicago…home of the monitarist god, Milton Friedman. Hudson says they were “such strange people”.

          My degree was in German language and history of culture, because the head of the History of Culture Department was Matthijs Jolles, a German professor and translator of von Clausewitz, On War. And in at the time, my intention was to become a musician. And I had to learn German in order to read the works of Heinrich Schenker. In music theory, my teachers were German. And for the History of Culture, most of the books that I was reading were, were all in German. And the German professors were also heads of the Comparative Literature Department and other departments. That meant that I could take all the courses cafeteria style at the university that I wanted.

          MD: So he is so interested in music, he will learn a foreign language (German) to master the works of a composer (Schenker). Now, in the land of making trades, who out there is willing to make such a trade. And this is clearly a trade spanning time and space…lots of time…and lots of space. How does one carry out such a trade while still in college? (i.e. lowest money source; highest money sink; in most peoples’ history.)

          I had to go to work when I graduated. I went to work for a while for direct mail advertising for the American Technical Society, a publisher a block away from the university, and then went to work for Free Press that was headed by Jerry Kaplan, a Trotskyist follower of Max Shachtman. And he wanted to send me to New York to help set up Free Press there.

          MD: So what did he graduate in? If it was this music focus, or language focus, do you go into “direct mail advertising” (i.e. “junk mail”)? Some trades spanning time and space seem worse than oblique.

          Soon after I came to New York, Trotsky’s widow died. And Max Shachtman was the executor of her estate. He thought I should go into publishing by myself. And I had already had the copyrights for George Lukacs, the Hungarian Marxist and I thought tried to get funding for a publishing company with Trotsky’s works and other works. I’ve been writing a history of music and art theory. And needless to say, I didn’t get any funding because nobody was at all interested in publishing the works of Trotsky. I even tried to get Dwight Eisenhower the write the introduction to his military papers, wouldn’t work.

          MD: Is this name dropping? Dwight Eisenhower…that military genius (or uber bureaucrat) from Kansas? Time to google Hudson and see how old he is. I was in 2nd grade when IKE was elected…and just barely born when he stormed France’s beaches. Hudson’s got to be ancient. Turns out Hudson is only 5 years older than me. Scanning forward it looks like more “name dropping”. Let’s just go along to get along.

          I was urged to meet Terence McCarthy, the father of a girlfriend of one of my schoolmates, Gavin MacFadyen. He was the first English-language translator of the first history of economic thought that was written: Karl Marx’s Theories of Surplus Value (Mehrwert), reviewing the value theory of classical economics. Terence said that he would help guide me in economic thinking if I’d get a PhD in economics and go to work on Wall Street to see how the world works. But I had to read all of the bibliography in Marx’s Theories of Surplus Value. So I had to begin buying the books, and ended up working as a sideline with one of the reprinters, Augustus Kelly, who was reprinting many of the classical economists. He was a socialist. There were other dealers in New York: Samuel Ambaras, Sydney Millman. I began buying all of the 19th-century classical economic books that I could, sinse that was the only way that I could get copies.

          MD: Ok. Now he’s deep into economics brainwashing…and working to take it in from a fire hose. And of course, more name dropping. This is the “build credibility” phase. It’s usually tied closely to the “double talk” phase.

          I took graduate classes in the evening while working at a bank for three years, the Savings Banks Trust Company. It was a commercial bank, but was acting as a central bank for the savings banks that in America finance mortgages.

          MD: Now how’s that for a major complication. We have the criminal commercial bank fronting as a “central bank” for the “savings banks” to finance mortgages. We here at MD know that a mortgage is just money created by a trader (like you and me) to make a trade spanning time and space. It’s the biggest trade most of us make. So he’s taking economics at night for three years while learning the greatest con most of use encounter in life. This should be interesting. Keep in mind here, we know that no bank of any kind “creates” money. We know only traders do. So this operation is a “trader herding” operation. A three tiered scam.

          All their savings are reinvested in mortgages. So for three years my job was to track the real estate market, the mortgage market, interest rates, the funding of mortgages, the growth of assets by the savings banks, all growing at compound interest. All the growth in savings in the New York savings banks in the early 1960s was simply the accrual of dividends. So you’d have a step function at dividend time every quarter, going up exponentially. There was hardly any new savings inflow. It’s as if you’ve just left a given amount of savings in 1945, and let the amount rise exponentially. All this increase in savings was recycled into the real estate market.

          MD: I wonder if he would have gone to all that study if he knew what money is and where it comes from. First, we know it doesn’t come from savings. We know mortgages are not investments…they’re trading promises spanning time. There is no such thing as “funding” in this regard. There is no “growth of assets”…just a source on which to apply the money-changers 10x leverage privilege. And he incorrectly claims the scam is by the “real estate” market. These days, when people can no longer afford this scam, they are being conned into the large rental housing building market. What’s next? Regardless, Hudson now has both feet firmly in the swamp.

          The New York banks wanted to extend their market so they couldn’t just keep bidding up New York housing prices. They won the right to lend out of state, especially the Florida. So my job was basically seeing that real estate prices were whatever a bank would lend. At that time, banks would not lend you a mortgage if the debt service exceeded 25% of your income. And you had to put up usually 30% of the purchase price as a down payment, but possibly 10%. So housing was affordable. You could buy a really nice house for you know, $20 or $30,000. Now, it costs $400,000 to buy just a one room apartment in a condominium.

          MD: “They won the right to lend out of state.” Won it from who? The government the money-changers instituted for their protection? And to another state? Like Florida? A long way from Mecca (i.e. NYC)? I remember those terms. I first went to a bank to buy a house in 1970. They wanted 25% down and 10% interest. I discovered a savings and loan…5% down and 6% interest. Never tried to borrow from a bank again. I still didn’t know what money was then. I had been taught…but didn’t realize my education was a con. Live and learn…learn to a con.

          I bought a house for $1 down – it was $45,000 total. I took out a mortgage from Chase for half the price, and the other half was a purchase-money mortgage. So it was easy. Anybody could get a house in New York at that time. Housing was readily affordable.

          After I finished my PhD courses, I changed jobs. My real interest at the time was international finance and the balance of payments. So I went to work at Chase Manhattan as their balance of payments economist. This was at a time when the balance of payments and even balance-sheet analysis was not taught in schools. It was very specialised. I realised that what I was taught, especially in monetary theory, had nothing at all to do with what I was learning in practice.

          MD: Hmmm….didn’t take long to ditch the German music objective did it? How did he pay for all that? And “international finance” and “balance of payments”. In a “real” money process these concepts have no use…they have no meaning. He’s just moving up to the next higher tier of the con. And “balance-sheet analysis” was not taught in schools. Yes it was. I got it in 2nd grade. They called it “addition” and “subtraction”. But he is right, professional financial cheating is only taught by the guilds. Oh…and by the may…with a “real” money process there is no such thing as “monetary theory”.

          In monetary theory, for instance, that was the era of Milton Friedman in the 60s and 70s. He thought that when you create more money, it increases consumer prices. Well, I thought that obviously was not how things worked. When banks create money, they don’t lend for people for spending. About 80% of bank loans in America, as in England, are mortgage loans. They lend against property already in place. They also lend for corporate mergers and acquisitions, and by the 1980s for corporate takeovers.

          MD: I have begun dissecting Milton Friedman’s lectures on YouTube. What a con artist he is proving to be. And when you look at the audience ogling him you know this won’t end well.. But look boys and girls. It’s right there. “When banks create money”. We know only traders do that. And he says banks won’t “lend” money to traders…if they are going to spend it. (i.e. they won’t lend it for trade…at any price). This open admission of the con makes you want to puke, doesn’t it! And a “real” money process specifically eschews blessing of promises that are for “takeovers”. That’s not trade.

          The effect of this lending is to increase asset prices, not consumer prices. You could say that money creation actually lowers consumer prices, because 80% is to increase housing prices. Banks seek to increase their loan market by lending more and more against every kind of real estate, whether it’s residential or commercial property. They keep increasing the proportion of debt to overall real estate price. So by 2008 you could buy property with no money down at all, and take 100% mortgage, sometimes even 102 or 103% so that you would have enough money to pay the closing fees. The government did not limit the amount of money that a bank could lend against income. The proportion of income devoted to mortgage service that was federally guaranteed increased to 43%. Well, that’s a lot more than 25%. That’s 18% of personal income more in 2008 than in the 1960s – simply to pay mortgage interest in order to get a house. So I realised that this was deflationary. The more money you have to spend on mortgage interest to buy a house as land and real estate is financialized, the less you have left to spend on goods and services. This was one of the big problems that was slowing the economy down.

          MD: Money creation (i.e. traders making new promises spanning time and space) has no effect on prices at all. To the extent that prices change, it is because of supply and demand. When you buy a Hershey bar, its price doesn’t go up. And refraining from buying one doesn’t make it’s price go down. And the money you use to trade for the candy never changes in value under a “real” money process…so it has no effect on price at all. And regarding “real estate”, ideally “all” of it is partially held by as-yet-undelivered-promises. You create the money; buy the house; make monthly promised payments for 360 months; and that’s it. In interim, the money you create takes part in virtually every simple barter exchange, until it is returned as promised…and destroyed. Everything else he describes is revealing what most people view as financial reality…he reveals it as con “optimization”. And what’s going on is “not deflationary”. Rather, it requires INFLATION for the scam to work. The only way the 10x leverage advantage can work is if there is INFLATION of the money itself. And government is more than happy to guarantee that by their perpetual “counterfeiting”. He correctly reveals that INTEREST collections “slow the economy down”…just like driving with four flat tires slows you down.

          Well, it was obvious to me that rent was being paid out as interest. Rent is for paying interest. If I talked with various developers about buying buildings, they said, “Well, we try to buy our buildings without any money at all. The banks will lend us the money to buy a building, and they calculate how much is your rental income going to be? That rental income will carry how much of a bank loan at a given interest charge, and lend the money to buy it.” That is how real estate rent was financialized.

          MD: Does this mean he doesn’t know how leverage works in real estate? Here’s how you do it. You put 5% down on say a $100,000 property…that’s $5,000. You rent the property out for about 1% …or $1,000 per month. You have to buy insurance and pay interest and taxes and have enough for minor repairs and changing out tenants. But the 1% pretty much covers that. You don’t make any profit unless you treat your tenants unfairly. So where’s the money to be made?

          Let’s say interest is 8% and inflation is 7%. In a “real” money process, INTEREST and INFLATION are both properly zero. You’ll also find you’re getting screwed on the insurance. The premium over 360 months comes to about 1/3 the replacement cost of the house. That means a one in three chance every house built will be destroyed in 30 years. In my experience, not a single house has been destroyed within a 1/2 mile of me (1,000 homes) in over 50 years. And then there’s the taxes. Let’s just say they’re 5% …and those government services are worth less than zero…but that’s another can of worms.

          But we know this all works out to 1% per month. Now let’s look at the “real” money process. We (the money creating promisor) create $100,000 dollars and give it to the seller. We get title to the house. We then return 1/360th of that each month (i.e. $277.) We pay 5%/12 for taxes… $416. We pay 33%/360 for insurance…$93. We pay 0% interest…we are a responsible trader and never DEFAULT. That totals to $786…left for the bankers to steal as INTEREST.

          Of course it’s the bankers who are stealing the taxes (that goes to the government so they can pay interest to the banks; and to the insurance companies…which are just the banks in different clothing). Now I said this can’t work without INFLATION and here’s why.

          The traders won’t put up with the money-changers taking 100% of the deal…while having no “skin in the game”. That $5,000 you put down gives you “control” of the real property worth $100,000 initially. After one year, it’s worth $107,000 at 7% INFLATION. You’ve made $7,000 on your $5,000 or 40% on “your” money. Over the full 30 years you’ve gained $761,000 on your $5,000 investment. That’s 152 times…at 7% compounded annually. The bankers have made an infinite amount (they have no money in the deal). And your renter pays it all. Welcome to INFLATION based financial confiscation.

          But with a real money process the property is much more affordable to the renter/buyer. It’s basically $100,000/360 or $277/month…1/4th what he’s now paying. What’s not to love about a “real” money process. I’ll tell you. Everything if your a financial scammer or the government you institute..

          Democratization of real estate on credit means turns rental income into interest, not taxes
          This meant that the role that had been played in the 19th century by landlords is now played by banks. In the 19th century, the problem was absentee landlords, the heirs of the warlords who conquered England or other European countries in the Middle Ages. You had hereditary rent. Well, now our rent has been democratised. But it’s been democratised on credit, because obviously, the only way that a wage earner can afford to buy it is on credit. For an investor you can buy whole buildings on credit.

          MD: He reveals the scam…in all it’s naked glory. I get a dozen calls every day from someone (fronting for a so-called investor) who wants to buy my real property for cash. That’s been going on about 3 years now. Why don’t they want the cash? Well, my guess is they know the jig is up…they know the reset is near. They know real property is more durable in a reset than cash (which goes to zero).

          Finance has transformed real estate into a financial vehicle. So that that’s what rent is for paying interest means. There’s a symbiotic sector, Finance, Insurance and Real Estate – the FIRE sector. It’s the key to today’s financialised economy. Most real estate tax in America is at the local level, because after the income tax was introduced, commercial real estate was made tax exempt by the pretence that buildings depreciate in value, as if they don’t in fact rise in price. The pretence is that they wear out, even though landlords normally pay about 10% of the rental income for repairs and upgrades to keep the building from wearing out.

          MD: Finance doesn’t “transform” anything. It is “always” just a privileged scam. And in addition to the Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, he enumerates (FIRE…first I’ve seen that one…what an appropriate acronym), he leaves off the most abusive of all…government. Why? Because that’s his protection.

          I’m going to skim on ahead here and see if there’s anything new I haven’t discovered in nearly 80 years of disinformation. Read on at your own risk…or scan ahead for the next MD:

          Today in New York, and I’m sure in London too, the older a building is, the better it’s built. Real-estate developers have crapified building codes so that the newer the building, the more shoddily it’s built. They call shoddy buildings “luxury” real estate, meaning is built with really not very thick walls. I think the junkiest building in New York is Trump Tower, which is sort of the model of shadiness which they call luxury. It’s very high-priced.

          The academic economics curriculum finds unproductive credit too embarrassing to acknowledge
          While I saw the importance of finance and real estate, none of that was discussed in the university’s economics courses at all. The pretense is that money is created by banks lending to investors who build factories and employ labour to produce more. All credit is assumed to be productive, and taken on to finance productive investment in the form of tangible capital formation. Well, that that was the hope in the 19th century, and actually was the reality in Germany and in Central Europe, where you had banking becoming industrialised. But after World War I, you had a snap back to the Anglo-Dutch-American kind of banking, which was really just the Merchant banking. It was bank lending against assets already in place.

          <h4>Classical economics as a reform program to free economies from economic rent and rentier income</h4>

          I realised that the statistics that I worked on showed the opposite of what I was taught. I had to go through the motions of the PhD orals. and avoided conflict by writing my dissertation on the history of economic thought, because anything that I would have written about the modern economy would have driven the professors nutty. Needless to say, none of the academic professors I had ever actually worked in the real world. It was all very theoretical. So that basically how I came to realise that the 19th century fight for 100 years – we can call it the long 19th century, from the French Revolution, up to World War I, and from the French Physiocrats, to Adam Smith, Ricardo and Malthus, John Stuart Mill, Marx, Simon Patton and Thorstein Veblen – was the value and price theory of classical economics to quantify economic rent as unearned income.

          The purpose of value and price theory was to define the excess of market price over actual cost value. The difference was economic rent. The essence of classical economics was a reform campaign – that of industrial capitalism. It was a radical campaign, because the basic cost-cutting dynamic of industrial capitalism was radical. It realised that in order to make Britain, France or Germany, or any country competitive with others, you had to get rid of the landlord class and its demands for economic rent. You also had to get rid of monopolies and their economic rent. You had to get rid of all payments of income that were not necessary for production to take place. The aim was to bring prices in line with the actual cost value of production, to free economies from this rake-off to unproductive investment, unproductive labour and economic rent – land rent, monopoly rent and financial interest charges. Those were the three basic categories of rent on which classical political economy focused.

          To translate classical rent theory into practice, you needed a political reform, You had to get rid of the landlord class’s political power to block reform. It wasn’t enough simply to say that economic rent was not a necessary cost of production, not part of real value. The landlord class would simply say, “Well, what are you going to do about it?”

          The proponents of industrial capitalism saw that the constitution of England, France and America required giving governments the power to pass laws to free economies from economic rent. in order to do that, they needed democratic reform of the political system. In England they needed to empower the House of Commons over the House of Lords. That effort led to a constitutional crisis in 1909 and 1910, when the House of Commons, Parliament, passed a land tax. That was rejected, as I’m sure you know, by the House of Lords. The crisis was resolved by saying the Lords could never again reject a Revenue Act passed by the House of Commons. That political reform was part and parcel with classi9cal economic theory defining rent as an unnecessary cost of production.

          But where did this leave the interests of labor – the majority of the population? As a broad social reform, classical economics began to falter by 1848. You had revolutions in almost every European country. These revolutions were not fully democratic in the sense of they weren’t really for wage labour, which was the bulk of society. They were bourgeois revolutions, including land reform. They were all for getting rid of the landed aristocracy and the special privileges that the aristocracy held. But they were not very interested in helping consumers, and labour’s working conditions, shortening the workweek, shortening the workday and promoting safety. There was nothing really about public health, or public social infrastructure spending. So things began to falter by 1848.

          But they still made progress through the balance of the 19th century. By the time World War I broke out in 1914, it looked like the world was moving towards socialism. Almost everybody in the 19th century, across the political spectrum, whatever you were advocating was called socialism.

          Socialism and strong government as the program of post-rentier industrial capitalism
          At the broadest level, socialism meant collecting economic rent and getting rid of the landlords and the aristocracy, either by taxing away rent or nationalizing land and natural monopolies, in hope that that by itself would create a viable industrial economy. you had libertarian socialism, Marxist socialism, anarchist socialism, industrial socialism and Christian socialism. Almost every reformer wanted that as a label. The question is, what kind of socialism were are you going to have?

          That was what the aftermath of World War I was fought about. The fight was largely shaped by the Russian Revolution, which unfortunately went tragically wrong under Stalin and gave socialism and communism a bad name. But it still had a good name in England after World War II. And also in America in the 1930s, as a result of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal that saved capitalism by investing in public infrastructure.

          I can give you an example of where pro-capitalist theory was in the 1890s. In the United States. The industrial interests in America faced a problem once the Civil War ended in 1865. They wanted to create an industrial society – ideally, a fair society with rising living standards. How do you do that without training people to administer such an economy? You need to train people in a university. You have to teach them how economies worked. But the main universities in America were religious colleges, founded to train the clergy. Yale, Harvard, Princeton and most taught British free-trade theory, which trivialized economic theory.

          So the business interests and the government saw the need to teach reality-based economics. They saw that there was little hope in trying to reform the existing universities. Their economics departments – called moral philosophy – were unreformable. So it was necessary to create new universities. All through America, each state was given a land grant to enable it to create a new university and teach reality economics. They also would teach economic history and how the world actually works. Most of all, they would teach protectionist trade theory and how to create a society and economy that is more efficient than other economies?

          Well, the first business school in America was the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Its first economics professor was Simon Patton, a protectionist. And he explained that if you’re going to make industrial products at prices that outcompete those of England, you need public infrastructure spending. You need as much of the cost of living as possible to not to be paid by the employers to factor into the price of their products, but to be paid by the government.

          Patten cited public roads and canals to lower the cost of doing business. He also noted that every time you build a road or railroad, you’re going to raise the land value along these routes – and lower land prices for areas replaced by the now-more-accessible producers. You can simply self-finance the cost of these by taxing the rent.

          You also need public education, and that should be free so that you don’t have like today, to earn enough money to pay an enormous student debt – and receive a high salary to afford to pay that. If the government would provide free education, you wouldn’t have to pay workers enough to pay this student debt, so they wouldn’t need such high wages simply to break even.
          Today 18% of America’s national income is from medical insurance. If you have a public health system and socialized medicine, as England had after World War II and as Bernie Sanders advocates today, then you wouldn’t have to pay workers a high enough salary to afford this enormous medical expense. England realised this already in the 1870s and ‘80s, when Benjamin Disraeli campaigned as a conservative for health.

          So the movement towards public infrastructure towards government spending was led by the industrialists. It was they themselves who wanted strong government. The common denominator of politics from Adam Smith through all of the 19th century was to free economies from the unnecessary economic rent, to free them from unearned income, from the free lunch. To do that, you have to have a government strong enough to take on the vested interests – first the landlord class in the House of Lords, and then the financial class behind it.

          MD: Just wanted to let you know I’m still here. Just note, everything he cites changes dramatically in the presence of a “real” money process. Why don’t we have one? Well, it’s like “casualty” insurance…only different. With casualty insurance, the operative relation is PROFIT = PREMIUMS – CLAIMS = zero. The money is made on investment income (which “requires” that money have time value…which it doesn’t in a “real” money process). So there is a value proposition with insurance.

          With money, on the other hand, the relation is: INFLATION = DEFAULT – INTEREST = zero. And there is no money to be made. There is no “value” proposition. However, the value to traders like you and me…and thus society in general (sans the money-changer scabs and the governments they institute). So far he’s gotten close…but no cigar.. I’ll try to bear with them a little longer…but we’re only 1/8th through this and it’s oh-so-painful.

          Jonathan Brown 26:00
          Well, just to clarify that, Michael, I think what you’re, what you’re saying is, I know in some of your writing you talk about the view of government or the public sector was it was a fourth means of production. So you got land, labour, capital and the public sector.

          MD: Government is a 4th means of production? You’ve got to be joking. If you have resorted to a government solution to address any issue, you’re still looking for a solution. Government only, and always, makes issues worse…except for those who institute it…the money-changers.

          MD: I think I’m going to have to leave it here. I’m going back to the cite and leave a comment link to this annotation of their nonsense. Maybe I’ll hear from them. Life is too short for this.

          Michael Hudson 26:16
          That was the term that Simon Patten used. Government infrastructure is a fourth means of production. But what makes it different from profits and wages is that if you’re a wage earner, you want to make as high a wage as possible. If you’re a capitalist, you want to make as high a profit as possible. But the job of public investment is not to make an income, not to do what was done under Thatcher and Tony Blair, not to treat public utilities, education and health as profit making opportunities. Instead, Patten said, you should measure their productivity by how much they lower the cost of doing business and the cost of living for the economy at large.

          Jonathan Brown 27:03
          And what that allows a country to do, so if you’re good at it, is to get together and ask how to educate our people, lower the cost of transportation so we’ve got we’ve got a mobile workforce, all those things. We can then start to compete against other nations who are ahead of us, who may have more expensive means of production, and we can maintain that advantage. We’re not stuck in a lower level of the economy where we’re basically working for someone else. We’re able to develop ourselves as a nation. And I guess the benefit of us doing it collectively is that we can minimise the cost, then use a natural monopoly power in government hands to provide efficient services across the board. Is that right?

          Michael Hudson 27:46
          Yes, but they went further. Protectionists in America said the way to minimise costs – and it may seem an oxymoron to you – the way you minimise costs is to have high-wage labour. You raise the wages of labour, or more specifically, you want to raise the living standards, because highly paid labour, highly educated labour, well fed labour, well rested labour is more productive than pauper labour. So they said explicitly, America’s going to be a high wage economy. We’re not like Europe. Our higher wages are going to provide high enough living standards to provide high labour productivity. And our higher labour productivity, shorter working day, better working conditions, healthy working conditions, public health, well educated labor will undersell that of countries that don’t have an active public sector.

          Jonathan Brown 28:45
          and Henry Ford being the poster boy for that approach, of doubling his employees’ salaries and so on.

          Michael Hudson 28:53

          Jonathan Brown 28:54

          <h4>The fight against classical economics and its concept of rent as unearned income</h4>
          Michael Hudson 28:55
          Needless to say, the fight for the kind of democracy that will free economies from economic rent was not easy. By the late 1880s, and especially the 1890s, you had the rentiers fighting back. In America the fight was led by John Bates Clark. There was a movement, which today is called neoliberalism, to deny the entire thrust of classical economics. Clarke said that there is no such thing is unearned income. That meant that economic rent does not exist. Whatever a businessman makes, he is said to earn. Whatever a landlord makes, he earns – so there was no unearned income.

          This came to a head around 1890 the Journal of Ethics. Clark wrote the first essay, and it was refuted by Simon Patton. There was a fight against the concept of economic rent by academic economics, especially in New York City at Columbia University, where Clark ended up, This is really the dividing line: You recognise that much of the economy is unearned income and you want to get rid of it. To do that, you have to pass laws that will tax away the unearned income, or better yet, you put land and other natural resources and natural monopolies in the public domain where the public sector directly sets prices. That was what Teddy Roosevelt did with his trust busting.

          Jonathan Brown 31:13
          Michael, I just want to say reading your work is something of a revelation. I’ve got a degree in economics for what it’s worth. And I would say the only valuable thing that I found from a getting a degree in economics is that I know, resolutely when an economist is talking bullshit. How do you know that? It’s when his lips move.

          Michael Hudson 31:32
          If it’s an economist, they’re talking bullshit – let me make it easy, right!

          MD: Then I call “bullshit”. Neither of these morons have come close to defining what money is and where it comes from…let alone knowing what it is.

          Jonathan Brown 31:36
          And then the thing is, that reading your work, for example, going back to Thorstein Veblen, his work, which only made it into the mainstream when I was getting a degree in the 90s, was conspicuous consumption. It had nothing to do with absentee landlords or, and the profound importance of that, and then I’m looking in J is for Junk Economics, and you talk about the free lunch, and how Milton Friedman said that there’s no such thing as a free lunch.

          When you look at your work, you prove that actually there is, and that he’s having it! And you say, “Most business ventures seek such free lunches not entailing actual work or real production costs, and to deter public regulation or higher taxation of rent-seeking recipients of free lunches. They have embraced Milton Friedman’s claim that there’s no such thing as a free lunch”.

          And you talk about: “Even more aggressively rent extractors accused governments of taxing their income to subsidise freeloaders, pinning the label of free lunches on public welfare recipients, job programs, beneficiaries of higher minimum wage, when the actual antidote to free lunches is to make governments strong enough to tax economic rent, and keep the potential rent extracting opportunities and natural monopolies in the public domain.”

          Subscribe to New Columns

          Michael Hudson 32:51
          Veblen was indeed was the last great classical economist. He coined the term neoclassical economics. I think that’s an unfortunate term. When I went to school in my 20s, I thought neoclassical meant ‘Oh, it’s a new version of classical economics’. It’s not that at all. What Veblen meant was there used to be the old classical economics of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and Marx, all about economic rent and exploitation. “Neo” means there’s a new body of completely different, post-classical economics aiming to make classical economics obsolete. That is the new mainstream economics of today, trying to make itself “classical.” So Veblen he should have used the terms post-classical or anti-classical economics.

          Jonathan Brown 33:44
          Or even pseudo classical?

          Michael Hudson 33:49
          It’s antithetical, because the root of classical value and price theory was to isolate and define economic rents statistically. To deny economic rent is to deny the whole point of classical value and price theory. That is where economics became untracked.

          Unfortunately, it became untracked largely by Henry George, who rejected classical economics and very quickly followed J.B. Clark and accepted his mushy value and price theory. Removing all elements the cost of production from value theory, analysing prices simply in terms of consumer demand and what people want, and not analysing what determines land and other asset prices, loses focus.

          George became very popular as a journalist. He wrote wonderful journalism to expose the railroads in California as landlords, and he wrote a wonderful book on the Irish land question. But when he tried to talk about the whole economy, he didn’t want any competition. He said, in effect, “Economics begins and ends with me. Forget everything, Adam Smith and classical economics.” He’s sort of an early Margaret Thatcher. There’s no such thing as society or the economy. Only “tax the landlords.”

          Jonathan Brown 35:35
          What are you doing? You’re destroying my view of Henry George! He’s an early Margaret Thatcher? How, how could that possibly be?

          Michael Hudson 35:47
          Well, in two ways. The first way is that in the 19th century, in order to tax the land rent, you had to take on the most powerful vested interests of all: the real estate interests and the financial interests. But Henry George was a libertarian. He was for small government. He broke with the socialists, because he warned that socialism had a potential for authoritarianism. Well, we know that he was right in that warning, because we saw what happened in Stalinist Russia. But obviously, what you want is a government that is strong and democratic, and with enough authority to tax and regulate the vested interests. (That term is Veblen’s, by the way.) That was the ideal in America, but it needed a strong enough government so that Teddy Roosevelt could come in and be able to bust the trusts.

          The government was strong enough in 1913-14 to impose an American income tax that fell just on 1% of the population, almost entirely on economic rent, on land rent, mineral rent on monopoly rent of the big corporations. If you’re a libertarian, your government is too small to take on these vested interests. And you’ll never win. You’ll end up like the Social Democrats or like today’s Labour Party under Mr. Starmer, not able to be very efficient. So that was George’s first problem.

          The second problem was when he said that all you have to do is tax the land and everything else will take care of itself. Well, as you know, he was nominated as a celebrity candidate by the socialist and labour groups in New York City in 1876 to run for mayor. They gave him their programme – safe housing, workers housing, safe working conditions, food laws that protect people from poison, like you don’t want to use chromium for cake frosting to make it yellow.
          Well, George threw out the whole labour programme and said that there’s only one thing that mattered: If you tax the land rent, the cakes will take care of themselves, worker safety conditions will take care of themselves. You don’t need socialism; just tax land rent.

          Well, the word “panacea” came into popular use in the English language at that time, because George didn’t see the economy as a whole. That was a tragedy. He was great as a journalist describing rent and the machinations of the railroads. But once he tried to talk about the economy, without really describing how it worked as a system, saying there really isn’t any economic system, it’s just about land rent. That separated him from the other reformers.

          By the 1890s you had many of reformers in America, who had been inspired by George’s journalism in the 70s and early 80s, including attacks on the oil monopoly and the Rockefellers. They asked what happened to George? Well, he became a sectarian. He formed his own party and said, we’re only going to talk about land rent. This diverted attention away from how the overall economy works. And if you don’t understand how the economy is all about providing a free lunch in one way or another, not only to landlords but to the financial sector primarily, then you’re really not going to address the interests of most of the population.

          So his sectarian party shrank. Still, in the first decade of the 20th century you had followers of Henry George and socialists going around the country debating each other. They had great debates, they spelled out the whole problem. I wanted to reprint all these debates somewhere, what both the socialists and the Georgists said: “One thing we can agree on is that society is going to get go either your way or our way. We’re talking about how is the future of the political system and the economic relations and taxes that follow from this system. How are they going to evolve?”

          The socialists focused on labour’s working conditions, because these were getting worse and worse. In America the fight for labour unionisation got quite violent, and corrupt. The abuse of consumers, the growth of monopolies, all these were growing problems. The socialists focused on these problems – and decided to leave the discussion of rent to followers of George. I think that was very unfortunate, because George had pried the discussion of economic rent away from the classical value theory and its political dimension, which was socialist.

          I find little interest in today’s socialist movement or the socialist movement 50 years ago about land rent. They are more concerned about international issues, about war, about almost everything except land rent. And today I find the greatest interest in rent theory as a guide to a tax system in the context of an overall economic system to be in China. So that’s really where the debate over how to keep the price of housing down by keeping the financial sector from trying to capitalise the land rent into a bank loan.

          That’s a big fight in China today. It should have been also in Russia. Fred Harrison, in the early 1990s, brought a group of people including me over to Russia. We made two trips to the Duma and did everything we could to explain that Russia could have a great advantage to rebuild its industry into a productive economy. The first thing that it should have done was to keep housing prices down. It could have given everybody their houses, free and clear, without any debt. Of course, some places would be more valuable than others, but Russia would have had the lowest-priced economy in the world. In America, the rent can take up to 43% of a home buyer’s income.

          Well, there was pushback from the Russians. They had no rent in a socialist economy. Ted Gwartney, an American real estate appraiser, walked down the streets of St. Petersburg with the local mayor, I think on a fall or winter days. He pointed out that one side of the street was very sunny. The other street was in the shade. That’s how the sun is in the northern latitudes in the winter. Most people were walking on the sunny side of the street. That means that if you’re going to have a store, whether it’s a bakery, a food store or a restaurant, the store on the sunny side of the street is going to be able to attract more customers. Their site has more economic rent than the dark side of the street. Same thing with buildings near a subway. They will be worth more than sites far away from transportation.

          The mayor said understood the point, and asked how to actually make a land value tax so to collect this rent? Ted explained that St. Petersburg’s layout was much like that of Boston, where a land map was easy to make. It showed that there was a peak centre of values near the subway, with rents tapering off further away. He suggested to apply Boston as a scale model to St. Petersburg. Just plug in a few prices, and you have a land-valuation map.

          Russia could have been a low-cost economy. It could have kept the oil and gas, Yukos, GazProm, nickel and platinum resources all in the public domain to finance investment in re-industrialization, to become independent of the West. But as we all know, Ted and the people that Fred Harrison bought were completely overwhelmed by the billions of dollars that U.S. diplomats spent on promoting kleptocracy and shock therapy in Russia. Its officials and insiders worked for themselves, not Russia.

          And it wasn’t only Russia that missed opportunities. I brought Ted Gwartney and his mathematical model-maker to Latvia, where I was Economic Research Director of the Riga Graduate School of Law. I was asked by the leading political party of Latvia, the Centre Party – basically the party of Russian speakers, with 1/3 of the population and votes – to draw up a model for how Latvia could restructure its post-Soviet economy and industry. Ted met with the tax authorities and housing authorities and explained how to use land rent as the tax base. They were amazed and said, “This is great. We can hire a separate appraiser for every single building. This will create a lot of employment”. No he said. He had been the appraiser for Greenwich, Connecticut, the state’s wealthiest city. He said, “We can do a whole city in about one week.” They couldn’t believe this in Latvia.

          Around the time of his visit there was a meeting in Boston of the Eastern Economics Association. It was largely created by John Kenneth Galbraith to go off the economic mainstream. I think the Schalkenbach Foundation had a session on political critics of Henry George, so there were a lot of Georgists. Other people who came to the Eastern Economic Association meeting were socialists, including Alan Freeman who was the assistant to Ken Livingston, the Mayor of London.

          When everybody was having lunch after the economic meetings, I brought Alan over to sit down with Ted Gwartney. Ted explained what he did, and Alan said, “Oh, I’ve never heard of this! I’ve got to come and meet you some more.’ So he came to New York and we went up to visit Ted in Connecticut. He explained how to make a land value map. Alan said, “You should win the Nobel Prize for this! This is amazing! There’s nothing like this in England.”

          Ted explained that there are about 20,000 appraisers in America that do what he did. There are abundant statistics. Every city has a map of land and building appraisals: here’s the value of the building, here’s the value of the land. So smoothing out a land value map is pretty easy to do. Alan could hardly believe it.

          Well, I went back to London shortly and met with Alan. It turned out that political pressures in England, especially from the Labour Party, led London to hire Weatheralls, a real estate company, do appraisals. So we never got to do our version of a real estate appraisal of London to calculate land rent.

          But this is what all of the theories of the Physiocrats, Adam Smith, Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, Marx, Veblen, Alfred Marshall, all of them were focusing on. Yet this idea is so alien that from London to St. Petersburg, they don’t have any idea of how the simple concept can be done. The economics profession is in denial. It’s followed the idea that there’s no such thing as unearned income, everybody gets what they make.

          The National Income and Product Accounts treat rent as a product, not a subtrahend
          A byproduct of this value-free doctrine is how countries calculate their national income and product accounts. And if you look at the GDP accounts for the United States (and I’ve published a number of articles on my website and in major economic journals), rent is counted as part of GDP.

          This is easiest to see in real estate and finance. The Bureau of Labor Statistics sends its employees around to ask homeowners what the rental income of their home would be if they had to rent it. If you were a landlord and rented yourself how much rent would that be? This appears in the NIPA statistics as “homeowners imputed rent.” That’s 8% of GDP. But it is not really income, because it is not actually paid. Nobody gets it. But value-free designers of GDP want to describe all of the income that landlords make as contributing to GDP. They say that landlords provide a productive service, they provide housing to people who need it, and they provide commercial properties to businesses that need it. Well, that’s not exactly how John Stuart Mill put it. He said that rent is what landlords make ‘in their sleep’. So how can you rationalize how productive landlords are?

          Another element of American GDP is financial services. I called up the Commerce Department where they make the NIPA statistics and asked what happens when credit card companies increase their interest charges. And where do penalty charges for late payments appear? Credit card companies in America make billions of dollars in interest a year and even more billions in fees, late fees and penalties. Most of the income that credit card companies make are actually on these fees and penalties. So where does that appear in that GDP? I was told, in “financial services.’ So the “service” of calculating how far the debtors must pay for falling behind in their payments. They typical charge 29%. That’s all counted as a contribution to GDP. But in reality it is a subtrahend, leaving less to spend on real “product.”

          This raises the question of just what income and product actually mean. Well, this brings us back to what classical economics is all about. The “product” should be measured by what its actual necessary cost of production is. But there’s a lot of income over and above this necessary cost of production. Namely, economic rent, that’s unearned income. But the income and product accounts don’t say how much is “earned” and how much is “unearned” land rent, monopoly rent, natural resource rent, interest and financial charges.

          A classical economic accounting format would show how much of the prices for what our society produces is actually necessary, and how much is a subtrahend. Classical economists treat the land rent that you pay, interest charges and monopoly prices as a rake-off. So not all of your income is income equals “product,” because only a portion of that income represents a real product.

          In America, the head of Goldman Sachs a few years ago said Goldman Sachs partners – a financial management firm – make more money than almost anyone else in America, because they’re the most productive. If you make a lot of money, by definition, you make it by being productive. That’s the false identity.

          Jonathan Brown 55:25
          That’s really the John Bates Clark idea that if you make the money, you’ve earned it. And it’s not just because you control the gate. You’re the gatekeeper, to stop people and make them pay the toll. You’re the troll under the bridge, taking people’s money as they cross, which is essentially what financial economics is about.

          Michael Hudson 55:48
          Right. I have spoken with a number of political advisors, many of whom were followers of Henry George. They’ve described to me how political all of this definition of the economy is. A number of friends of mine have been trying to show how much of what the United Nations calculates as income and product is actually economic rent. Steve Keen, Dirk Bezemer and Jacob Assa are in this group. There are a number of others who do it. We publish in places like the Review of Keynesian Economics, Journal of Economic Issues and other not-mainstream journals. A lot of this was taught where I was a professor for decades, at the University of Missouri in Kansas City.

          Our graduates had problems getting jobs, because in order to get an appointment at a university, you have to publish articles in prestige journals. The University of Chicago, the Milton Friedman boys, the Chicago Boys control the editorial boards of all these prestige magazines, just like they control the Nobel Economics Prize Committee. The prize basically is given to Chicago Boys every year for not explaining how the economy works.

          A precondition for what you call an economist, especially a Nobel Prize winning economist, is not to understand how the economy works. Because if you understand that, you’re going to threaten the vested interests that are getting the free lunch. You have to say there’s no such thing as a free lunch, everybody earns whatever they can get. Robbers and criminals like that idea. “Yeah, we stole it fair and square!”

          Crime pays, and rent seeking also pays.

          You can get much more money quicker by extractive means – by rent extraction – than you can by investing in plant and equipment and developing products and marketing them and making a profit over time, and spending on research and development. That’s why in today’s United States, 92% of corporate revenue, called earnings, (although not all of it is earned – that’s a euphemism) is spent on stock buybacks and dividend payouts, not on new capital investment.

          So the way that the economy works today is no longer industrial capitalism; it is finance capitalism. Instead of Industrial Engineering, making society produce more with all of the environmental protection cost included, you have financial engineering, making wealth by increasing stock-market prices. Wealth is not achieved by earning it. You don’t save up your earnings and get wealthy. I think half of Americans are unable to raise $400 In an emergency. They have no savings at all.

          For most people it’s very hard to save up money, especially if they have student debt, credit-card debt, medical debt and mortgage debt. After paying this, there’s really no income left to be saved. So you have the 1% of society, the rentier portion that had to pay income tax back in 1914, getting huge amounts of income and the rest of the society getting less and less. The result is economic polarisation. The dynamics of society are financial and basically rely on rent seeking that has been financialized.

          I’ll give you another example of the GDP. One of the problems that makes GDP statistics meaningless is depreciation, the idea that buildings depreciate. When Ronald Reagan came in, the real estate interests and their banks basically took over the government. Henry George and the Libertarians oppose central planning by elected democratic governments, and that leaves central planning to Wall Street’s financial interests. Every economy is planned, and if you don’t have a government strong enough to do the planning, then the planning is done by the financial sector and the real estate sector, and they were given free rein under Ronald Reagan.

          Under Reagan’s 1981 tax “reform” you could pretend that if you buy a big commercial building, you can write off 1/7 of the entire costs every single year as tax deductible income. At the end of seven years, you change your ownership from one name to another name, and you start all over again. The same building can be re depreciated again and again and again.

          Donald Trump wrote in his autobiography, he loves depreciation, because he said thanks to the pretence of depreciation, his buildings are all going up in value, but he gets to pretend they’re falling, and deduct all of that fictitious over-depreciation from his taxable income. It’s actually economic rent. But if you look at the national income statistics, you can’t find economic rent in them at all. I was able to piece it together by adding up what goes into economic rent: Real estate taxes are part of economic rent, and also interest payments, because interest is paid out of economic rent. But fictitious depreciation tax loopholes also should be there.

          But nowhere in the national income statistics is a report of how much income real estate owners actually claim as depreciation. They haven’t done that because if they showed this, people would think, ‘Wait a minute, this is a giveaway. This is utterly unrealistic.” So they only put in a figure for how much they [think] buildings are actually depreciating over a period of decades. So you have a fictitious national income accounting format that makes it impossible to calculate what land rent is – and that was the major focus of classical economics.

          How are you going to get a statistical system that actually reflects this? Well, one associate of mine, Jacob Assa, has written a few books on this criticising economic rent. He worked in the United Nations here in New York until quite recently. But as I said, our graduates can’t publish in the University of Chicago economic journals whose party line is that ‘there’s no such thing as economic rent’, just like there’s no such thing as society is beyond “the market.”

          I wanted to publish statistics on this and in 1994 the Henry George School in New York asked me to calculate what rent was and the land value. I found out that the value of land, the market price of land in the United States was twice what the government reported.

          The government pretends that real estate prices rise mainly because buildings keep growing in value, even though they’re supposed to depreciate. They pretend that buildings grow in value by taking the original cost of the building, and multiplying it by the Construction Price Index. Whatever is left is reported as land value. Well, in 1994 the Federal Reserve reported that the land value of all of the commercially owned real estate in the United States was negative $4 billion. This is crazy.

          The statistics are drawn up by a methodology that the real estate interests lobbied for. When I calculated this, the Georgists in America got furious. They said that I was showing that land value and rents were much higher than they thought. They worried that this might lead people to want to tax real estate. Lowell Harriss of Schalkenbach explained that Georgists today represent mainly real estate developers, and that their major audience was local mayors, whose biggest campaign funders are the real estate interest.

          These Georgists called themselves “two raters,” wanting to keep overall real estate taxes unchanged (“revenue-neutral”) but shift the tax from commercial landlords onto homeowners by taxing land, not buildings – e.g., electric utilities, office buildings and other capital-intensive structures.

          By representing the developers, Georgists proposed to save society by having the developers build up those slums, build up those vacant lots. Like George, they said that there was no need to worry about ecology or any problem except cutting property taxes for large real estate owners. You don’t need to worry about workers conditions or anything else. Let’s just give an economic incentive (i.e., a tax cut) to help contractors build up those vacant lots.

          I was told if I published a new explanation of my statistics showing that most rent was paid out as interest, I could never have any relations with Schalkenbach and the Henry George school again. So I published them in a Harper’s Magazine cover story and have lived happily ever after.

          Jonathan Brown 1:06:13
          And was that “The New Road to Serfdom”?

          Subscribe to New Columns

          Michael Hudson 1:06:22
          Yes. I chose that title because the purpose of industrial capitalism was to free economies from the legacy of feudalism. And the legacy of feudalism was the landlord-warrior class collecting hereditary rent and the predatory banks that were not making loans for industry. None of the industrialists got their money to invest in banks. The inventors of the steam engine couldn’t get loans except by mortgaging their houses. Banks don’t lend money to create capital, only for the right to foreclose on it.

          Jonathan Brown 1:07:02
          This is all included in your in your latest book that just came out, The Destiny of Civilization: Finance Capitalism, Industrial capitalism, or Socialism, which I gather was a series of lectures to a Chinese University. Is that correct?

          Michael Hudson 1:07:16
          Yes. There were 160,000 viewers for the first lecture, and there’s a huge interest in this in China, because they realise that higher housing prices make them poorer and more highly indebted, not richer. What is pushing up housing prices in China is the amount of credit that banks will lend against the property.

          A land tax would keep housing prices down, because the rent could not be available, to be capitalized into a bank loan. As China gets more productive and more prosperous, people obviously are going to be able to afford housing, which is how most people define their status. If a site gets more valuable because of public investment in transportation, or schools or parks nearby, that’s going to make it more valuable. But if you tax this rental income, then you’re going to keep the housing price down.

          I think Fred Harrison and Don Riley wrote a book Taken for a Ride where they show that the money that London spent on extending the Jubilee Line increased real estate prices by twice as much as the line cost. London could have simply collected the land’s increase in rental value that this public investment created and made it self-financing.

          Instead it was a giveaway.

          They ended up taxing labour and business, and the effect was to increase Britain’s cost of living and hence the cost of production, which is why Britain is de-industrialising. It’s been de-industrialising because despite the attempts through 1909 and 1911, to free itself from landlordism, the bankers have taken the place of the landlords. They are the class today that the landlords were in the 19th century. So we’re back on the revival of what really was feudalism – a rake-off by a hereditary privileged class.

          <h4>America’s monetary imperialism coming to an end with de-dollarization</h4>
          Jonathan Brown 1:09:47

          I’m wondering where we go next. I want to get into the conversations that you started with the 1972 first edition of Super Imperialism. I know we had a third edition fairly recently, with your prescience of the predictions in analyzing the situation for America, and how the balance of payments deficit was a result of U.S. expenditure by the military. Getting into the current manifestation of the de-dollarization challenge that seems to be accelerating through the Ukraine and Russia crisis, I wonder what background we need to give the listeners just to tell them about how that system works.

          Michael Hudson 1:10:39
          One of the things that most people don’t understand is money, largely because of the academic discussion confusing matters. Until 1971, countries running a balance of payments deficit would have to settle it either in gold or by selling off their industry to investors in the payments-surplus countries. Well, beginning with the war in Korea in 1950-1951, the U.S. balance of payments moved into deficit. The entire U.S. balance of payments deficit from the Korean War to the 1970s was a result of its foreign military spending.

          By the time the Vietnam war was ending, the Americans had to sell its gold every month. Vietnam had been a French colony, so the banks there were French. As America spent more dollars in Southeast Asia, these dollars were sent from local French bank branches to their head offices in Paris. The Paris bank would turn over these dollars to the central bank for francs, and the central bank, under General de Gaulle, would cash in these dollars for gold.

          Germany was doing the same thing, using its export proceeds that were paid in dollars to buy gold. So America’s gold stock was steadily going down, until finally it had to withdraw from the London Gold pool and stop making the dollar gold convertible. Back in 1950 when the Korean War began, the American Treasury had 75% of the world’s monetary gold. It had used this monetary power to control diplomacy in other countries. The basis of America’s political power was its gold stock.

          Once they left the gold-exchange standard there was hand wringing. How was the United States going to dominate the world if it didn’t have gold anymore, if the military spending abroad had made it run out of gold? My Super Imperialism pointed out that henceforth when foreign central banks got more dollars, what were they going to use them for? Well, there’s only one thing that central banks at that time did: That was to buy government securities. So the central banks of France, Germany and other payment-surplus countries had little option except to buy U.S. Treasury bills and bonds. Some of these were special non-marketable bonds that they couldn’t sell, but they were stores of value.

          So the money that America was spending abroad was simply recycled to the United States. It didn’t mean that America had to devalue the dollar through running a balance-of-payments deficit, like today’s Global South countries do, or do as England had to do with its’ stop-go policies, always raising interest rates to borrow when its deficits threatened to force the pound sterling to depreciate.

          Jonathan Brown 1:13:57
          Michael, this insight was that was that when you were working at Chase Manhattan, and you were advising the State Department on what to do with the fact that they were having these balance of payments problem, because of military spending?

          Michael Hudson 1:14:07
          My job at Chase was to analyse basically the balance of payments of Third World countries and then of the oil industry. I had to develop an accounting format to find how much does the oil industry actually makes in the rest of the world. I had to calculate natural-resource rent, and how large it was. I did that from 1964 till October 1967. Then I had to quit to finish my dissertation to get the PhD. And then I developed the system of balance-of-payments analysis that actually was the way it had been calculated before GDP analysis.

          I went to work for Arthur Andersen and spent a year calculating the whole U.S. balance of payments. That’s where I found that it was all military in character, and I began to write in popular magazines like Ramparts, warning that America’s foreign wars were forcing it to run out of gold. That was the price that America was paying for its military spending abroad.
          I realised as soon as it went off gold in 1971 that America now had a cost-free means of military spending. Suppose you were to go to the grocery store and just pay in IOUs. You could just keep spending If you could convince the owner, the grocer to use the IOU to pay the farmers and the dairy people for their products. What if everybody else used these IOUs as money? You would continue to get your groceries for free.

          That’s how the United States economy works under the dollar standard, at least until the present. This is what led China, Russia, Iran and other countries to say that they don’t want to keep giving America a free ride. These dollarized IOUs are being used to surround them of military bases, to overthrow them and to threaten to bomb them if we don’t do what American diplomats tell them to do.

          That led already a few years ago to pressure to de-dollarize the world economy and make it multipolar, not simply an extension of the U.S. military, U.S. investors, mining and oil companies. The post-dollar aim was for other countries to keep their economic surplus among themselves to promote their own economic growth, instead of imposing IMF dictated austerity programmes to impose austerity so that they can pay foreign dollarized bondholders.

          Just about everybody thought that it would take many years for China, Russia, Iran, India, Indonesia and other countries to get their act together and create an alternative. But this year the Biden administration itself destroyed America’s free ride for the dollar. First the United States grabbed Venezuela’s foreign exchange, then Biden grabbed all of the foreign exchange of Afghanistan, just confiscated it. And then a month ago he confiscated $300 billion of Russia’s foreign exchange reserves. He said, in effect, that we are the leading democracy in the world, and global democracy means that America’s military gets to appoint foreign presidents.

          And so we don’t like the person you’ve voted in as president for Venezuela. We’re going to hire this little nitwit that we bought out, Juan Guaido, and appoint him president. To force you to accept this, we’re going to take away all of your gold reserves held in the Bank of England, and we’re going to give it to Mr. Guaido as our nominee for the bastion of democracy, to do what a democratic regime is supposed to do: hiring terrorist groups to kill all land reformers and labour leaders, to finance a neo-Nazi takeover like we did in Chile under Pinochet, and just like we’ve done in democratic Ukraine with our funding of neo-Nazis to fight against the Russians there.

          This confiscation of foreign reserves and foreign money held in U.S. banks shocked the rest of the world. Nobody had believed that countries would actually grab other countries’ financial savings. If you go back to the wars in the 19th century, the Crimean War and others, countries would continue to pay their foreign debts.

          All this was ended by President Biden rejecting the international rule of law. He said that “We have a ‘rules-based’ order, in which we can make up the rules. Number one, we are exempt from the rules. Only you have to follow them. Number two, the rules or whatever we say.” China, Russia and India would have taken years by themselves to denominate their trade in their own currencies. Biden’s money grab has impelled them to create a new economic order independently of the United States and Europe, whose euro and sterling are satellite currencies of the United States.

          Jonathan Brown 1:19:54
          So Michael, this is a crazy situation that we’ve got. Even If you have deposits in a bank, the deposits don’t really belong to you, but they used to be respected.

          Michael Hudson 1:20:07
          Well they belong to you, but they can be stolen.

          Jonathan Brown 1:20:09
          Yeah, but then they don’t belong to me, do they? They’re kind of mine, but not. Likewise, if I annoy the wrong person, I could have my car impounded, because I’ve just annoyed the local politician, which is essentially what’s happened to a Russian oligarch. Now, whether or not the oligarch deserved that $500 million yacht, obviously, they didn’t, but it was technically theirs. So what Americans are doing is showing that if you piss them off, they will take all your resources, which has happened in other countries, right? We’ve stolen it.

          The British did that, right? We appropriated resources and stole resources from other nations. If you want the best example of that, you can just go into the very beautiful British Museum and see all the artefacts that we’ve appropriated, one of which was a Rosetta Stone, which I know you write about.

          So we’ve got this situation now that the Americans have declared the most profound economic war on Russia, threatening China that we can do the same. China’s got trillions of U.S. dollars. And one of the things that I don’t quite understand, looking at your philosophy and Super Imperialism, was in demonstrating that the Americans can have a free lunch by getting people to buy U.S. Treasury bonds. How is it that the U.S. dollar has gone up against all currencies pretty much other than the rouble since declaring war in Ukraine?

          Michael Hudson 1:21:43
          Europe has committed economic suicide, United States offered its leaders a lot of money in their offshore accounts, and made sure that their kids got free education in the United States. But in return, they would have to represent the United States, not Germany, France or other countries. The Americans have been meddling in European politics for years. European politicians do not represent their own countries. They represent the American State Department and American diplomacy. And they were told to lock their countries into the U.S. economy.
          For instance, European businesses had a hope that Americans really hated. The Europeans hoped that after 1991, now that communism was over, they could invest in Russia to make money. They could sell exports to Russia and make mutual gains from each other. But the Americans wanted to make all the money off Russia for themselves, mainly by using the kleptocrats they backed to sell the natural resources that they grabbed to U.S. investors. The Harvard Boys wanted to make sure that rent-yielding natural resources were given the kleptocrats – who could only make their money in hard currency by selling shares abroad in the assets they grabbed, keeping their payments in England or the United States.

          So they’ve asked Europe not to buy Russian gas, but to spend seven times as much buying American liquefied natural gas, and spend $5 billion to build the ports to accept this gas – while going without gas for about three or four years…let their pipes freeze… stop making fertiliser… Don’t feed your land, we’ll take it on the chin for America. Your standard of living is going to have to drop by 20%, but it’s all for American democracy. And the European heads said that’s fine.

          America said that you Europeans are bothering them by trying to stop global warming. That’s a direct attack on a major arm of U.S. diplomacy, the oil industry. American companies control almost all the world’s oil trade. It’s the highest rent-yielding sector in the world. And it’s income-tax free. It’s politically powerful, and as long as America can control the oil trade, it can talk to Latin American countries or African countries and say if they elect a leader that U.S. officials don’t like, it can impose sanctions and stop exporting oil to them to freeze them out. They won’t get fertilizer, so the U.S. can starve you out. It can put a sanction on their food trade. 

Agriculture is Americans biggest trade surplus.

          Jonathan Brown 1:25:14
          That’s what they’re doing with the conflict in Ukraine to Russia, and also China as well. Are there other major sources of grain, wheat and rice?

          Michael Hudson 1:25:26
          Yes. But President Biden has blamed Putin for creating a world food shortage and threatening to cause a famine, because Ukraine can’t export its grain. Ukraine, at American direction, has put mines all over the Black Sea. So the Black Sea’s ports have mines around them. If a ship hits them, it’ll blow a hole in the hull and will sink.
          As a result, if you’re a shipping company and want to transport grain, you have to get insurance, because if you don’t have insurance, then you’re in danger of going bust if your ship goes under. But no insurance company will insure it until the Ukrainians remove the mines that they put. You need minesweepers for that. Needless to say, Russia doesn’t want American minesweepers in, because they may very well attack as there’s a war on.

          So you have the United States blocking Ukrainian grain exports, which was a huge export. You’ve had the American dollar area, the NATO countries, refusing to import food from Russia, which is the world’s largest agricultural exporter. This is creating a crisis for Global South countries, for Latin America and Africa.

          Meanwhile, global warming is causing droughts that are reducing the harvest. The Green Party in Germany has a pro-war policy that is making global warming rise faster. By supporting military warfare against Russia, and U.S. military adventurism in general, they are becoming major lobbyists for the air polluters. The largest air polluter is the American military. The Green Party in Germany advocates fighting Russia more, providing it with more arms, and thus supporting the military that is now the largest new contributor to global warming. In effect, this means that Europe is willing to say, ‘Okay, we are willing to have the sea levels rise another 10 feet, as long as we can help America dominate Russia’.

          Europe even is letting America keep the Trump tariffs on its exports, in place, so it can’t export more for America. It looks like Europe will have to de-industrialize, maybe we’ll go back to the 19th century and become a country of farmers. That basically is the situation that its subservience is imposing.

          Jonathan Brown 1:28:49
          I’d like to come back to the just what China and Russia can do, given their reserves. They understand they’ve got… they’ve got lots of reserves of gold, and also large grain stores, China having the most as I understand it, but can you help me understand why all these nations around the world have U.S. dollar reserves in some form or other, most of it in bonds? Why is the dollar still increasing at this moment in time?

          Michael Hudson 1:29:28
          Because the Euro was going down. The Japanese Yen is going down. The Yen is the worst performing currency, because they’ve held their interest rates very low. Their aim is for banks to make money by borrowing low at low rates and lending to foreign countries at a higher rate. Europe is also keeping its interest rates low. The American Federal Reserve is raising the interest rate, and that is money from low interest rate countries. Capital from Europe and Japan is flowing to America.

          Currency values are primarily set by relative interest rates and capital flows. They’re not set by the cost of production for imports and exports. They are not caused by trade, unless there’s a radical breakdown of trade. All these zigzags that you see are short-term capital movements. America tells other countries to keep their interest rates low, so that money will flow from their banks and financial to the United States to buy American securities that yield higher returns. As long as the Euro is a satellite currency to the dollar, it’s going to continue to go down. So the both the euro and the British Sterling are now moving towards $1 per pound and $1 per euro.

          Jonathan Brown 1:28:49
          That’s a short-term measure. The long-term measure is that countries have to start selling the bonds that they’ve got in U.S. currency. So long term, it has to come down. Is that right?

          Michael Hudson 1:29:28
          Yes. They’re going to hold each other’s currencies. Especially now that Russia is denominating its exports, in roubles instead of dollars. The American banks have lost the trade financing of the world oil trade, certainly Russian oil and agricultural trade. Instead of holding dollars, countries will hold rouble reserves to stabilise their currencies via the rouble, China is holding rouble reserves, and Russia is holding Chinese yuan reserves.

          The balance will be held more in gold and some kind of assets without a liability attached to them. I think the logical direction in which this is moving is that the non-dollar countries will create their own version of the International Monetary Fund, their own World Bank, their own trade organization. So there will be one set of trade and financial and development organisations and military organisations in the U.S. and Europe, in NATO, that is, in the white countries, and another set of relations and the non-white countries that are actually developing while America and Europe shrink.

          Jonathan Brown 1:33:06
          So what’s your idea of how much gold China actually holds, because there’s the published numbers [which] are really extraordinarily small aren’t they for an economy that’s so big.

          Michael Hudson 1:33:18
          I don’t know. Governments can hold gold not only through their own treasury, but through some subordinate agency. I no longer go into the financial statistics like I used to, because it takes a whole year to do a balance sheet that is comprehensive. All I know is that they saw how America simply grabbed Russia’s dollar holdings, and they don’t want the same thing done to them. President Biden has said China is America’s number one long-term enemy, and he wants to destroy the Russian economy first and then attack China after prying them apart.

          Obviously, China is reading the newspapers and wants to avoid that fate.

          Jonathan Brown 1:34:16
          The other thing that I find utterly remarkable, for example, is that Biden in his speech said that he wants to get rid of Putin. I think if it was a U.S. Defence Secretary or Secretary of State saying that he wants to arm Taiwan……. If I ran China and I said I want to arm Mexico, or if anyone in South America wants any weapons then my doors open to you, I would expect the Americans to be very upset with that because I’m breaching the Monroe Doctrine. Can you help me understand, having been in the corridors of power, whether Chase Manhattan or the contacts you’ve got, how can …. how can politicians be so delusional to think they can say stuff like that without having a negative consequence?

          Michael Hudson 1:35:18
          Well you know who’s really upset by that? The Taiwanese! They say, Oh, they want to make Taiwan into another Ukraine, to fight to the last Taiwanese, just like the Ukrainians have been used. They see two choices before them. If they do arm and get weapons that can hit China, then China is likely to bomb them. On the other hand, I’ve met Taiwanese officials for 40 years, and many have said that their long-term hope is to be reintegrated. They want to be investors in China, but they want to merger under terms where they can be sort of like Hong Kong, able to have a merger that will make them prosperous too.

          So Taiwan’s choice is between following the Americans and becoming the Ukraine of the Pacific, or joining with China. Given the fact that China is growing and America is shrinking, what are they going to choose? Well, I would imagine that you will see a strong, peaceful integrationist movement with China. But China remembers that Chiang Kai Shek massacred the communists in 1927.

          Jonathan Brown 1:36:47
          So what are we looking at then, who is in charge, President Biden or other people?

          Michael Hudson 1:36:56
          President Biden is a front man. They’re all the front men for the faceless people in the State Department, the neocons who are controlling things. Biden has always been right-wing, just a corrupt party politician. He does what he’s paid to do. He’s unimaginative. He’s brought in some real Russia haters – people who have a visceral hatred of Russia because of their family background under the tsars or under Stalin. Blinken said that his family was Jewish and lost under the tsars, and maybe under Stalin. He wants to kill Russians because he’s so angry at what they did to his ancestors. That is the neocon mentality in a nutshell. It’s a crazy mentality.

          Subscribe to New Columns

          The Federal Reserve and the Treasury officials say they were not consulted in the political moves that Biden and Blinken and the neocons are making. There is the kind of single-minded tunnel vision at work. They really are Russia haters and China haters. There is a lot of racism you’re seeing in New York, where it’s very dangerous for Asian women to take a subway. Almost every week, the lead news item is yet another Asian woman attacked or pushed in front of a subway. There’s a there’s a new race hatred in America. And they are treating Russians as the Ukrainians do, as if Slavic speaking people are a separate race.

          Jonathan Brown 1:38:49
          Extraordinary. So Super Imperialism came out, as I understand it, and was used by the State Department to figure out how to continue running their economics …

          Michael Hudson 1:39:04
          At first U.S. officials thought that going off gold was going to be a disaster. Herman Khan told me, “You’ve shown that we’ve run rings around the British Empire.” He hired me for the Hudson Institute, which is a national security institute, and brought me to the State Department for meetings and to Army War colleges and Air Force war colleges to talk about it. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that the main people who wanted to learn how imperialism works were the imperialists themselves. I had thought that the anti-imperialists were going to be my main audience, but the imperialists really needed to know what was new.

          Jonathan Brown 1:39:50
          They took your book, Super Imperialism and they read it as a love letter, right.

          Michael Hudson 1:39:56
          Not a love letter. They saw it as a “how to do it” book. I was a technician.

          Jonathan Brown 1:40:04
          Right. And working for Herman Kahn, he’s a powerful guy that people don’t talk about so much anymore, but he was, he was extraordinarily influential at the time, right?

          Michael Hudson 1:40:14
          Yes, he had a great sense of humour. He was a great speaker. He was absolutely brilliant. He wrote a book on thermonuclear war, saying that even if there were to be a war, somebody would be left to survive. That made him one of the models for Dr. Strangelove in the movies. I would sit and hear Herman talk about military strategy, and was awed by how he thought it all through. He was a brilliant military tactician. He would bring me and sit down with generals, and they would explain things. I don’t have a good military sense, or any military training at all. He wrote that, personally, he wanted to be right under the first hydrogen bomb. He didn’t want to live in the post-nuclear world. But there would be some survivors somewhere. That made him notorious. He was so reviled for even having brought up discussion of the topic that needed to be discussed, that he wanted to have ideas that people liked. And that was the corporate environment study. That was what I was pretty much in charge of. I was the economist, he was the military. We had the same salary there.

          We would go around the world disagreeing with each other. It would be like a show. He’d talk about the world being a cup half full. I talked about the cup being half-empty, as he put it. I talked about the debt overhead, and how debt was growing and would ultimately stifle the economy. He talked about how productivity would be sufficient to pay debt, although productivity doesn’t necessarily give you the money to pay the debt. Productivity does not grows exponentially, but tapers off. As debt grows, any rate of interest is a doubling time. And it doubles quicker than the economy can double.

          Jonathan Brown 1:42:24
          And this is really coming back to one of your initial questions from Terrence McCarthy, which was to focus on productivity, wasn’t it?

          Michael Hudson 1:42:33
          Yes. And the idea was focusing on productivity, you realise that it all comes down to labour ultimately. How do you make labour more productive? How do you make industry more productive? You get rid of what is unproductive – and the unproductive overhead is rent. So how much corporate spending is just plain overhead? How much is unnecessary for corporate industry to take place? That line of questioning brings you back into the classical economics.
          Marx is really the last great classical economist who pushed it all to its logical end. His contribution was to explain that just as the landlord exploits by taking rent, the industrial capitalist exploits labour by charging more for the products of labour than it costs to hire labour to produce.

          However, unlike the rentier, unlike the landlord, the capitalist uses this economic surplus value to expand production, to build yet more factories, to employ yet more labour. This is an expanding society, whereas the rent paid to landlords is a kind of exploitation that is pure overhead and shrinks industrial capitalism. That’s why Marx said that the political aim of industrial capitalism was to free society from the landlords, predatory bankers and monopolists. That’s why the Communist Manifesto‘s program begins with collecting rent for the public sector. You can tax the land as a transition to socialising it. That was the Communist Manifesto’s classical economics.

          Jonathan Brown 1:44:26
          You have these views, and yet you were still a valued member of the team at the Hudson Institute.

          Michael Hudson 1:44:33
          Yes, because I was explaining how the world worked. Herman and I disagreed so much, we were genuine friends. I liked him, and we couldn’t believe that the other would actually believe something so different. But we said okay, if the arguments that we’re having is the “big argument,” it’s going to determine where the economy is going. Either he’s right or I’m right.
          This is like the debates between Henry George’s followers and the socialists in the early 1900s. It was going to be one world or another.

          What is the key to analysing the economy? Is it to focus on rent and finance, or on technological potential? My point is that technological potential can be smothered by so much overhead paid to the rentier class via the FIRE sector – finance, insurance and real estate – that there’s no money left to invest, no income left for wage earners to spend on buying the goods and services that they produce.

          Jonathan Brown 1:45:48
          And yet the technology sector in my opinion is actually the new monopolist. Instead of having a competition, in that sense they’re the new landowners. So Google is a spectrum landowner. If I want to host these videos, then I’ve got to negotiate or accept the terms of the landowner YouTube. I’m posting them there, but I won’t be making any money on it. Because I’m one of the serfs on YouTube.

          Michael Hudson 1:46:16
          This is the problem that China is dealing with in its own way. What do you do when Jack Ma and other IT specialists end up as billionaires? Well, China did not have an anti-monopoly group. It let 100 flowers bloom and let billionaires develop, but would then have them transfer their money to the government in one way or another. They haven’t done this in the way that Western economies do, by an anti-monopoly tax, but by a political consensus way.

          In countries like Russia, I’m trying to get them to formalise this into formally calculating the magnitude of economic trends. You want innovation to take place, you want people to make the fortune, but at a certain point they can’t somehow make so big a fortune that it ends up crashing the economy.

          Jonathan Brown 1:47:37
          But looking at your writing from the Byzantine times and the ancient Near East, is the importance of the leader of that particular economy or society to make sure that no one got so rich that they could overthrow the leader? Which is really what you’ve got with someone like Zuckerberg, the power that he was able to wield in the election, whether you agree with him or not, was extraordinary. And likewise, if you look at the fight that’s currently going on with Elon Musk and Twitter, is to recognise that actually we want, we want our people to own these resources that we pretend are private, but actually have tremendous social power.

          Michael Hudson 1:48:24
          Yes, they financialized politics in America, by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling. Anyone can contribute as much as they want, if you’re a corporation. The rentier interests give to pro-rentier politicians to act as their puppets. The money goes for advertising airtime on television and the media to overwhelm all the people who normally would want to minimise the rentier class. So essentially, you’ve financialized politics in America much more than has occurred in Europe. But in Europe, it’s the right wingers who basically control the press, commercial television and media. So if the media are controlled by the right wing with their own agenda, they frame the economic issues from the vantage point of the rentier class instead of from the vantage point of how an economy actually develops and grows wealthier in a fair manner.

          Jonathan Brown 1:49:48
          I know we need to need to wrap up. Just thinking about the scenarios for Russia and China currently. Everybody who is part of the original white economies of Europe, realises that if they don’t side with America, they get overthrown. But also right now they have a short-term challenge that the Americans are going to let them starve because they’re stopping wheat exports coming through the European ports. But then you’ve also got Russia with resources, you’ve got China with grain resources.

          So there is a potential that when people start to starve, and you look at the challenges in Sri Lanka, with politicians being murdered and people running out of food, there’s a chance for China to step in and say, we can send you grain exports. And by lucky coincidence, because of the all the lock downs that China’s got right now, a lot of the world’s boats and ships are currently waiting outside ports in China.

          Michael Hudson 1:50:54
          [Missing part here] Computer chips are part of the problem. And that’s probably going to make them friendlier with Taiwan. Taiwan has the computer chips.

          Jonathan Brown 1:51:03
          And by your assessment, because Taiwan do not want to be another Ukraine, American actions are likely to accelerate the reintegration.

          Michael Hudson 1:51:12
          There’s a bell shaped curve, I haven’t met with the Taiwanese in quite a few years so I don’t know, up to date what the dynamic is. But just by logic, you can see the international environment in which they’re operating. You wonder how they are going to calculate the plusses and minuses of the U.S. versus China? What economy do they want to attach themselves to so that they can get richer fastest?

          Jonathan Brown 1:51:46
          And also stay safe and not get involved in unnecessary wars. When you look at the tragedy in Ukraine, all these people dying when you’ve got such a strong opponent in Russia, how can you go to war with them for any period of time?

          Michael Hudson 1:52:07
          Well, that’s what the world is divided into. The U.S. and European society is built on war. It’s the only foreign policy they have, because they don’t have an economic power anymore. They’ve de-industrialised and the rest of the world that is trying to industrialise and trying to feed itself. China, Russia, India, the Global South are the anti-war part of the world. So the world is dividing into two parts: a rentier part supporting finance capitalism [that] is trying to impose it on other countries, to financialize China and Russia to make them put a Margaret Thatcher or Boris Yeltsin in charge of China. While they try to put their own candidates in charge, a la General Pinochet, the rest of the world is trying to defend itself against this terrorism.

          So the Western world that calls itself democracy is the terrorist military world. The nations that it calls authoritarian are any authority strong enough to control and tax the financial interests – that is, any government strong enough to regulate finance and real estate. Such an economy is by definition authoritarian as opposed to a democracy, where Wall Street and the financial centres are the democratically elected central planners. So what’s at issue is who’s going to plan society: the financial sector, or the people as in China and other countries.

          Jonathan Brown 1:53:41
          I think that says it. From a Western lens it’s a different type of democracy.

          Michael Hudson 1:53:48
          Yes. But democracy really means an economy run to benefit the great bulk of the population, who happen to be wage earners? Or is it going to be for the 1%? Is the economy run for on behalf of the 99% and the 1%? Well, the 99% need a strong government to run it in their own interests and cope with the counter-revolutionary policies, the neo-feudal rentier policies of the 1%.

          Jonathan Brown 1:54:22
          Okay, so knowing China, then your take on its zero-COVID policy that the authorities are implementing in some parts of the country?

          Michael Hudson 1:54:32
          The more I read about long COVID here, the worse it seems. I’m 83 years old, so my wife and I have not gone to a restaurant since 2020. We haven’t even gone to our friends’ houses for dinner. We’re isolating ourselves. China has isolated itself at great cost, but it saved the population not only from having COVID itself, but from having long COVID. There are now a million Americans with long COVID. They also say that long COVID lowers your, your IQ by 10%.

          It’s almost as dangerous is inheriting a trust fund when it comes to impairing your IQ. It’s debilitating.

          My webmaster in Australia and his family have COVID. So I’m very sympathetic with what China’s doing, even though it means that I can’t go there, because I’d have to be isolated in a hotel room for two weeks just to give a few days’ meeting – and then be isolated again when I come back. So China is making a huge effort not to sicken its population with COVID. And now of course, since the Russians have began to publish all their findings of the US bio-warfare labs in Ukraine that were designed to spread a COVID like diseases by migrating birds and bats and manmade aircraft over Russia.

          Now, they’ve reopened the question ‘was COVID a US bio-warfare from the very beginning’? And the Chinese are looking at it and saying ‘was it engineered’? If the Americans are trying to engineer COVID to affect mainly Slavic population and their DNA signatures, could they have been doing the same thing against Asians? So all of this is suddenly opened up. The World Health Organisation has refused to divulge any of the USA biowarfare efforts, and the U.S. has stonewalled all efforts to find out about the bio-warfare. This is isolating America and Europe.

          If American Europe is left with its current foreign policy, biowarfare and atomic bombs, NATO will be shunned by the civilised world. As Rosa Luxemburg said a century ago, the choice is between socialism or barbarism. NATO, Europe and America represent the new barbarism. The alternative is socialism. That is how the world seemed to be developing in Europe and America until World War I untracked everything. The rest of the world now has a chance to get back on track. I don’t know what’s going to happen in the West.

          Jonathan Brown 1:57:47
          Michael, as always, you always get more into your stuff than I expected. Are there any things that you’d like to say to our listeners, before we finish up,

          Michael Hudson 1:57:56
          I’ve probably said too much. And I hope you can edit out anything that’s embarrassing.

          Jonathan Brown 1:58:01
          I may get thrown off YouTube for publishing some of your comments. So you may have to go back and review a few of them. But as always, Michael, thanks so much your time what we’ll do is we’ll send a link to everybody for the website and also for the new book, as well which I think and those series of lectures when I was researching for this conversation were the single best economic lectures I’ve ever listened to – truly extraordinary levels of insight and real economics rather than theoretical or textbook stuff. So as always from ShepherdWalwyn, thanks so much for your time and for your contribution.

          Michael Hudson 1:58:41
          Well, if you transcribe it all in will be worth it.

          Jonathan Brown 1:58:45
          That’s, that’s our promise 100%. So thanks very much.

          Michael Hudson 2:00:05
          Thanks a lot.

          ← Is US/NATO (With WEF Help) Pushing for … 

          Subscribe to New Columns









          • Category: Economics • Tags: Inequality, Rentier

          Recently from Author

          Related Pieces by Author

          Of Related Interest

          The Great Debt Debate: Michael Hudson vs. Thomas Piketty

          Michael Hudson

          Marx Got It Right: Mass Immigration Wrecks Wages. Why Won’t America’s Resurgent Communists Admit It?

          Carl Horowitz

          AOC’s ‘tax the Rich’ Gown Isn’t a Threat. It Is Designer Protest Meant to Dull Class Struggle

          Jonathan Cook

          ← Is US/NATO (With WEF Help) Pushing for … 

          Hide 13 CommentsLeave a Comment

          “Economic Rent and Exploitation”

          Commenters to Ignore…to FollowEndorsed Only

          Trim Comments?

          1. Ann Nonny Mouse says: • WebsiteJune 18, 2022 at 9:55 pm GMT • 3.8 days agoWow! Fabulous! It’s going to take me way more than 2:00:05 to read this in full, years of study here, but thanks!Money is magic, but wow! what a magician!Many thanks, Michael Hudson. ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.This Commenter
          2. EH says: • WebsiteJune 19, 2022 at 12:58 am GMT • 3.7 days agoGood read. Even the civil RICO laws, if they were enforced, would take out all the major rentiers, it’s the very model of racketeering. Anybody can file civil RICO suits — I doubt anybody can win against the rentiers’ mental hold on judges, though. ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.This Commenter
          3. Fidelios Automata says:June 19, 2022 at 1:32 am GMT • 3.7 days ago • 100 Words   Hudson seems to be a pretty smart guy but sadly he’s bought into the Covid propaganda. Admittedly, my wife and I are younger though still in the “high risk” group. We had Covid early on and since then have never isolated ourselves, nor did we give in to the vax. We don’t have “long covid” and we haven’t caught any other strains. Hudson should check out RFK Jr’s book on Fauci. Many of the deaths attributed to Covid came from the way the government and medical authorities handled it rather than the actual risks of the virus. • Replies: @peterAUS, @MefobillsReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.This CommenterThis ThreadHide Thread
          4. peterAUS says:Show CommentJune 19, 2022 at 2:04 am GMT • 3.6 days ago@Fidelios Automata • Replies: @Mefobills
          5. Verymuchalive says:Show CommentJune 19, 2022 at 7:37 pm GMT • 2.9 days ago • 100 Words    • Replies: @Mefobills
          6. Kurt Knispel says:Show CommentJune 19, 2022 at 9:16 pm GMT • 2.8 days ago • 100 Words    • Agree: Towey • Replies: @Mefobills
          7. restless94110 says:June 20, 2022 at 7:21 pm GMT • 1.9 days agoWhile I learned a few minor things this time, I had to keep looking at the date these videos wee done since much of this is the exact same things–down to the words–the Hudson says.It’s depressing. ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.This Commenter
          8. bert33 says:June 22, 2022 at 4:58 am GMT • 12.4 hours ago • 100 Words   If they’re serious about ever having affordable housing, then we need: Cheap campgrounds, showers, toilets, amenities cafeteria type situation, trailer parks/RV parks, mobile home parks, and apartment complexes. The housing market is crashing because too many speculators payed their high dollar money games with a place of domicile. Now in america we have people working full time, living in their cars. WTF?!?! ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.This Commenter
          9. Mefobills says:June 22, 2022 at 3:00 pm GMT • 2.3 hours ago • 100 Words   @peterAUSA public figure who failed a character test. When Hudson was economic advisor for Kucinich, he received death threats. And of course, those threats were from vested interests.He didn’t wuss out and go and hide. That says volumes about his character.Have you received death threats and shrugged them off? That takes a giant set of balls, especially when vested (((interests))) don’t play around. ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.This CommenterThis ThreadHide Thread
          10. Mefobills says:June 22, 2022 at 3:09 pm GMT • 2.2 hours ago • 100 Words   @VerymuchaliveAs if a Jewish Bolshevik would stand as a godparent. This is another of Hudson’s fabrications. Your making an unfounded allegation, so you can then cast aspersions.Try to figure out how Hudson is foursquare against Finance Capital and simultaneously a Trotskyite.Trotsky took money from Finance Capitalists, especially Schiff of Khun, Loeb and Co.You can’t be for something and against it at the same time, that is – unless you are moron, and Hudson is not a moron. Try to resolve your contradictions. ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.This CommenterThis ThreadHide Thread
          11. Agent76 says:June 22, 2022 at 3:17 pm GMT • 2.0 hours ago • 200 Words   May 20, 2022 Introducing The Reset: The Great Reset Docuseries In episode one of The Great Reset Docuseries, we introduce The Great Reset. We provide the background of the World Economic Forum and its chairman, Klaus Schwab, along with the other global elites who assisted in the birth of the organization. We explore the organizations that compliment each other, working alongside the WEF to plan and enact a new form of global governance through The Great Reset. 4, 2021 Banking below 30: Banks own many of Dallas’ high-crime apartments and they’re rewarded for itBanks are required to lend to low-income borrowers. But, instead of loans, regulators incentivize banks to invest in housing built in areas of crime and blight. 11, 2020 World Economic Forum: “You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy” (While Oligarchs Own Everything)All video and audio content belong to the respective owners and creators. ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.This Commenter
          12. Mefobills says:June 22, 2022 at 3:33 pm GMT • 1.8 hours ago • 500 Words   @Fidelios AutomataHudson seems to be a pretty smart guy but sadly he’s bought into the Covid propaganda. And yet, Hudson seems to be aligning himself with Ron Unz’s theory that Covid was militarized.Below is quote from Hudson’s personal experience, and he is not a medical expert, he is an economist. He has suspicions about the engineering of the virus, especially to be DNA specific. Getting into Hudson’s brain space, if one can do that, then the virus might well have been engineered, and hence could cause “long covid.” Also, when you are 83, your immune system is not as robust as when you are young.My webmaster in Australia and his family have COVID. So I’m very sympathetic with what China’s doing, even though it means that I can’t go there, because I’d have to be isolated in a hotel room for two weeks just to give a few days’ meeting – and then be isolated again when I come back. So China is making a huge effort not to sicken its population with COVID. And now of course, since the Russians have began to publish all their findings of the US bio-warfare labs in Ukraine that were designed to spread a COVID like diseases by migrating birds and bats and manmade aircraft over Russia. Now, they’ve reopened the question ‘was COVID a US bio-warfare from the very beginning’? And the Chinese are looking at it and saying ‘was it engineered’? If the Americans are trying to engineer COVID to affect mainly Slavic population and their DNA signatures, could they have been doing the same thing against Asians? ______________My personal view is that it is the gene therapy shots that causes long-covid. The mRNA molecule is man made with Pseudouridine and this creation was never really looked at for its negative effects. Also, mRNA gene therapy mystery juice goes on a field trip, going everywhere in the body, and then replicates where it shouldn’t. The spike protein itself is bad, like a prion. So, your body is turned into a spike protein factory.A healthy person has a lymphatic system that can deal with virus or bacterial invaders that enter into your nose, throat and lungs. Older people, not so much, which is why they succumb to things like the flu.Don’t be the enemy of perfection; Hudson is an economist -not a medical expert, and even now the Covid mystery still hasn’t unraveled fully.If you are an economist, then Hudson’s view is consistent with Ron Unz’s theory. Also, the bio labs in Ukraine WERE getting Slavic DNA to run experiments on. November 2017, something very unusual occurred. Russian President, Vladimir Putin, publicly stated that there were foreign subjects on Russian soil who were engaged in anomalous activities, like the collection of Russian DNA samples.

            Putin released a statement where he clearly said that someone was keenly interested in the ethnic composition of the Russian population. ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.This CommenterThis ThreadHide Thread
          13. Mefobills says:June 22, 2022 at 4:33 pm GMT • 47 minutes ago • 700 Words   @Kurt Knispel(By the way: “Land Tax” is one of the worst and most criminal thefts of all; add the minority Jewed gvt. and the IRS has no legitimacy whatsoever.) That’s a tough one to wrap your mind around. You are getting screwed now by rake-offs, by rents.The screwing is in prices, where people (on average) have to bid against each other to buy housing. This bidding process drives up prices, so that you are paying a large fraction of your income, just so your kids can go to a school that is not completely bombed out by minorities.Right? White people and North East Asians circle through neighborhoods in their cars, looking at the demographics. So, the house loan is the entry point for a “good neighborhood” which in turn relates to the nearby public school. Schools populated by minorities, especially blacks, don’t do well. But, OH! is that raaacist? I can say it, but Hudson cannot. Undoubtedly, racism is a functional part of economics, as people make choices.So, the idea is to lower rents, and the rake-offs that are stealing from your pocket. Adam Smith’s invisible hand is in your pocket, and squeezing your testicles. Paradoxically, rent taxes lower prices.Land, as one of the main contributors to production, has to be taxed to prevent rents. The proper way to do the taxing is complex. And the mortgage money creation process has to be controlled as well. So, it is both money creation and taxation that has to come under control. Hudson gave some examples:The more money you have to spend on mortgage interest to buy a house as land and real estate is financialized, the less you have left to spend on goods and services. This was one of the big problems that was slowing the economy down. So, if you are not buying and selling goods that you produce, with your fellows, then that is bad. You are not consuming those rib eyes from your rancher friend, and he is not enjoying the boats you created. The invisible hand is siphoning away your money, to pay the mortgage. The banker could give a shit how big your mortgage is, he cares mostly about the interest income. When you pay back your loan, the money you are paying back disappears when it pays down principle. So, housing prices are empty calories that force people into the streets, while paying the 1%.The banker is taking rents on you in the form of prices, and then your income vectors away from you to disappear into the banker’s ledger.Here is another “rent” charge, that society ultimately pays for:Under Reagan’s 1981 tax “reform” you could pretend that if you buy a big commercial building, you can write off 1/7 of the entire costs every single year as tax deductible income. At the end of seven years, you change your ownership from one name to another name, and you start all over again. The same building can be re depreciated again and again and again. Our Indian and Paki friends are big time into this scam. They use it to buy and sell convenience stores to each other. When one of the scammers is about at the end of his 7 year period of depreciation, he sells the building to his friend. Basically they swap their building with each other.The Jews in New York do the same thing with their buildings. They rub their hands in glee.The idea is to think in terms of rents and the taking of sordid gain. Taxes that land on rents are something like cutting out a tumor, so producers can produce, rather than feed energy to a cancer.But democracy really means an economy run to benefit the great bulk of the population, who happen to be wage earners? Or is it going to be for the 1%? Is the economy run for on behalf of the 99% and the 1%? Well, the 99% need a strong government to run it in their own interests and cope with the counter-revolutionary policies, the neo-feudal rentier policies of the 1%.Rents cause polarization. Debt mechanics caused Rome to fall into feudalism, as the land polarized into rentiers owning big estates (Latifundia). Gold was consecrated to the vaults, to then start the greatest depression, the dark ages. The 99% were dispossessed from owning land, and became serfs. ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.This CommenterThis ThreadHide Thread
          14. Todd Marshall says: • WebsiteJune 22, 2022 at 5:19 pm GMT • very recentKnowing what money is and where it comes from makes much of what is written and discussed here…well, it’s nonsense. Click to Edit – 4 minutes and 5 secondsReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.This Commenter

          Panic of 1837

          Panic of 1837

          MD: At MoneyDelusions, there’s a tool we use to test ideas. Ideas come up when someone thinks there’s a better way to do something. Thus, something is already being done. People resist change and they will put great energy into preserving the current process rather than trying a new process that promises improvements.

          Well, what if the roles were reversed? What if the proposed process was in place and working? What if the existing process had to prevail as a “new” idea?

          Let’s try it with this article. Let’s assume that the “real” money process was in effect. Would the subject of this essay, The Panic of 1837, even exist? Or if it did exist or arise, would it be as severe under the “real” money process described in the side bar? If the issues could arise, could the actual existing process deal with the issues better?

          Let’s give it a try. The article we annotate here is from Wikipedia.

          The Texas Handbook has many articles on this subject. We may try the tool to test ideas it presents.

          From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

          Jump to navigationJump to search

          Whig cartoon showing the effects of unemployment on a family that has portraits of Democratic Presidents Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren on the wall.

          The Panic of 1837 was a financial crisis in the United States that touched off a major depression, which lasted until the mid-1840s. Profits, prices, and wages went down, westward expansion was stalled, unemployment went up, and pessimism abounded.

          MD: Notice the language “touched off”. We’re reading this article as if a “real” money process was in effect and efficiently operating. Could anything “touch off a major depression” with a “real ” money process in effect? Why would profits, prices, and wages go down? Why would westward expansion be stalled? Why would unemployment go up? Why would pessimism abound?

          The panic had both domestic and foreign origins. Speculative lending practices in the West, a sharp decline in cotton prices, a collapsing land bubble, international specie flows, and restrictive lending policies in Britain were all factors.[1][2]

          MD: Note, none of these claimed causes exist with a “real” money process. There are “no” lending “practices” when it comes to a “real” money process. When a trader sees clear to deliver on a promise that spans time and space, he “creates” money. He doesn’t “borrow” money. Someone doesn’t “lend” him money. There is no resistance to a responsible trader (one who delivers as promised) when he makes the promise. The problems “all” happen if he fails to deliver…and those problems have a very different characteristic if “borrowing” and “lending” are not involved. The key element here is “responsibility”.

          The lack of a central bank to regulate fiscal matters, which President Andrew Jackson had ensured by not extending the charter of the Second Bank of the United States, was also key.

          MD: Here comes the recommended improvement…”a central bank” to regulate fiscal matters. Well, we already have a process that “regulates fiscal matters” (i.e. those related to money). (1) If the trader creating the money is not responsible, he incurs and INTEREST load. Or more correctly, a “responsible” trader never incurs an INTEREST load. If there’s a problem delivering on a promise, that problem doesn’t get smaller by imposing an INTEREST load. The argument against a central bank is obvious. A central bank can only make matters worse. In fact, it can be used…and is easily shown to be used… to cause a panic. Further (2), Andrew Jackson had experience with such solutions and rejected the charter for the Second Bank. They’re saying here that the panic would not have happened if this “new centeral bank” idea was allowed. Let’s watch them make the case.

          This ailing economy of early 1837 led investors to panic – a bank run ensued – giving the crisis its name.

          MD: They claim an “ailing economy”. What caused it to be ailing? Who are these “investors” who are led to panic. With a “real” money process, investors only play a role when irresponsible traders are concerned. Supposedly, such traders are higher risk and thus must pay INTEREST premiums to cover that risk. It works like “casualty insurance” where PREMIUMS = CLAIMS. With responsible traders, CLAIMS are zero…so PREMIUMS are zero.

          A real money process imposes INTEREST load in direct response to DEFAULTs on trading promises. Responsible traders don’t DEFAULT, thus they bear no INTEREST load. All responsible traders a alike as far as the process is concerned. Irresponsible traders come with varying degrees of “propensity to DEFAULT”. This is also true with casualty insurance where those with greater risk of CLAIM pay greater PREMIUMS. And as with insurance claimants, filing a CLAIM is a choice. If you can resolve the issue without filing a CLAIM you can maintain a lower PREMIUM load.

          And how about the “bank run”? Well, no bank exists. It only exists with the solution they propose. But its obvious here, it is their very solution that introduces this additional possible cause. And what is a bank run? It’s a case of “irresponsible banks DEFAULTING”. Their process has a 10x leverage advantage. They can “lend” 10x as much money as they have. Well, that gives them 10x the motivation to “screw” their customers…i.e. those who trusted them to keep their money safe. See how easy it is to show how defective the existing solution can be? The tables are turned. “They” must prove their case…and it obviously can’t even be argued, let alone proved.

          The run came to a head on May 10, 1837, when banks in New York City ran out of gold and silver. They suspended specie payments and would no longer redeem commercial paper in specie at full face value.[3]

          MD: And here’s another claim that is easily refuted. Precious metals are “not” money. They are just stuff standing in as money. In a “real” money process, they play no role in trade. If you have surplus money and you think its safer to have gold, then buy (i.e. trade your money for) gold. That’s a choice.

          Obviously the gold can be stolen as easily (or even more easily) than money. Remember, money may simply be an entry in a ledger. If that ledger is transparent for other traders to scrutinize (which the so-called financial audit does), then the money is difficult to steal.

          This solution of “substituting specie for a promise” does nothing but give risk another avenue to come about. Worse, the value of the specie can change over time and space (e.g. a gold shipment can be robbed…or a new huge source can be found), and thus change in supply/demand determined value in trade. That can’t happen with money created in a “real” money process.

          A significant economic collapse followed. Despite a brief recovery in 1838, the recession persisted for approximately seven years. Nearly half of all banks failed, businesses closed, prices declined, and there was mass unemployment.

          MD: Look what happened! Half the ” banks” failed. With no banks to fail, there are no bank failures. You’re bank solution is openly flawed. Why? Because your solution presents a domino effect. One “borrower” DEFAULTs. If you’ve “loaned” out all your money, you can’t pay “demand” deposits. But with the “real” money process no such existing commitments are affected.

          If a trader DEFAULTs on his promise, new “non-responsible” traders wishing to create money incur INTEREST load to immediately mitigate that DEFAULT. This is an automatic negative feedback mechanism. If the DEFAULT was the result of market softening (i.e. the demand prompting the promise was not as anticipated), then new traders are discouraged from making such promises too. Thus you don’t have “bubbles”. They get nipped in the bud. Further, if the demand is real, more traders move in to meet it and supply/demand imbalance is quickly corrected…thus prices remain competitive.

          From 1837 to 1844 deflation in wages and prices was widespread.[4] The lack of deposit insurance deepened the Panic. By 1850 the economy was booming again, a result of increased specie flows from the California Gold Rush.

          MD: INFLATION means there is a supply/demand imbalance. This is normal for any trade…except in a “real” money process, it is not normal for money. With money in perpetual free supply, INFLATION of money is perpetually zero. This is additionally achieved by mitigating DEFAULTs immediately with INTEREST collections of like amount.

          And look how they say they came out of the panic! They found more gold! With a “real” money process, finding more gold just makes gold less dear…and thus trades of less other stuff…including “real” money created by traders.

          So now I suggest you go through the rest of the article. (1) Make the case that the “cause” doesn’t even exist with a “real” money process involved. and (2) Make the case that the “banking” solution just exacerbates the problems…and in fact it is to the bankers benefit to instigate such disruptions. It is their way of manipulating the market. They call it the “business cycle”



          This article is part of
          a series aboutAndrew Jackson
          Early life Revolutionary War service Early career Personal life Military career Creek War Battle of New Orleans First Seminole War 1824 election Corrupt bargain 7th President of the United States Presidency First term 1828 campaign election 1st inauguration Jacksonian democracy Spoils system Petticoat affair Maysville veto Indian Removal Trail of Tears Nat Turner’s rebellion Bank War Nullification crisis Foreign affairs Second term 1832 election 2nd inauguration Payment of national debt Specie Circular Assassination attempts Reaction to anti-slavery tracts Texas Revolution Exploring expedition Panic of 1837 Judicial appointments Post-presidency Later life and death Legacy Legacy Memorials Manifest destiny The Hermitage Second Party System Bibliography
          Seal of the President of the United States

          The crisis followed a period of economic expansion from mid-1834 to mid-1836. The prices of land, cotton, and slaves rose sharply in those years. The boom’s origin had many sources, both domestic and international. Because of the peculiar factors of international trade, abundant amounts of silver were coming into the United States from Mexico and China.[citation needed] Land sales and tariffs on imports were also generating substantial federal revenues. Through lucrative cotton exports and the marketing of state-backed bonds in British money markets, the United States acquired significant capital investment from Britain. The bonds financed transportation projects in the United States. British loans, made available through Anglo-American banking houses like Baring Brothers, fueled much of America’s westward expansion, infrastructure improvements, industrial expansion, and economic development during the antebellum era.[5]

          From 1834 to 1835, Europe experienced extreme prosperity, which resulted in confidence and an increased propensity for risky foreign investments. In 1836, directors of the Bank of England noticed that its monetary reserves had declined precipitously in recent years due to an increase in capital speculation and investment in American transportation. Conversely, improved transportation systems increased the supply of cotton, which lowered the market price. Cotton prices were security for loans, and America’s cotton kings defaulted. In 1836 and 1837 American wheat crops also suffered from Hessian fly and winter kill which caused the price of wheat in America to increase greatly, which caused American labor to starve.[6]

          The hunger in America was not felt by England, whose wheat crops improved every year from 1831 to 1836, and European imports of American wheat had dropped to “almost nothing” by 1836.[7] The directors of the Bank of England, wanting to increase monetary reserves and to cushion American defaults, indicated that they would gradually raise interest rates from 3 to 5 percent. The conventional financial theory held that banks should raise interest rates and curb lending when they were faced with low monetary reserves. Raising interest rates, according to the laws of supply and demand, was supposed to attract specie since money generally flows where it will generate the greatest return if equal risk among possible investments is assumed. In the open economy of the 1830s, which was characterized by free trade and relatively weak trade barriers, the monetary policies of the hegemonic power (in this case Britain) were transmitted to the rest of the interconnected global economic system, including the United States. The result was that as the Bank of England raised interest rates, major banks in the United States were forced to do the same.[8]

          An 1837 caricature blames Andrew Jackson for hard times.

          When New York banks raised interest rates and scaled back on lending, the effects were damaging. Since the price of a bond bears an inverse relationship to the yield (or interest rate), the increase in prevailing interest rates would have forced down the price of American securities. Importantly, demand for cotton plummeted. The price of cotton fell by 25% in February and March 1837.[9] The American economy, especially in the southern states, was heavily dependent on stable cotton prices. Receipts from cotton sales provided funding for some schools, balanced the nation’s trade deficit, fortified the US dollar, and procured foreign exchange earnings in British pounds, then the world’s reserve currency. Since the United States was still a predominantly agricultural economy centered on the export of staple crops and an incipient manufacturing sector,[10] a collapse in cotton prices had massive reverberations.

          In the United States, there were several contributing factors. In July 1832, President Andrew Jackson vetoed the bill to recharter the Second Bank of the United States, the nation’s central bank and fiscal agent. As the bank wound up its operations in the next four years, state-chartered banks in the West and the South relaxed their lending standards by maintaining unsafe reserve ratios.[2] Two domestic policies exacerbated an already volatile situation. The Specie Circular of 1836 mandated that western lands could be purchased only with gold and silver coin. The circular was an executive order issued by Jackson and favored by Senator Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri and other hard-money advocates. Its intent was to curb speculation in public lands, but the circular set off a real estate and commodity price crash since most buyers were unable to come up with sufficient hard money or “specie” (gold or silver coins) to pay for the land. Secondly, the Deposit and Distribution Act of 1836 placed federal revenues in various local banks, derisively termed “pet banks”, across the country. Many of the banks were located in the West. The effect of both policies was to transfer specie away from the nation’s main commercial centers on the East Coast. With lower monetary reserves in their vaults, major banks and financial institutions on the East Coast had to scale back their loans, which was a major cause of the panic, besides the real estate crash.[11]

          Americans attributed the cause of the panic principally to domestic political conflicts. Democrats typically blamed the bankers, and Whigs blamed Jackson for refusing to renew the charter of the Bank of the United States and on the withdrawal of government funds from the bank.[12] Martin Van Buren, who became president in March 1837, was largely blamed for the panic even though his inauguration had preceded the panic by only five weeks. Van Buren’s refusal to use government intervention to address the crisis, such as emergency relief and increasing spending on public infrastructure projects to reduce unemployment, was accused by his opponents of contributing further to the hardship and the duration of the depression that followed the panic. Jacksonian Democrats, on the other hand, blamed the Bank of the United States for both funding rampant speculation and introducing inflationary paper money. Some modern economists view Van Buren’s deregulatory economic policy as successful in the long term, and argue that it played an important role in revitalizing banks after the panic.[13]

          Effects and aftermath

          The modern balaam and his ass, an 1837 caricature placing the blame for the Panic of 1837 and the perilous state of the banking system on outgoing President Andrew Jackson, shown riding a donkey, while President Martin Van Buren comments approvingly.

          Virtually the whole nation felt the effects of the panic. Connecticut, New Jersey, and Delaware reported the greatest stress in their mercantile districts. In 1837, Vermont’s business and credit systems took a hard blow. Vermont had a period of alleviation in 1838 but was hit hard again in 1839–1840. New Hampshire did not feel the effects of the panic as much as its neighbors did. It had no permanent debt in 1838 and had little economic stress the following years. New Hampshire’s greatest hardship was the circulation of fractional coins in the state.[citation needed]

          Conditions in the South were much worse than in the East, and the Cotton Belt was dealt the worst blow. In Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina the panic caused an increase in the interest of diversifying crops. New Orleans felt a general depression in business, and its money market stayed in bad condition throughout 1843. Several planters in Mississippi had spent much of their money in advance, which led to the complete bankruptcy of many planters. By 1839, many plantations were thrown out of cultivation. Florida and Georgia did not feel the effects as early as Louisiana, Alabama, or Mississippi. In 1837, Georgia had sufficient coin to carry on everyday purchases. Until 1839, Floridians were able to boast about the punctuality of their payments. Georgia and Florida began to feel the negative effects of the panic in the 1840s.[citation needed]

          At first, the West did not feel as much pressure as the East or the South. Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois were agricultural states, and the good crops of 1837 were a relief to the farmers. In 1839, agricultural prices fell, and the pressure reached the agriculturalists.[14]

          Within two months the losses from bank failures in New York alone aggregated nearly $100 million. Out of 850 banks in the United States, 343 closed entirely, 62 failed partially, and the system of state banks received a shock from which it never fully recovered.[15] The publishing industry was particularly hurt by the ensuing depression.[16]

          Many individual states defaulted on their bonds, which angered British creditors.[17]: 50–52  The United States briefly withdrew from international money markets. Only in the late 1840s did Americans re-enter those markets.[citation needed] The defaults, along with other consequences of the recession, carried major implications for the relationship between the state and economic development. In some ways, the panic undermined confidence in public support for internal improvements.[17]: 55–57  Although state investment in internal improvements remained common in the South until the Civil War, northerners increasingly looked to private rather than public investment to finance growth.[citation needed] The panic unleashed a wave of riots and other forms of domestic unrest. The ultimate result was an increase in the state’s police powers, including more professional police forces.[18][17]: 137–138 


          Hard times token, late 1830s; privately minted, used in place of the one-cent coin during currency shortage; inscription reads “I Take the Responsibility”, showing Andrew Jackson holding a drawn sword and a coin bag emerging from a strongbox.

          Most economists agree that there was a brief recovery from 1838 to 1839, which ended when the Bank of England and Dutch creditors raised interest rates.[19] The economic historian Peter Temin has argued that when corrected for deflation, the economy grew after 1838.[20] According to the Austrian economist Murray Rothbard, between 1839 and 1843, real consumption increased by 21 percent and real gross national product increased by 16 percent, but real investment fell by 23 percent and the money supply shrank by 34 percent.[21]

          In 1842, the American economy was able to rebound somewhat and overcome the five-year depression, but according to most accounts, the economy did not recover until 1844.[22] The recovery from the depression intensified after the California gold rush started in 1848, greatly increasing the money supply. By 1850, the US economy was booming again.

          Intangible factors like confidence and psychology played powerful roles and helped to explain the magnitude and the depth of the panic. Central banks then had only limited abilities to control prices and employment, making bank runs common. When a few banks collapsed, alarm quickly spread throughout the community and were heightened by partisan newspapers. Anxious investors rushed to other banks and demanded to have their deposits withdrawn. When faced with such pressure, even healthy banks had to make further curtailments by calling in loans and demanding payment from their borrowers. That fed the hysteria even further, which led to a downward spiral or snowball effect. In other words, anxiety, fear, and a pervasive lack of confidence initiated devastating, self-sustaining feedback loops. Many economists today understand that phenomenon as an information asymmetry. Essentially, bank depositors reacted to imperfect information since they did not know if their deposits were safe and so fearing further risk, they withdrew their deposits, even if it caused more damage. The same concept of downward spiral was true for many southern planters, who speculated in land, cotton, and slaves. Many planters took out loans from banks under the assumption that cotton prices would continue to rise. When cotton prices dropped, however, planters could not pay back their loans, which jeopardized the solvency of many banks. These factors were particularly crucial given the lack of deposit insurance in banks. When bank customers are not assured that their deposits are safe, they are more likely to make rash decisions that can imperil the rest of the economy. Economists have concluded that the suspension of convertibility, deposit insurance, and sufficient capital requirements in banks can limit the possibility of bank runs.[23][24][25]

          See also


          Timberlake, Richard H. Jr (1997). “Panic of 1837”. In Glasner, David; Cooley, Thomas F. (eds.). Business cycles and depressions: an encyclopedia. New York: Garland Publishing. pp. 514–16. ISBN978-0-8240-0944-1. Knodell, Jane (September 2006). “Rethinking the Jacksonian Economy: The Impact of the 1832 Bank Veto on Commercial Banking”. The Journal of Economic History. 66 (3): 541. doi:10.1017/S0022050706000258. S2CID155084029. Damiano, Sara T. (2016). “The Many Panics of 1837: People, Politics, and the Creation of a Transatlantic Financial Crisis by Jessica M. Lepler”. Journal of the Early Republic. 36 (2): 420–422. doi:10.1353/jer.2016.0024. S2CID148315095. “Measuring Worth – measures of worth, prices, inflation, purchasing power, etc”. Retrieved 27 December 2012. Jenks, Leland Hamilton (1927). The Migration of British Capital to 1875. Alfred A. Knopf. pp. 66–67. Davis, Joseph H. (2004). “Harvests and Business Cycles in Nineteenth-Century America” (PDF). Quarterly Journal of Economics. Vanguard Group. 124 (4): 14. doi:10.1162/qjec.2009.124.4.1675. S2CID154544197. Alison, Archibald. History of Europe: From the Fall of Napoleon, in MDCCCXV to the…, Volume 3. New York: Harper and Brothers. p. 265. Temin, Peter (1969). The Jacksonian Economy. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. pp. 122–147. Jenks, Leland Hamilton (1927). The Migration of British Capital to 1875. Alfred A. Knopf. pp. 87–93. North, Douglass C. (1961). The Economic Growth of the United States 1790–1860. Prentice Hall. pp. 1–4. Rousseau, Peter L (2002). “Jacksonian Monetary Policy, Specie Flows, and the Panic of 1837” (PDF). Journal of Economic History. 62 (2): 457–488. doi:10.1017/S0022050702000566. hdl:1803/15623. Bill White (2014). America’s Fiscal Constitution: Its Triumph and Collapse. PublicAffairs. p. 80. ISBN9781610393430. Hummel, Jeffery (1999). “Martin Van Buren The Greatest American President” (PDF). The Independent Review. 4 (2): 13–14. Retrieved 2017-08-01. McGrane, Reginald (1965). The Panic of 1837: Some Financial Problems of the Jacksonian Era. New York: Russell & Russell. pp. 106–126. Hubert H. Bancroft, ed. (1902). The financial panic of 1837. The Great Republic By the Master Historians. Vol. 3. Thompson, Lawrance. Young Longfellow (1807–1843). New York: The Macmillan Company, 1938: 325. Roberts, Alasdair (2012). America’s First Great Depression: Economic Crisis and Political Disorder after the Panic of 1837. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. ISBN9780801450334. Larson, John (2001). Internal Improvement: National Public Works and the Promise of Popular Government in the Early United States. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. pp. 195–264.[page range too broad]Friedman, Milton. A Program for Monetary Stability. p. 10. Temin, Peter. The Jacksonian Economy. p. 155. Rothbard, Murray (18 August 2014). A History of money and Banking in the United States: The Colonial Era to world War II (PDF). p. 102. Cheathem, Mark R.; Corps, Terry (2017). Historical Dictionary of the Jacksonian Era and Manifest Destiny. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 282–283. ISBN9781442273191; Roberts, Alasdair (2013). America’s First Great Depression: Economic Crisis and Political Disorder After the Panic of 1837. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. pp. 204–205. ISBN9780801478864. Chen, Yehning; Hasan, Iftekhar (2008). “Why Do Bank Runs Look Like Panic? A New Explanation” (PDF). Journal of Money, Credit and Banking. 40 (2–3): 537–538. doi:10.1111/j.1538-4616.2008.00126.x. Diamond, Douglas W.; Dybvig, Philip H. (1983). “Bank Runs, Deposit Insurance, and Liquidity”. Journal of Political Economy. 91 (3): 401–419. CiteSeerX10.1.1.434.6020. doi:10.1086/261155. JSTOR1837095. S2CID14214187.

          1. Goldstein, Itay; Pauzner, Ady (2005). “Demand-Deposit Contracts and the Probability of Bank Runs”. Journal of Finance. 60 (3): 1293–1327. CiteSeerX doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00762.x.

          Further reading

          External links

          Wikimedia Commons has media related to Panic of 1837.
          vteRecessions in the United States and Commonwealth of Nations countries
          vteFinancial crises
          Authority control


          Navigation menu





          In other projects


          Edit links

          Keynesians and Market Monetarists Didn’t See Inflation Coming

          Keynesians and Market Monetarists Didn’t See Inflation Coming

          • inflation

          MD: At Money Delusions we have come to know that neither the “Keynesian’s” nor the “Austrians” are even close to getting INFLATION right. How can you get INFLATION (or more generally economics) right when you don’t know what money is? Further, this, like government (i.e. the Republicans and Democrats) is like watching the Harlem Globe Trotters and the Washington Generals. It’s theater. But just for exercise, let’s annotate this article from that infamous Mises Monk, Bob Murphy, who has relaxing life away as a college professor (most recently at Texas Tech, my sons’ alma matre). With an NYU PhD we don’t ever expect much but a professional shill. Interestingly, not only does Murphy claim to know what money is…he’s proving he doesn’t know in his books.

          Understanding Money Mechanics

          MD: Let’s get started.

          04/18/2022Robert P. Murphy

          Listen to the Audio Mises Wire version of this article.

          The government’s latest report puts the twelve-month official consumer price inflation rate at 8.5 percent, the highest since December 1981:

          MD: Of course we at MoneyDelusions know INFLATION cannot be measured. We also know with a “real” money process, it is guaranteed to be perpetually zero…we don’t need to measure it. But look at the time series below. Notice, it starts its abrupt ramp up at the end of 2021…when the SSA had to finally admit they had been lying about INFLATION for fully 20+ years. In January, 2022, annuitants got a 5% raise. That’s not the 7% average inflation that we provably had since 911…but it’s 5x the less than 1% they claimed we had. The numbers are pure fiction. So why try to tell a story about what they mean?


          As economists debate the causes of, and cure for, this price inflation, it’s worth recounting which schools of thought saw it coming. Although individuals can be nuanced, generally speaking the Austrians have been warning that the Fed’s reckless policies threaten the dollar. In contrast, as I will document in this article, two of the leaders of the Keynesian and market monetarist schools didn’t see this coming at all.

          MD: Notice Mises Monks like to refer to “price” inflation…as if there was any other kind. What we have had for the last three or four generations is government counterfeiting. They claim to be doing it at 2%…but on average have been doing it at 4% … since 1913.

          My Worst Professional Mistake

          Before diving into it, I need to address a problem: my hands-down worst professional mistake occurred during the early years of the Fed’s “QE” (quantitative easing) programs, when I made bets on (consumer price) inflation with two economist colleagues. I ended up losing those bets and thereby gave Paul Krugman the opportunity to lecture me on my intellectual dishonesty because I clung to my (ostensibly falsified) Austrian model even after my prediction blew up in my face. Indeed, if you check out my Wikipedia entry, you’ll see that apparently my life story is that I was born, got my PhD, and lost an inflation bet—in that order. (For those interested in the details, I summarize the episode with relevant links in this postmortem blog post. I also participated in a 2014 Reason symposium along with Peter Schiff and others, commenting on the lack of inflation.)

          MD: Now come on Bob! Do you really think giving everyone 1 weeks rent as a stimulous is going to do anything different than buying them beers for a week?

          Ever since the rounds of QE failed to yield surging consumer price inflation at the scale some of us warned of, the Keynesians and market monetarists understandably ran victory laps, saying that they were to be trusted over those permabear Cassandra Austrians. (To be sure, the market monetarists were far more civil about it than the prominent Keynesians.) So it is not with gloating or vindictiveness that I write the present article, but rather I do it to set the record straight and document for posterity that the leading Keynesians and market monetarists totally missed this bout of price inflation.

          The Keynesians Camp: Paul Krugman and Klaus Schwab

          Let’s do the fun one first: Paul Krugman has not fared well in light of our current inflationary experience. As late as June 2021, Krugman wrote an article in the New York Times titled “The Week Inflation Panic Died.” Here are some key excerpts, with my bold added, and keep in mind that when Krugman wrote this, the most recent Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation rate was only 4.9 percent:

          Remember when everyone was panicking about inflation, warning ominously about 1970s-type stagflation? OK, many people are still saying such things, some because that’s what they always say, some because that’s what they say when there’s a Democratic president….

          MD: Even if they were able to measure INFLATION, the disruptions caused by a two year shut down would make their numbers useless.

          But for those paying closer attention to the flow of new information, inflation panic is, you know, so last week.

          Seriously, both recent data and recent statements from the Federal Reserve have, well, deflated the case for a sustained outbreak of inflation … [T]o panic over inflation, you had to believe either that the Fed’s model of how inflation works is all wrong or that the Fed would lack the political courage to cool off the economy if it were to become dangerously overheated.

          Both beliefs have now lost most of whatever credibility they may have had….

          The Fed has been arguing that recent price rises are similarly transitory … The Fed’s view has been that this episode, like the inflation blip of 2010–11, will soon be over.

          And it’s now looking as if the Fed was right …

          …. Monetary doomsayers have been wrong again and again since the early 1980s, when Milton Friedman kept predicting an inflation resurgence that never arrived. Why the eagerness to party like it’s 1979?

          To be fair, government support for the economy is much stronger now than it was during the Obama years, so it makes more sense to worry about inflation this time around. But the vehemence of the inflation rhetoric has been wildly disproportionate to the actual risks—and those risks now seem even smaller than they did a few weeks ago.

          MD: Really? Remember all the vaccinations? Who paid for those? Government you say? With money they counterfeited into existence? And who got the money? Drug companies and medical delivery plants like hospitals? As far as the economy was concerned, all that money went down a rat hole. But in reality, it went into government, and government dependants pockets.

          Of course, Krugman’s confident dismissal of those Biden-hating doomsayers blew up in his face, as CPI inflation kept ratcheting higher and higher. In a December 2021 NYT column, Krugman threw in the towel and admitted he had been wrong, but in his own special way (again, with my bolding):

          The current bout of inflation came on suddenly…. Even once the inflation numbers shot up, many economists—myself included—argued that the surge was likely to prove transitory. But at the very least it’s now clear that “transitory” inflation will last longer than most of us on that team expected….

          … I believe that what we’re seeing mainly reflects the inherent dislocations from the pandemic, rather than, say, excessive government spending. I also believe that inflation will subside over the course of the next year and that we shouldn’t take any drastic action. But reasonable economists disagree, and they could be right….

          The latest projections from board members and Fed presidents are for the interest rate the Fed controls to rise next year, but by less than one percentage point, and for the unemployment rate to keep falling.

          MD: So how does the Fed control interest rates? Don’t they sell their counterfeit money at auction? And don’t they use that to pay back the counterfeit money they sold at earlier auctions? And don’t they guarantee their member banks 10x leverage regardless?

          Perhaps surprisingly, my own position on policy substance isn’t all that different from either Furman’s or the Fed’s. I think inflation is mainly bottlenecks and other transitory factors and will come down, but I’m not certain, and I am definitely open to the possibility that the Fed should raise rates, possibly before the middle of next year….

          Maybe the real takeaway here should be how little we know about where we are in this strange economic episode. Economists like me who didn’t expect much inflation were wrong, but economists who did predict inflation were arguably right for the wrong reasons, and nobody really knows what’s coming.

          For those keeping score at home, remember that when I pointed out that Keynesians Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein had been notoriously wrong in their forecasts of unemployment following the Obama stimulus package, Krugman told us that “some predictions matter more than others.” So this time around, Krugman can’t argue that his botched inflation predictions are irrelevant. Instead, as we see above, he’s claiming that his opponents were right but for the wrong reasons. Even when Krugman is wrong, he’s still better than his enemies!

          And for the sake of completeness, let’s reproduce this quotation from Klaus Schwab (who has doctoral degrees in both economics and engineering) and Thierry Malleret in COVID-19: The Great Reset. Writing in July 2020, Schwab and Malleret claimed:

          At this current juncture, it is hard to imagine how inflation could pick up anytime soon…. The combination of potent, long-term, structural trends like ageing and technology … and an exceptionally high unemployment rate that will constrain wages for years puts strong downward pressure on inflation. In the post-pandemic era, strong consumer demand is unlikely. (p. 70)

          So when he’s not plotting to take over the world, Klaus Schwab is making erroneous inflation predictions.

          MD: Earth to economists! The jig is up. We have a Wiemar, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela moment at our doorsteps. And there’s nothing they can do about it. Why do I get a dozen calls each day from so-called investors wanting to buy my real property for cash? Because they know the counterfeiting that produced the cash they think they have has yielded it worthless.

          The Leader of the Market Monetarists, Scott Sumner

          As I said earlier, the market monetarists are far more civil than Krugman, Brad DeLong, and some other leading Keynesians. (And as far as I know, they’re not bent on world domination either.) But to repeat myself: since 2008, the one trump card the market monetarists had in their rivalry with the Austrians was that many of us prematurely warned about consumer price inflation à la the 1970s, whereas the market monetarists relied on TIPS (Treasury inflation-protected securities) yields and other market indicators to reassure their readers that inflation wouldn’t be a problem.

          In that context, then, it’s very interesting that Scott Sumner, founder and leader of the market monetarists, wrote a blog post entitled, “Fed Policy: The Golden Age Begins,” in January 2020. Here are the key excerpts, with my bold:

          We are entering a golden age of central banking, where the Fed will become more effective and come closer to hitting its targets than at any other time in history. Over the next few decades, inflation will stay close to 2% and the unemployment rate will generally be relatively low and stable. And this certainly won’t be due to fiscal policy, which is currently the most recklessly pro-cyclical in American history.

          … Fed policy is becoming more effective because it is edging gradually in a market monetarist direction….

          If they continue moving in this direction, then NGDP [nominal gross domestic product] growth will continue to become more stable, the business cycle will continue to moderate, inflation will stay in the low single digits, and unemployment will stay relatively low and stable.

          It won’t be perfect; the business cycle is not quite dead. There will be an occasional recession. But the business cycle is definitely on life support….

          As an analogy, when I was young I would frequently read about airliners crashing in the US…. My daughter is a junior in college and doesn’t recall a single major airline crash in the US, excluding a couple of small commuter planes in the 2000s…. After each crash, problems were fixed and planes got a bit safer.

          Recessions and airline crashes: They are getting less frequent, and for the exact same reason.

          Before closing, let me deal with the obvious response from the market monetarist camp: They could defend Sumner’s claims by arguing that the Fed only strayed from the ideal path because of covid. Well, sure, but Sumner was still wrong for placing so much faith in central bankers and their “independence.”

          Furthermore, as I explain in my chapter on market monetarism in this book, Sumner’s criterion of “NGDP growth” as a measure of tight or loose policy is almost a tautology. It is close to me arguing, “We will continue to see rising prices because of the Fed’s reckless policies, unless demand growth subsides, in which case we won’t.”

          MD: When will the day come that Bob Murphy gets a clue?


          Contact Robert P. Murphy

          Robert P. Murphy is a Senior Fellow with the Mises Institute. He is the author of numerous books: Contra Krugman: Smashing the Errors of America’s Most Famous Keynesian; Chaos Theory; Lessons for the Young Economist; Choice: Cooperation, Enterprise, and Human Action; The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism; Understanding Bitcoin (with Silas Barta), among others. He is also host of The Bob Murphy Show.

          4.321.2100 | FAX 334.321.2119

          Email Us

          Tu ne cede malis,
          sed contra audentior ito


          Stay Connected

          Website powered by Mises Institute donors

          Mises is a 4 star charity on Charity Navigator

          Mises Institute is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Contributions are tax-deductible to the full extent the law allows. Tax ID# 52-1263436

          Money Is A Shared Delusion: Why How We Think About Money Matters

          MD: Quickly scanning this article it appears this writer does not get it. Let’s dissect it and see.

 Is A Shared Delusion: Why How We Think About Money Matters

          Feb 10, 2022 | Mindset & Identity, Money & Life, Productivity

          Tara McMullin is a writer, podcaster, and producer who explores what it takes to navigate the 21st-century economy with your humanity intact. Click here to support this work.

          “Time is money.”

          MD: A common provocative phrase. Money is an “in-process promise to complete a trade over time and space.” Well, substituting this provable definition for the “money” in the phrase, we essentially get “time is an in-process promise”. Obviously, it is not. Rather it is a fourth dimension defining “when” something is located “where.” Further we know that money is “always and only created by traders like you and me.” Well, you and I don’t create time. So how can time be money. The real principle is the “time value of money”. Does money today have a different value than money last year…or money a year from now. The simple answer: In a “real money process”, the value of money never changes…not over time…not over space. Thus, we can’t say it has time value.

          It’s a phrase you’ve heard before. And probably a phrase you’ve accepted as truth. And it’s certainly true that there are plenty of ways that time and money relate to each other.

          But a few months ago, I started to wonder: Is time really money? And if not, how does that change the way I think about my time and my money?

          MD: Shouldn’t you begin by defining both “time” and “money”?

          Today begins a series exploring those questions. I’ll tackle them from different angles and different aspects of entrepreneurship so that we can make more intentional decisions about how we spend our time and our money.

          MD: How we “spend” our time and our money? That’s like “making more intentional decisions about how we trade.” There are only two ways: (1) Simple barter exchange in the here and now. (2) Exchange spanning time and space.”

          First, a little context.

          “Remember, time is money” is a line from Benjamin Franklin’s 1748 essay, “Advice to a Young Tradesman.” He encourages the reader to consider the money they might spend if they take a day off, as well as the money they’d lose for not working. I don’t know about you, but I feel like I’ve been running that calculation on repeat since I was sixteen years old! At least in the US, it seems we’re born with this idea already encoded into our brains.

          MD: This is kind of a false choice. When you’re working, you’re in the process of making a trade. Not all work results in useful gain. Further, when you’re idle you’re in the process of doing something besides trading your “time and effort” for something. “Rest” is just such a thing…and if you don’t make that trade regularly you will die of exhaustion. Regardless, this has nothing to do with money.

          Max Weber cites this aphorism repeatedly in his book, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. He sees it as a sort of semiotic turning point—a shift from the godly ethic of vocation to the secular ethic of capitalism. And remember, this phrase dates back to at least 1748. That’s 274 years of cultural indoctrination to this idea.

          Now, if all of that sounds like I’m firmly against considering time as money (or money as time), I’m not. But I do think it’s an incredibly complicated truism that’s worth interrogating instead of merely accepting as immutable.

          To kick off this deep dive into the question of whether time is actually money, I wanted to talk about money. And what money actually is, how we think about it, why the way we think about money matters. So I called up Paco de Leon, who just released a fantastic new book called, Finance For The People. She’s also the founder of The Hell Yeah Bookkeeping, which serves production companies and creative agencies. Paco knows more than a thing or two about money. But I wanted to start with the basics:

          This article is also available as Episode 382 of What Works.
          Click here to find it on your favorite podcast player.

          MD: Well, let’s see if Paco does indeed know a thing or two about money.

          What is money?

          At its most fundamental level, Paco told me, “Money is a shared delusion.” Money is valuable because we believe it’s valuable, not because it has inherent worth. If you’ve ever heard the term “fiat currency,” this is what it refers to: money that’s based on an agreement rather than an intrinsic value.

          MD: Does a promise have value? Yes…of course it does. We value promises continually throughout our lives. And some promises we come to “not” value…because we know they won’t be kept. But knowing “all” promises creating money “will” be kept, either by the creator of the promise (and thus the money), or by the process that “guarantees” that the promise is delivered…and thus has value.

          How is this guarantee accomplished? Well, it’s a lot like “casualty insurance”. You can send a ship of goods half way around the word. You can buy an insurance policy to guarantee “you” get paid for those goods and your ship returns. This is called a “PREMIUM”. And if your ship doesn’t return, you make “CLAIM” on the insurance provider. And in the insurance business, the operative relation is: PREMIUMS = CLAIMS. The money is made on the “investment income” from the PREMIUMS.

          The operative relation for money is INFLATION = DEFAULT-INTEREST =zero. If the promise is not delivered, that is DEFAULT. Mitigating DEFAULTs with immediate INTEREST collections of like amount “guarantees” zero INFLATION. The crucial issue is “how” do you collect INTEREST and who do you collect it from?

          That answer is you put the INTEREST load on irresponsible traders who have a non-zero propensity to DEFAULT. This is the same as the actuarial process of insurance: those who have the most CLAIMs pay the HIGHEST premiums.

          About 10 or 11 years ago, I went to a lecture on money & meaning at my alma mater. Yes, I am that kind of nerd. That was the first time I was introduced to this idea—this fact, really. Money becomes valuable because you and I (and millions of other people) believe it is valuable. We believe it strongly enough to use money as a means of exchange and pay taxes and wages. The government incentivizes us to believe that—but ultimately, without the trust of US consumers, the dollar just wouldn’t be as valuable.

          MD: So the lecture didn’t tell you that government is a dead-beat trader? If someone repeatedly lies to you, does that incentivize you to believe them? Of course not. You are admitting…you are deluded by government. A “real” money process gives money value buy guaranteeing the completion of a trading promise spanning time and space. It doesn’t require government. In fact, government behavior precludes it from creating money…i.e. a promise it is known never to deliver…but rather to just roll over with a new promise…to deliver on a failed promise with a new promise, also guaranteed to fail.

          Further, this lecturer explained money exists to make exchanging goods—buying and selling—easier. Instead of every trade being a negotiation of how many eggs are worth a pound of wheat, we can assign a monetary value to each product and then independently decide whether we want to trade our money for the eggs or the wheat or a new phone.

          MD: The common unit of measure is only part of the story. Our current money process gives a name to a certain amount of gold and/or silver. That name is the “dollar”. It assumes that the value of gold and silver never changes. That assumption is a delusion. If they had chose the name HUL (standing for Hours of Unskilled Labor), that would have been better. A HUL trades for the same size hold in the ground over all time.

          We’re seeing this play out in real-time right now with cryptocurrency, my current research obsession. What do people believe bitcoin or ether is worth? And how does that value fluctuate based on the number of people who believe in its value? How is a quote-unquote currency impacted if few sellers accept it as payment from buyers? If you’re curious about how this “money is a shared delusion” thing plays out practically, learn about crypto and all the wild things happening in that market. (Hint: it’s not great.)

          MD: Crypto (specifically Bitcoin) claims a solution to the “byzantine general’s problem”. Basically it tries to guarantee truth. It does this with a concept it calls “proof of work” and therefore proof of value. It’s another delusion. You don’t create value by digging a hole and then filling it in again. But you do expend work. A real money process makes no claims whatever about the value of the “promise” (i.e. money). It just guarantees that is ultimately delivered on…and destroyed. In the interim it trades as the most common object in simple barter exchange.

          Back to the kind of money we have a stable agreement about. It can be hard to integrate the idea that money is a shared delusion because it’s so integral to the way we navigate the world. Our survival, in many ways, depends on how we earn and spend money. Paco was fascinated with that duality; money is both imaginary and key to our contemporary existence. She said, “Once we start to examine what [money] is at its core, we can start to ourselves, ‘If this thing is based on belief, well, how else is the way I interact with it based on beliefs?’”

          MD: Do you describe “insurance” as a “shared delusion”…because it’s so integral to the way we make promises? Our survival depends on being of value. And that means trading our time for sustenance. Paco evidently failed in her examination of what [money] is at its core. You plant seeds with the belief that they will grow into a plant that you can eat. If you have a brown thumb like I have, you don’t believe it. But you can see skilled farmers making things grow. For me, I choose not to trade my time in planting. Rather, I trade it for something the farmer wants…and I trade that for the fruits of “his” planting. Don’t make this more complicated than it is.

          What we believe about money impacts how we interact with it.

          It’s the reason you and I can make drastically different money decisions, and they’re still the right decisions for us. Money isn’t an immutable, universal Truth—but a fluid, relative representation of value, which is always individual. What I value is not what you value. What you value is not what I value. What we each value will be decided by our circumstances, values, personal preferences, and priorities. And even within that relativity, there’s also the question of how value is related to available resources. For instance, I might understand and appreciate the value of investing in a house in Montana right now. It’s where we plan to move in about five years. But saying the market there is volatile would be an extreme understatement. Could I put together a down payment to buy property there? Sure. But I have to weigh the value of that money against the potential risk of buying now versus purchasing a few years from now.

          Money isn’t an immutable, universal Truth—but a fluid, relative representation of value, which is always individual.

          Paco gave me an even better example. Imagine you’re at a restaurant with a friend, and the Happy Hour special is $1 oysters. If you’re not an oyster fan, know that that price is a steal. You say to your friend, “I love oysters! Let’s get a dozen—that’s such a good price.” But your friend is dubious. “$1 oysters?” they say, “That’s… suspicious.” Maybe they are old. Perhaps the restaurant got them from an unscrupulous purveyor. Maybe they’re just not very good. You and your friend are working with the same financial information on the surface. It’s Happy Hour, and the oysters are $1 each. But you bring your beliefs about money and value to the table, and your friend brings theirs. The result is two drastically different approaches to the potential purchase.

          MD: But none of that has to do with money. That has to do with trade. Trade has three stages: (1) Negotiation; (2) Promise to deliver; (3) Delivery as promised. In simple barter exchange, (2) and (3) happen simultaneously in the here and now. Money enables (2) and (3) to happen over time and space. And money has nothing to do with “belief”. That’s all taken care of in stage (1)…and it only applies to the two parties involved.

          Our values, personal histories, upbringing, geographic location, culture, class… all these things and more influence the way we approach the proverbial $1 oyster. So do the beliefs that we have about ourselves. Paco told me that many of her original stories about money were informed by her belief that she wasn’t good enough. It might be easy to write it off as a “money mindset thing.” Yet, her anxiety about not being good enough was based on real experiences. She told me, “Being queer and a woman of color has not been a nice day at the beach. I’ve heard family members talking about so-and-so being gay. I remember hearing that story and being like: okay, noted, not okay to be gay.” She also picked up the “not good enough” message from thirteen years of Catholic school—a privilege in many ways, but also a daily immersion into a story about being fundamentally flawed.

          MD: If Paco was this easily conflicted about money, what did she have to say about trade? Could she compare and contrast the two? I think you were wasting your time with Paco. In the land of the blind, the one eyed person is most value. In the land of the queer, the straight person has a value deficiency in at least one category of trade…that being an inter-personal relationship…which is the most equitable trade possible.

          The worry about not being good enough coalesced into a story that she should take what she’s given and be grateful for it, grateful to be included, to belong. But eventually, she started to shift that story—and decided to go out on her own in order so she could take control of the value of her work on the open market. And… still, she was undercharging for bookkeeping services and consulting. “I was that $1 oyster,” she said. So the work continued. She pursued therapy and other ways of processing her beliefs and experiences to unpack why she was perennially coming up short on decisions about price.

          MD: Again, this has nothing to do with money. She is addressing the (1) Negotiation state of trader.

          This is what we mean when we talk about understanding your money mindset. It’s not about “charging what you’re worth” or investing in yourself. It’s really a process of unpacking unconscious stories, weighing them against cultural conditioning, and finding ways to resource yourself to shift your thinking. “Thinking bigger” is just a bandaid over a much bigger issue. If you try to cover your money wounds with “charge what you’re worth,” you won’t get very far without bleeding out. This is why so much money mindset advice feels like a panacea. Before we can write a more effective money story, we actually have to root out and process the old one.

          Before we can write a more effective money story, we actually have to root out and process the old one.

          “The quality of your thinking impacts the decisions you make,” Paco told me. That’s why she cares about really getting to the heart of how we think about money, rather than trying to plaster over it with affirmations and financial advice. When you say something like “charge what you’re worth” to cover over feelings of inadequacy, the inadequacy is going to leak through. Those unexamined feelings influence your decision-making. So you find a way to rationalize a decision prompted by your original, negative money story rather than the one you think you’re telling. Paco says:

          “Just feel your damn feelings on the upfront! Recognize that you’re an emotional creature. Sometimes your feelings are going to get in the way. Feel them and manage them and regulate your nervous system.”

          MD: Again…is irrelevant to money.

          The Moral Quality of Money

          When we start talking about how our beliefs impact our decisions with money, we inevitably land on assumptions about the moral quality of money. Money and what we do with it seem to signal whether we’re a good or bad person, a good citizen or a bad citizen.

          MD: This is nonsense. If you have grapes and you want strawberries money gives you an option. You can “sell” your grapes for some number of HULs …hours of unskilled labor. You know a HUL value because you traded in them at some point in your life…usually a job during high school. You then take those HULs and find someone with strawberries. And you negotiate that trade. Using money you have two negotiation steps. (1) grapes for HULs; (2) HULs for strawberries. If you make a bad trade on you grapes, you still have a chance of correcting it on your trade for strawberries. Or you can gain on both trades or you can lose on both trades. It’s about your ability to trade. It’s not about money.

          The messages around this can come from the oddest places—or, maybe, the most predictable least helpful places. For instance, in an interview on cable news, former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao said that low-wage workers had a patriotic duty to get back to work. Prosperity gospel preachers tell you that wealth is a sign of god’s favor. And the vast majority of the political machine in the US has been touting the welfare queen as the ultimate moral villain since Reagan.

          MD: And again, be that as it may, it has nothing to do with money.

          These messages aren’t the whole of the moral lessons we learn about money—they’re just the tip of the iceberg. They’re signposts of a pervasive, inescapable message about money; having money is good and, if you don’t have it, you better work your ass off for more of it so you can be good.

          Paco said:

          “We are overly focused on our own personal shortcomings, right? You did this wrong. You are bad. You are not disciplined. But what I really think what we need to focus on when we feel these negative feelings of shame and guilt is exploring and understanding where they came from. Who taught you that you should be ashamed of this? Where did you pick that up? Was it a move? Was it a song? Was it your grandparents?”

          MD: I wonder what Paco would have to say about trading for art?

          She said we pick up these expectations from family, friends, and society. When we violate that behavior, we feel bad. The answer? Paco says that financial pros need to help people heal the parts of them that are broken to help the people they serve to heal.

          MD: And don’t forget the things we pick up from advertising and other forms of information and/or brainwashing.

          Nowhere is moralizing more prevalent than in discussion about debt. But as Trump and other billionaires have proved repeatedly, debt only seems to be bad when you’re the wrong kind of person with that debt on your balance sheet. So I asked Paco: what’s the deal with debt?

          MD: While you were at it did you ask her “what the deal with a promise”? Is a promise a debt? Of course it is.

          As is her gift, Paco gave me a great analogy. Debt is like fire, she said. Fire has benefits—it lets us cook our food, for instance. But if that fire gets out of control? Well, then there’s a problem. Debt has significant benefits. Without the invention of the 30-year mortgage, many of us would not be able to own real estate. Without a loan or a business credit card, we might not be able to make investments in the growth of our companies. But debt can quickly get out of control. And that’s when it becomes a problem. “We shouldn’t look at things with this tunnel vision of ‘debt is bad,’” Paco said. Black and white thinking rarely (maybe never?) benefits us.

          MD: The “30 year mortgage” illustrates the scam that is our existing money system. (1) It assumes someone is “lending” you the money when in actuality, “you” are “creating” it. (2) It assumes you must pay “interest” on the money you have still not returned. Both are false in a “real” money process. In a “real” money process, money is in perpetually free supply. It never changes its value. And it imposes no resistance to trading (e.g. interest load).

          Is time money?

          As I mentioned, I’m really interested in exploring the maxim, “time is money.” In what ways is that true? In what ways is it not true? And how might a fundamental, unexamined belief that time is money benefit or harm us and our work? So I asked Paco for her thoughts. She told me that there was a long time where she definitely ascribed to this philosophy. She’d make calculations about what she wanted to buy and whether the price was worth the amount of time it would take to earn that amount. She said it wasn’t a horrible way to think about money—but it’s certainly not the only way to think about the relationship between time and money.

          MD: You took time to write this article. I took time to make these annotations. I received nothing in trade for my effort. That makes me a fool. What did you receive for writing the article?

          For instance, when she started hiring, she realized that she could create leverage with other people’s time. As a business owner, she could use their work to earn more. She also thinks about how money can buy time, “Time is a non-renewable resource. Money is a renewable resource.” And, of course, she’s very interested in investing in a way that produces more money without more time spent on work.

          MD: “Money is a non-renewable resource”: Try this? You can make money writing this article. You can obtain a hole by digging. If you need a hole, would you choose to spend your time writing this article for money…then trading that money for a guy to dig your hole? What if it takes twice as long to dig the hole yourself than to have the guy do it. Did you “reclaim” some non-renewable time? You know the old axiom: work smarter, not harder.

          Paco and I agree that the danger in believing “time is money” is that it often reinforces conditioning around productivity and usefulness. We learn at an early age that the goal is to get as much done in a certain period of time as possible—the more ways we can hack our time to produce more, the more we’re rewarded. We’re also taught to evaluate our worth to society from the perspective of productivity. Taking time off, therefore, risks getting you labeled as lazy. And that brings us back to the core belief Paco (and I) have had to wrestle with: Am I enough? Am I doing enough?

          MD: And again, that’s all irrelevant.

          “Am I deserving of the space to just be a human appreciating the sunshine on my face? I want to normalize wanting to chill,” she told me.

          “To me, money is freedom and it’s power. It allows me to live a life of dignity.”

          MD: And if sea shells were money does that make picking up sea shells bring you more freedom and power? You know it doesn’t. You can’t just call something money and make it be so. It’s the process that brings the value.

          As we started to wrap things up, Paco told me that she really wants people to be able to live a life of dignity. Yes, we need to concern ourselves with our own personal finances. But we should also be concerned about the public policies that would allow all people to live dignified lives. She said, “let’s just solve that problem first. And then luxury will follow.”

          MD: If “all” people just took care of themselves “all” would be fine. That’s everyone’s first task…take care of yourself.

          I’ve been rolling the idea of “dignity” around in my mind since I talked to Paco. Who is denied dignity? What are the mechanisms that enforce that denial? What does a dignified life look like, and how much does it cost?

          Paco does such a great job of addressing the things we can control about money. And she also does a great job acknowledging that there is much that’s out of our control. This is certainly true when it comes to dignity, as well. We can do a lot for ourselves to ensure a dignified life. But for many of us, factors out of our control make it incredibly difficult. So, what policy changes could we advocate for so that all people could have access to a dignified life? What community care projects could help more people live with dignity?

          MD: If you have money and you created it, you must eventually return it as you promised and it is destroyed. If you obtained your money in trade, it’s no different than grapes you obtained in trade…except for the process. With a “real” money process, you can put your money under a rock for 10 years…then take it out and trade it for the same size hole in the ground as you could 10 years ago. With grapes…well, they rotted 10 years ago. And with our counterfeit dollar, you can trade for a hole that is 2/3rds as big…assuming 4% inflation caused by government counterfeiting.

          We all have room to work on our beliefs about money, and many of us have enough space to start changing the larger conversation, too.

          MD: Actually, everything in your article is about “trade”…not “money”.

          Five Warning Signs The End Of Dollar Hegemony Is Near… Here’s What Happens Next


          Five Warning Signs The End Of Dollar Hegemony Is Near… Here’s What Happens Next

          Tyler Durden's Photoby Tyler DurdenSaturday, May 21, 2022 – 01:30 PM

          Authored by Nick Giambruno via,

          MD: This article is so typical of what we see coming out of These people actually believe what they write. As usual, we’ll dissect the article in place and expose the delusions. We’ve done it repeatedly before. The trouble is, they either will never get it…or the are an active part of the scam.

          It’s no secret that China and Russia have been stashing away as much gold as possible for many years.

          MD: And if they had a clue they wouldn’t be doing that. At the point where gold can have meaning in economics, the game is already over. There is only enough gold on the planet for each person to have less than 2 ounces…less than $4,000. If gold were actually the media of exchange, it would have to trade for a few orders of magnitude greater than that. And if it did, people would be digging up their own back yards looking for the stuff. It’s beyond stupid. Miners who actually know how to find and refine gold would become enormously wealthy, but could never create enough for the rest of us to use it in trade…i.e. as money.

          China is the world’s largest producer and buyer of gold. Russia is number two. Most of that gold finds its way into the Russian and Chinese governments’ treasuries.

          MD: Where it does absolutely nothing for the benefit of anyone.

          Russia has over 2,300 tonnes—or nearly 74 million troy ounces—of gold, one of the largest stashes in the world. Nobody knows the exact amount of gold China has, but most observers believe it is even larger than Russia’s stash.

          MD: Ok. Take that number. 74,000,000 ounces. Divide that by the 7 billion people on the planet. That comes to about 0.01 ounces per person on the planet. Times $4,000 per ounce you have $40. That’s 4 trips to McDonalds. Now what?

          Russia and China’s gold gives them access to an apolitical neutral form of money with no counterparty risk.

          MD: Counterparty risk? What does that have to do with anything. Money is an “in-process promise to complete a trade over time and space.” It is always, and only, created by traders like you and me. And it is always properly destroyed when we deliver as promised. In the mean time it circulates as the most common object of every simple barter exchange. It’s a record keeping problem…and a discipline problem if the trader fails to deliver as promised.

          Remember, gold has been mankind’s most enduring form of money for over 2,500 years because of unique characteristics that make it suitable to store and exchange value.

          MD: This stupid argument won’t even play in Peoria… let alone throughout the world.

          Gold is durable, divisible, consistent, convenient, scarce, and most importantly, the “hardest” of all physical commodities.

          MD: And here we have an open admission of ignorance about money. Durable isn’t an issue. An open record keeping system (e.g. ledger) is durable. Divisible? You can divide a number to any number of pieces you choose. If you buy a car by creating $70,000 in new money, that money can circulate as any denomination the marketplace requires. In the USA the smallest denomination is one cent…and most people won’t bend over to pick one up. Consistent? What does that mean? A promise is a promise. Delivery is delivery. What’s to be inconsistent? Convenient? What in the world is more convenient than a record keeping system? Create checks, currency, coins, … they’re just convenient place holders for what is recorded in the ledger. Scarce? This is the one that gets me most. The media of exchange should never be scarce. Quite the contrary, it should be in perpetual free supply. It should resist trade not at all. Hardest? As in harder than a Hershey bar? How ridiculous! And the one they left out…which is historically the biggest problem with any substitute for “real” money…it must be non-counterfeitable! And who is the biggest counterfeiter in “all” cases? Government!

          In other words, gold is the one physical commodity that is the “hardest to produce” (relative to existing stockpiles) and, therefore, the most resistant to inflation. That’s what gives gold its superior monetary properties.

          MD: Another open admission to stupidity. The money relation is: INFLATION = DEFAULT – INTEREST. Counterfeiting, the biggest cause of default not mitigated by interest collection, is the biggest source of inflation. It’s a very small fraction of traders who don’t deliver as promised. And when that happens, a “real money process” makes an immediate and equal interest collection of like amount. This guarantees that inflation will be perpetually zero.

          Russia and China can use their gold to engage in international trade and perhaps back the currencies.

          MD: Only as long as ignorance regarding real money prevails.

          That’s why gold represents a genuine monetary alternative to the US dollar, and Russia and China have a lot of it.

          MD: And of course there is no shortage of “stupid” people who think that matters. Real traders will “create” a “real money process” every time if not conflicted by the money-changers and the governments they institute. I’m now going to let him spew on as long he purveys the same ridiculous fiction. If he comes up with some new nonsense I’ll break back in.

          Today it’s clear why China and Russia have had an insatiable demand for gold.

          They’ve been waiting for the right moment to pull the rug from beneath the US dollar. And now is that moment…

          This is a big problem for the US government, which reaps an unfathomable amount of power because the US dollar is the world’s premier reserve currency. It allows the US to print fake money out of thin air and export it to the rest of the world for real goods and services—a privileged racket no other country has.

          Russia and China’s gold could form the foundation of a new monetary system outside of the control of the US. Such moves would be the final nail in the coffin of dollar dominance.

          Five recent developments are a giant flashing red sign that something big could be imminent.

          Warning Sign #1: Russia Sanctions Prove Dollar Reserves “Aren’t Really Money”

          In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the US government has launched its most aggressive sanctions campaign ever.

          Exceeding even Iran and North Korea, Russia is now the most sanctioned nation in the world.

          As part of this, the US government seized the US dollar reserves of the Russian central bank—the accumulated savings of the nation.

          MD: Oh I would so like to have Putin’s ear here. The best thing he could do is institute a “real money process” and use his gold to allay his doubters…he’d never have to touch any of it. In fact, I would like to see Elon Musk do it, rather that buy Twitter (that will bury him in criminal lawsuits should he succeed there).

          It was a stunning illustration of the dollar’s political risk. The US government can seize another sovereign country’s dollar reserves at the flip of a switch.

          MD: …until its counterfeiting is so obvious and egregious it deals itself out of the game all together.

          The Wall Street Journal, in an article titled “If Russian Currency Reserves Aren’t Really Money, the World Is in for a Shock,” noted:

          “Sanctions have shown that currency reserves accumulated by central banks can be taken away. With China taking note, this may reshape geopolitics, economic management and even the international role of the U.S. dollar.”

          MD: Is anyone getting the dozen or so calls a day that I’m getting…from so-called investors who want to trade dollars for my real property? Why do that unless you know the dollars you hold are about to be worthless.

          Russian President Putin said the US had defaulted on its obligations and that the dollar is no longer a reliable currency.

          The incident has eroded trust in the US dollar as the global reserve currency and catalyzed significant countries to use alternatives in trade and their reserves.

          China, India, Iran, and Turkey, among other countries, announced, or already are, doing business with Russia in their local currencies instead of the US dollar. These countries represent a market of over three billion people that no longer need to use the US dollar to trade with one another.

          The US government has incentivized almost half of mankind to find alternatives to the dollar by attempting to isolate Russia.

          MD: I vote for a competitive HUL (Hour of Unskilled Labor) based “real money process”. The HUL is valued today (i.e. trades for the same size hole in the ground) as it has for all time…recorded or otherwise.

          Warning Sign #2: Rubles, Gold, and Bitcoin for Gas, Oil, and Other Commodities

          Russia is the world’s largest exporter of natural gas, lumber, wheat, fertilizer, and palladium (a crucial component in cars).

          It is the second-largest exporter of oil and aluminum and the third-largest exporter of nickel and coal.

          Russia is a major producer and processor of uranium for nuclear power plants. Enriched uranium from Russia and its allies provides electricity to 20% of the homes in the US.

          Aside from China, Russia produces more gold than any other country, accounting for more than 10% of global production.

          These are just a handful of examples. There are many strategic commodities that Russia dominates.

          In short, Russia is not just an oil and gas powerhouse but a commodity superpower.

          After the US government seized Russia’s US dollar reserves, Moscow has little use for the US dollar. Moscow does not want to exchange its scarce and valuable commodities for politicized money that its rivals can take away on a whim. Would the US government ever tolerate a situation where the US Treasury held its reserves in rubles in Russia?

          The head of the Russian Parliament recently called the US dollar a “candy wrapper” but not the candy itself. In other words, the dollar has the outward appearance of money but is not real money.

          That’s why Russia is no longer accepting US dollars (or euros) in exchange for its energy. They are of no use to Russia. So instead, Moscow is demanding payment in rubles.

          MD: Bingo. Game over for the Earth’s, and History’s, most egregious counterfeiter.

          That’s an urgent problem for Europe, which cannot survive without Russian commodities. The Europeans have no alternative to Russian energy and have no choice but to comply.

          European buyers must now first buy rubles with their euros and use them to pay for Russian gas, oil, and other exports.

          This is a big reason why the ruble has recovered all of the value it lost in the initial days of the Ukraine invasion and then made further gains.

          In addition to rubles, the top Russian energy official said Moscow would also accept gold or Bitcoin in return for its commodities.

          “If they want to buy, let them pay either in hard currency—and this is gold for us… you can also trade Bitcoins.”

          Here’s the bottom line. US dollars are no longer needed (or wanted) to buy Russian commodities.

          Warning Sign #3: The Petrodollar System Flirts With Collapse

          MD: I’m really skimming now. This guy is so far off the tracks there’s no hope of bringing him back. I think I’ll quit here.

          Oil is by far the largest and most strategic commodity market.

          For the last 50 years, virtually anyone who wanted to import oil needed US dollars to pay for it.

          That’s because, in the early ’70s, the US made an agreement to protect Saudi Arabia in exchange for ensuring, among other things, all OPEC producers only accept US dollars for their oil.

          Every country needs oil. And if foreign countries need US dollars to buy oil, they have a compelling reason to hold large dollar reserves.

          This creates a huge artificial market for US dollars and forces foreigners to soak up many of the new currency units the Fed creates. Naturally, this gives a tremendous boost to the value of the dollar.

          The system has helped create a deeper, more liquid market for the dollar and US Treasuries. It also allows the US government to keep interest rates artificially low, thereby financing enormous deficits it otherwise would be unable to.

          In short, the petrodollar system has been the bedrock of the US financial system for the past 50 years.

          But that’s all about to change… and soon.

          After it invaded Ukraine, the US government kicked Russia out of the dollar system and seized hundreds of billions in dollar reserves of the Russian central bank.

          Washington has threatened to do the same to China for years. These threats helped ensure that China cracked down on North Korea, didn’t invade Taiwan, and did other things the US wanted.

          These threats against China may be a bluff, but if the US government carried them out—as it recently did against Russia—it would be like dropping a financial nuclear bomb on Beijing. Without access to dollars, China would struggle to import oil and engage in international trade. As a result, its economy would come to a grinding halt, an intolerable threat to the Chinese government.

          China would rather not depend on an adversary like this. This is one of the main reasons it created an alternative to the petrodollar system.

          After years of preparation, the Shanghai International Energy Exchange (INE) launched a crude oil futures contract denominated in Chinese yuan in 2017. Since then, any oil producer can sell its oil for something besides US dollars… in this case, the Chinese yuan.

          There’s one big issue, though. Most oil producers don’t want to accumulate a large yuan reserve, and China knows this.

          That’s why China has explicitly linked the crude futures contract with the ability to convert yuan into physical gold—without touching China’s official reserves—through gold exchanges in Shanghai (the world’s largest physical gold market) and Hong Kong.

          PetroChina and Sinopec, two Chinese oil companies, provide liquidity to the yuan crude futures by being big buyers. So, if any oil producer wants to sell their oil in yuan (and gold indirectly), there will always be a bid.

          After years of growth and working out the kinks, the INE yuan oil future contract is now ready for prime time.

          And now that the US has banned Russia from the dollar system, there is an urgent need for a credible system capable of handling hundreds of billions worth of oil sales outside of the US dollar and financial system.

          The Shanghai International Energy Exchange is that system.

          Back to Saudi Arabia…

          For nearly 50 years, the Saudis had always insisted anyone wanting their oil would need to pay with US dollars, upholding their end of the petrodollar system.

          But that could all change soon…

          Remember, China is already the world’s largest oil importer. Moreover, the amount of oil it imports continues to grow as it fuels an economy of over 1.4 billion people (more than 4x larger than the US).

          China is Saudi Arabia’s top customer. Beijing buys over 25% of Saudi oil exports and wants to buy more.

          The Chinese would rather not have to use the US dollar, the currency of their adversary, to buy an essential commodity.

          In this context, The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the Chinese and the Saudis had entered into serious discussions to accept yuan as payment for Saudi oil exports instead of dollars.

          The WSJ article claims the Saudis are angry at the US for not supporting it enough in its war against Yemen. They were further dismayed by the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and the nuclear negotiations with Iran.

          In short, the Saudis don’t think the US is holding up its end of the deal. So they don’t feel like they need to hold up their part.

          Even the WSJ admits such a move would be disastrous for the US dollar.

          “The Saudi move could chip away at the supremacy of the US dollar in the international financial system, which Washington has relied on for decades to print Treasury bills it uses to finance its budget deficit.”

          Here’s the bottom line.

          Saudi Arabia—the linchpin of the petrodollar system—is flirting in the open with China about selling its oil in yuan. One way or another—and probably soon—the Chinese will find a way to compel the Saudis to accept the yuan.

          The sheer size of the Chinese market makes it impossible for Saudi Arabia—and other oil exporters—to ignore China’s demands to pay in yuan indefinitely. Moreover, using the INE to exchange oil for gold further sweetens the deal for oil exporters.

          Sometime soon, there will be a lot of extra dollars floating around suddenly looking for a home now that they are not needed to purchase oil.

          It signals an imminent and enormous change for anyone holding US dollars. It would be incredibly foolish to ignore this giant red warning sign.

          Warning Sign #4: Out of Control Money Printing and Record Price Increases

          In March of 2020, the chair of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, exercised unfathomable power…

          At the time, it was the height of the stock market crash amid the COVID hysteria. People were panicking as they watched the market plummet, and they turned to the Fed to do something.

          In a matter of days, the Fed created more dollars out of thin air than it had for the US’s nearly 250-year existence. It was an unprecedented amount of money printing that amounted to more than $4 trillion and nearly doubled the US money supply in less than a year.

          One trillion dollars is almost an unfathomable amount of money. The human mind has trouble wrapping itself around such figures. Let me try to put it into perspective.

          One million seconds ago was about 11 days ago.

          One billion seconds ago was 1988.

          One trillion seconds ago was 30,000 BC.

          For further perspective, the daily economic output of all 331 million people in the US is about $58 billion.

          At the push of a button, the Fed was creating more dollars out of thin air than the economic output of the entire country.

          The Fed’s actions during the Covid hysteria—which are ongoing—amounted to the biggest monetary explosion that has ever occurred in the US.

          When the Fed initiated this program, it assured the American people its actions wouldn’t cause severe price increases. But unfortunately, it didn’t take long to prove that absurd assertion false.

          As soon as rising prices became apparent, the mainstream media and Fed claimed that the inflation was only “transitory” and that there was nothing to be worried about.

          Of course, they were dead wrong, and they knew it—they were gaslighting.

          The truth is that inflation is out of control, and nothing can stop it.

          Even according to the government’s own crooked CPI statistics, which understates reality, inflation is rising. That means the actual situation is much worse.

          Recently the CPI hit a 40-year high and shows little sign of slowing down.

          I wouldn’t be surprised to see the CPI exceed its previous highs in the early 1980s as the situation gets out of control.

          After all, the money printing going on right now is orders of magnitude greater than it was then.

          Warning Sign #5: Fed Chair Admits Dollar Supremacy Is Dead

          “It’s possible to have more than one reserve currency.”

          These are the recent words of Jerome Powell, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

          It’s a stunning admission from the one person who has the most control over the US dollar, the current world reserve currency.

          It would be as ridiculous as Mike Tyson saying that it’s possible to have more than one heavyweight champion.

          In other words, the jig is up.

          Not even the Chairman of the Federal Reserve can go along with the farce of maintaining the dollar’s supremacy anymore… and neither should you.


          It’s clear the US dollar’s days of unchallenged dominance are quickly ending—something even the Fed Chairman openly admits.

          To recap, here are the five imminent, flashing red warning signs the end of dollar hegemony is near.

          • Warning Sign #1: Russia Sanctions Prove Dollar Reserves “Aren’t Really Money”
          • Warning Sign #2: Rubles, Gold, and Bitcoin for Gas, Oil, and Other Commodities
          • Warning Sign #3: The Petrodollar System Flirts With Collapse
          • Warning Sign #4: Out of Control Money Printing and Record Price Increases
          • Warning Sign #5: Fed Chair Admits Dollar Supremacy Is Dead

          If we take a step back and zoom out, the Big Picture is clear.

          We are likely on the cusp of a historic shift… and what’s coming next could change everything.

          *  *  *

          The economic trajectory is troubling. Unfortunately, there’s little any individual can practically do to change the course of these trends in motion. The best you can and should do is to stay informed so that you can protect yourself in the best way possible, and even profit from the situation. That’s precisely why bestselling author Doug Casey and his colleagues just released an urgent new PDF report that explains what could come next and what you can do about it. Click here to download it now.511

          Robobank: We Won’t Get Bretton Woods 3…


          Rabobank: We Won’t Get Bretton Woods 3 But What We Do Get Won’t Be Peaceful Or Painless

          Tyler Durden's Photoby Tyler DurdenMonday, Apr 18, 2022 – 07:25 PM

          By Michael Every of Rabobank

          Bancor, Rancor, and Rancour

          MD: Having a total and universal misunderstanding of what money is, we get myriad articles telling how money is being manipulated…or should be manipulated. From the title we expect this is just such an instance. We’ll look…and annotate in place.

          What lies beneath

          As usual, just over two weeks into the new quarter, and well in advance of the developed economies, GDP-giant China told us exactly what happened there in Q1. When I say ‘exactly’, I mean to the usual degree of decimal-place detail, but the same lack of any useful breakdown: and despite lockdowns so hard that China’s Weibo is allegedly censoring the first line of the Chinese national anthem (“Stand up! Those who refuse to be slaves”) after it was used to vent frustrations.

          MD: What a bazaar opening salvo!

          Somehow, the expectation was for a 0.7% q/q GDP print, 4.2% y/y, up from 4.0% in Q42021: we got a far stronger print to show Covid, and Chinese data, don’t matter – GDP rose 1.3% q/q and 4.8% y/y.

          • Does one celebrate the resilience of the economy?
            MD: How can one separate the economy from the manipulation of its money?
          • Does one ask how that was possible when March data saw retail sales -3.5% y/y, below consensus of -3.0%, down from 1.7%… and yet higher than expected at 3.3% y/y year-to-date (YTD) vs. a 6.7% print in February that already did not match what *any* retailer is seeing? When fixed asset investment, albeit above consensus, slowed to 9.3% from 12.2% y/y even as property investment was weaker than seen at just 0.7% from 3.7% y/y? And industrial production rose to 5.0% from 4.3% y/y – which must have been via net exports… despite port closures!
            MD: Does anyone ask why behavior of an economy should be sensitive to a calendar?
          • Does one ask why monetary policy was eased last week anyway, with the reserve requirement ratio cut 0.25% again? (That’s a move which will be as ineffectual for the real economy as all the previous cuts were: the only thing it perks up is enthusiasm from analysts who don’t understand how the real economy works.)
            MD: Does anyone ask why there should be such a thing as a “monetary policy”? Does anyone ask why anyone…or any small group…should have such a knob to manipulate?
          • Does one ask why China just announced details-free economic stimulus measures? (e.g., “Reform will be deepened to remove consumption constraints. Sound and steady development of consumption platforms will be advanced.” How so, when rumours are that we are soon to see bank deposit rates cuts to make room for lower lending rates, which follows the same financial-repression/demand-destruction path seen in the ‘new normal’ elsewhere?) Probably not.
            MD: When it is provable that everyone acts in their own self interest, why does not everyone’s self interest have equal weight? Why do we have banks screwing with lending rates when we know it is “traders”, not banks or the governments they institute, that create and destroy money?
          • Does one ask how local-government debt to build more infrastructure is ‘consumption’? (e.g., “consumption-related infrastructure development may be funded by local government special-purpose bonds, to leverage the catalytic role of investment in expanding consumption.”)
            MD: Why do we allow something claiming to be government…why do we allow it to control something like infrastructure development…but not manufacturing development? We shouldn’t even have government. What’s it good for?
          • Does one note an easily achievable stimulus floated is a de facto export subsidy? (e.g., “Export rebates will be better utilized as an inclusive and equitable policy tool that is consistent with international rules, and the business environment for foreign trade will be improved on multiple fronts.”) Yet if China thinks it can grow its way out of a structural crisis by flooding the world with more goods *again*, then it is in for a real shock.
            MD: Do traders need stimulus? What’s keeping traders from naturally making trades they can see clear to deliver on? Why do people allow a money-changer creation like government to even exist?

          Making that point, Bloomberg warns: ‘Global Investors Flee China Fearing That Risks Eclipse Rewards’. All the more reason for a 1.3 % q/q print then(?) The article notes, “Russian sanctions raise concerns the same could happen to China… a growing list of risks is turning China into a potential quagmire for global investors. The central question is what could happen in a country willing to go to great lengths to achieve its leader’s goals.” This is hardly news to those who wanted to see it: but a South China Morning Post politics podcast this weekend in which one of their correspondents stated he had heard directly from an EU source that in recent discussions over Russian sanctions, US officials stated they are already gaming-out the same measures for China – and using language such as “when we sanction China”, not “if”.
          MD: Sanctions are a siege tactic. And siege is an act of war. Who is conducting this warring aggression…and why? Why does an entity capable of mounting such an attack even exist? Who needs it?

          Imperialism and realism: Bancor and Rancor

          Meanwhile, in Ukraine, hopes of peace talks appear forlorn: Mariupol appears close to falling, as the city of 400,000 stands in ruins; and despite talking of risks of a Russian tactical nuke, President Zelenskiy defiantly states his country won’t give up the Donbas and can keep fighting for 10 years, if needed. If supported by the West, perhaps it can – and the EU’s Von der Leyen is pushing for Europe to accelerate arms shipments to Kyiv, talking about an oil boycott, again, and sanctioning Russia’s largest bank, Sberbank. Markets were thinking 10 days and none of the above when this all started.
          MD: Why doesn’t this paragraph state it was Zelenskiy whose artillery caused the ruin of Mariupol?

          On another front, as Finland and Sweden race towards NATO membership, Russia is moving forces towards the Baltic. Is this a bluff, as some felt it was over Ukraine? Or is Moscow going to engage in some form of limited confrontation with either or both Scandinavian states to ensure that if they enter NATO they do so already in a conflict with Russia?
          MD: Why do these countries want NATO membership? What’s in it for them? What do they lose by ostracizing NATO? What if Russia’s movements are totally defensive…or protective of the innocent…which of course they are?

          Taking things to a more meta level, last week I argued ‘Bretton Woods 3’ (BW3) — a new global FX and financial architecture– is a fancy name for militarized mercantilism; that the West used to be good at it; that it will be again, even if it means lots of neoliberal norms have to go; and anyone who thinks a BW3 emerges painlessly hasn’t read any history. Usefully, one of the key proponents of ‘anti-American imperialism’ just made the point for me in depth.
          MD: If you argued for any kind of “global FX and financial architecture” you are stupid beyond belief. At the very least, you are clueless about what money is…where it comes from…and where it goes. Mercantilism is government imposed monopoly. Eliminating government is the solution.

          (NB For these thinkers, American imperialism is the only imperialism: everything else is ‘realism’. That was underlined by humanist and coffee-table intellectual’s intellectual —and long-time believer that the auto-genocidal Khmer Rouge get a bad press— Noam Chomsky, who explained this weekend that Ukraine should surrender, because that’s ‘just the way the world is’.)
          MD: There should be a vaccine against morons like Chomsky.

          In an interview, Russian politician Sergey Glazyev talks about “the imminent disintegration of the USD-based global economic system, which provided the foundation of the US global dominance… the new economic system [unites] various strata of their societies around the goal of increasing common well-being in a way that is substantially stronger than the Anglo-Saxon and European alternatives. This is the main reason why Washington will not be able to win the global hybrid war that it started. This is also the main reason why the current dollar-centric global financial system will be superseded by a new one, based on a consensus of the countries who join the new world economic order.”
          MD: The fact that such a thing as “the USD-based global economic system” even exists or should be tolerated is admission of zero understanding of money. They can change the money system all they want. Until they understand what money is…where it comes from…and where it goes, they’ll keep getting the same result. And of course they want that result. This leopard doesn’t change its spots.

          So far, so gold-bug, crypto-nite, Chomskyite, Russian/Chinese nationalist, US billionaire hedge-fund manager, or general Down With This Sort of Thing. But we get details:
          MD: Such nonsense!

          “In the first phase of the transition, these countries fall back on using their national currencies and clearing mechanisms, backed by bilateral currency swaps. At this point, price formation is still mostly driven by prices at various exchanges, denominated in dollars.”
          MD: Open admission of money manipulation. A “real money process” cannot be manipulated in any fashion whatever.

          That’s what I have been flagging: things remain priced in USD and, for a few, at the margin, and inefficiently, USD are netted out via bilateral, geopolitical barter. However, “This phase is almost over.” That seems ambitious: it isn’t even a month old! Regardless, next comes “a shift to national currencies and gold,” and then:
          MD: A problem that does not…and cannot exist with a “real money process”.

          “The second stage of the transition will involve new pricing mechanisms that do not reference the USD. Price formation in national currencies involves substantial overheads, however, it will still be more attractive than pricing in ‘un-anchored’ and treacherous currencies like USD, GBP, EUR, and JPY. The only remaining global currency candidate –CNY– won’t be taking their place due to its inconvertibility and the restricted external access to the Chinese capital markets. The use of gold as the price reference is constrained by the inconvenience of its use for payments.”
          MD: A “real money process” cares nothing about pricing mechanism. That’s up to supply/demand balance of objects being traded. All the “real money process” is concerned with is guaranteeing perpetual perfect supply/demand balance of the money itself.

          So, as I pointed out, nothing really works; which, alongside final consumption being in the West, and lots of aircraft carriers, is a strong argument for the USD status quo, imperialist or not. But not to worry if you disagree, because after that:
          MD: When “it’s broke”, it a good time to “fix it”. You don’t fix something by changing it’s name. This will get fixed when a “real money process” is available for traders to choose. Once that is done, all these broken processes will wilt on the vine. No trader in his right mind would ever use one.

          “The third and the final stage on the new economic order transition will involve a creation of a new digital payment currency founded through an international agreement based on principles of transparency, fairness, goodwill, and efficiency.” Which the international community is of course famous for. “A currency like this can be issued by a pool of currency reserves of BRICS countries, which all interested countries will be able to join.”
          MD: This is like religion…constantly trying to deal with knowledge that encroaches on its myths. They just create new myths…and change the wording of the old myths. It’s pretty disgusting.

          Except India is questionable, and even Brazil might be shaky given where it sits geographically, near the source of all those aircraft carriers. And so we have Russia, China, and South Africa. That doesn’t even make a good acronym, let alone bloc.

          “The weight of each currency in the basket could be proportional to the GDP of each country (based on purchasing power parity, for example), its share in international trade, as well as the population and territory size of participating countries.” So, it will be dominated by China; and so India is definitely out. “In addition, the basket could contain an index of prices of main exchange-traded commodities: gold and other precious metals, key industrial metals, hydrocarbons, grains, sugar, as well as water and other natural resources. To provide backing… relevant international resource reserves can be created in due course. This new currency would be used exclusively for cross-border payments and issued to the participating countries based on a pre-defined formula. Participating countries would instead use their national currencies for credit creation, in order to finance national investments and industry, as well as for sovereign wealth reserves. Capital account cross-border flows would remain governed by national currency regulations.”
          MD: If the currencies in the basket were using a “real money process”, their weight would not be relevant. The exchange rate would be constant…and one to one…at all times. This is a problem created by, and moved around by, money changers and the governments they institute. If you turn back the history of these governments you always find “one individual” who got control of a military and directed it to his own ends…and then took charge of the territory it acquired. This typically spans no more than 10 or 20 years in the first instance. And if he’s successful in creating a religion in that period, that religion passes to his heirs…until the people being dominated pull back the curtain and expose the scam. In the case of Britain, the people are so stupid it spans a period going back beyond useful records. That, folks, is perfect stupidity.

          So, he is talking about a new ‘gold standard’ based on everything from precious metals to base metals, to water, to one of the key ingredients for cakes, to the GDP of China, questionable data and all. Somehow these back a new global reserve currency which somebody will manage, and provide emergency liquidity in, despite *ALMOST EVERYONE IN THE NEW BLOC RUNNING TRADE SURPLUSES* – and most so with the West, who are not going to join. As such, this is not so much a proposed Bancor, as Keynes floated at the original Bretton Woods before the US insisted on the global role of the USD; nor a monstrous Rancor to devour Wall Street; it’s just plain rancour (“bitterness or resentfulness, especially when long standing”). Indeed, here is the coup de grace:
          MD: Anyone talking about a standard that changes value with time, is talking nonsense. And gold is anything but constant in value. We can now create new gold at a fraction of earlier costs…except where a new discovery is found … and then you can just pick up nuggets off the ground creating fictitious wealth. Changes like that…or large quantities going down with a sinking ship…create great disruptions. And such disruptions are totally unnecessary…actually impossible…if a “real money process” is in effect.

          Transition to the new world economic order will likely be accompanied by systematic refusal to honor obligations in USD, EUR, GBP, and JPY. In this respect, it will be no different from the example set by the countries issuing these currencies who thought it appropriate to steal foreign exchange reserves of Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, Afghanistan, and Russia to the tune of trillions of USD…. Even if they were to default on their obligations in those currencies, this would have no bearing on their credit rating in the new financial system. Nationalization of extraction industry, likewise, would not cause a disruption.”
          MD: An open admission to traders that they are…and will continue to be…dictated to by the money-changers. How is it that the real producers in the world (i.e. the traders) can be so totally dominated by the absolute non-producing slugs of the world (i.e. the money changers)?

          In other words, adopt the new world order and you get to default on all your FX debt and nationalise all your foreign-owned businesses! That is precisely what I also argued: bet on the new and bet on the default of the old. That is not going to be peaceful or painless – and it will be vigorously resisted.
          MD: This “new world order” thing is just the new “war monger”. The latest weapons of these war mongers is immigration and virus creation and spread…and they are essentially the same thing.

          You want to ensure that even vampire-squid on Wall Street and global-not-local US billionaire hedge-fund managers agree to dump neoliberalism for Western mercantilism and a bifurcated Cold War world of tariffs, capital controls, and naval blockades? Keep talking about mass nationalisations and organised debt defaults in the Eurodollar markets.52,222109
          MD: These articles just continue to be less and less interesting…more and more stupidity revealing. Such is life…and then you die.