m of care – jan 9 25
[https://museum.care/events/against-economics-michael-hudson/]:
Against Economics / Michael Hudson
against econ.. hudson on debt.. part 5 of ultimate hidden truth talks (or maybe part 1 of michael hudson lecture series?.. if so.. part 2 is m of care – apr 4 25)
Zoom meeting with the economist Michael Hudson to discuss David Graeber’s work.
On January 9th, we will hold a Zoom meeting about the essay, Against Economics!
The economist Michael Hudson will give a talk discussing Neo-Liberalism, modern Capitalism, and austerity in relation to David Graeber’s essay ‘Against Economics.’ Hudson is a renowned American economist and public intellectual. Serving as a Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri–Kansas City, Hudson pioneered the concept of debt as a cornerstone of social relationships in human society. His groundbreaking research significantly influenced David Graeber’s seminal work, Debt: The First 5,000 Years.
The essay “Against Economics” was written by David Graeber in 2019 and is a critique of the modern economics – a critique that is still very relevant today.
The piece is available here to read here.
It is also available as an audio via YouTube [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0ihTe4AcG4&t=1s]
notes/quotes from meeting:
m: 90 ish here at beginning.. now 99 and m talking about debt.. it was david who popularized my ideas.. but put it in a more readable form than i did.. wrote from experiences as anthropologist.. my book was more historical.. so we wrote in a diff tone of voice.. david got me to my publisher.. then we did many many things together..
m: today want to talk about ideology/cosmology of canceling debts
m: new kids always cancelled debts to do a start over of society.. bondservants freed.. slaves returned to original owners.. word for word taken from babylonian practice
m: babylonians had a math concept of cycles of time.. diff from business cycle.. every cycle started from higher higher debt level.. today slower and slower.. now in static ness.. all growth accrued to top.. not growing anymore.. ancients society didn’t have that problem
m: aristotle said all democracies turn into oligarchies.. democracies not able to restore balance because they are oligarchies.. has to be a diff way of developing other than polarizing
nika: very interested about this cyclical time.. very interested because i want to write a book with you about the cyclical time
m: effect of printing money itself is same as borrowing..
q: is there constraints on govt printing more money to pay for wars
m: yes.. it’s called the pistol.. the ed system.. david tried to popularize it with wall street.. instead of going to ed.. go to the streets.. ‘how are econ students going to be taught if it’s a taboo in academia’
nika: so we will make it diff in st vincent uni.. where everybody has access to this knowledge
m: not just changing currency but what are the rules of international .. if have to pay dollar debts owed to own and foreigners.. won’t have enough money to take care of infra at home.. makes no diff what form of currency.. but what are rules for collection.. all we need are financial rules that are in favor of the debtors
m: d and i had long discussions.. you can google it.. for many years.. he hasn’t pressed debt cancelation to the point i have.. your slogan should be ‘no more obama’s’
bj keeps bringing up Mahinism as the solution – he said:
Mahinism is about removing the fortunes AND the ways in which they accumulate..
Mahi is the Maori word for work, Mahinism is about money that obeys the laws of thermodynamics and an economy based on work and not on rentier income, for those are actually not possible when the First Law is invoked. link to something he wrote
http://firstmakeitwork.org/2023/09/16/making-money-real/m: if people get rich by saving instead of creating econ that inflates prices et al.. not taught at all in unis
bj: The fortunes do not disappear, they just change owners
stas: That is the definition of a social institution – any social relationship that stays the same while people in them change
bj: Our nasty habit of rationing scarce resources according to wealth is wrecking us in terms of our news sources. NO democracy can survive an uninformed or misinformed public. https://medium.com/@bj.chippindale/owned-3a5602124f7b
q: is debt necessary
m: best thing about cancelling debt is you cancel savings on other side.. that’s how you get rid of the oligarchy.. think in terms of a balance sheet.. want both sides to go down.. obama cancelled all of what the 1% owed.. he saved the savings.. but he didn’t cancel the debts..
nika: in concept of time.. biggest problem is our perception of time as linear?.
m: always going to be imbalances.. ineqs.. start over.. but know it’s going to get out of balance.. so need to continually begin again..
________
________
from page for m of care – apr 4 25 (part 2 of hudson lecture series):
We asked Michael Hudson to address some of the questions from the previous session (m of care – jan 9 25) – see his responses here.
only one (well part of it) that interested me (for now) –
4) Would Universal Basic Income cause a major rise in inflation?
The answer depends on what the recipients do with their income, and whether they are put to work to create a “product” to absorb the income they receive.
It also depends on whether such government subsidy is paid for by progressive income taxation levied on the wealthy – or even more efficiently, on economic rent-seekers in the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sectors, which do not create a “product” (interest charges and penalties are not a product, nor is the rent that landlords charges – or monopoly rents, for that matter).
So in one sense the economy already has a Basic Income payment – of interest and rents to the financial and other propertied classes that David Graeber calls the One Percent.
Payments of interest and rents to this One Percent does not cause inflation, but just the opposite: It causes deflation, by absorbing more and more income from the economy at large, leaving it unavailable to be spent on goods and services (“product”).
Taxing away such rentier income was the goal of Adam Smith and other classical economists of the 19th century. But the rentiers fought back, and have given special tax preference for their interest and rents, their financial and property income.
If this income were taxed away, there would be no reason to fear inflation from basic income to save the population from homeless, sickness, bad diets and other problems of poverty.
There is another way to provide basic income, of course. That is to provide basic needs as a human right, starting with public medical care, education, housing, and retirement income (pensions) for when they no longer are in the labor force.
At present, these functions have been privatized, forcing individuals to pay for them – and the costs are so heavy that most individuals have been driven into debt (credit-card debt and other forms of debt) simply in order to survive. If the U.S. government provided universal health care, it would not be necessary to give individuals the income to pay for them. These services would be freely available.
Housing is the main problem that has not been addressed. This should be provided on a decent basis instead of “homelessness shelters.”
perhaps let’s try/code money (any form of measuring/accounting/people telling other people what to do) as the planned obsolescence.. where legit needs are met w/o money.. till people forget about measuring..ie: sabbatical ish transition
________
_______
_______
_______
________
_______
be you. 