理查德·沃爾夫——揭穿美國破產神話

邁克爾·哈德森、理查德·沃爾夫——揭穿美國破產神話

2024 年 9 月 15 日
https://braveneweurope.com/michael-hudson-richard-d-wolff-debunking-u-s-bankruptcy-myths

NIMA：很高興再次邀請到你、邁克爾和理查德參加這個播客。讓我們從美國經濟的現狀開始。問題是，邁克爾，對你來說，美國是否正在迅速走向破產？
邁克爾·哈德森：自奧巴馬以來，共和黨和現在的民主黨一直試圖恐嚇選民，讓他們支持對社會保障的攻擊，試圖通過他讚助的右翼國會委員會將其私有化，關於聯邦債務以及預算赤字如何迫使我們做出艱難選擇的欺騙性言論層出不窮，這對人民來說是艱難的，90% 的人口將因為民主黨和共和黨都想削減的開支而失去社會支出、社會保障和其他基本政府計劃。

今天導致破產的真正問題是私人債務。政府債務破產完全沒有問題。政府不會破產。他們總是可以印錢。在很多情況下，破產可能是一件非常好的事情，最明顯的是學生債務。

如果允許私人債務人做幾乎所有其他個人能夠對學生債務人做的事情，公司和金融機構能夠做的事情，那麽學生債務人就可以通過宣布破產來應對他們的學生債務。也就是說，我們沒有足夠的錢來償還我們背負的學生債務。

但喬·拜登領導了一場防止學生債務受到破產宣告的鬥爭，從而造成了我們今天麵臨的不公平的學生債務危機，使學生成為整個美國經濟中唯一無法通過破產來消除債務並擺脫困境的群體。

借口是，我們需要為政府預算提供資金。否則，我們將增加政府債務。借口是，如果我們不讓學生償還學生債務，那麽政府就會破產。就好像政府破產就像個人破產一樣。

嗯，拜登提到這一切的主要原因是政府需要錢，這基本上就是在說，不，我們必須讓政府避免導致債務的赤字。

沒有提到對富人的減稅或不平等的稅收，也沒有提到任何關於任何收入超過 12 萬美元的人不需要為他們的社會保障支付任何增加的收入的事實。這些都由收入低於 12 萬美元的人支付給他們。這些都不在討論範圍內。

好吧，我想從正確的角度來看待這個債務問題。為了做到這一點，我認為有必要從資產負債表的角度來思考。不管怎樣，這都是一個誰欠誰的問題。美國政府欠誰的債？

我想明確兩點，這兩點應該在任何討論開始時就提出來。首先，沒有人會因為負債而陷入困境。問題是，如果你無法償還債務，就必須償還債務並支付其持有費用。

我稍後會解釋，政府沒有意願或可能性償還大部分外債。

因此，第二點是首先要認識到，一方的債務是另一方的資產。政府債務是大多數經濟體的首選資產。

那麽，讓我們看看誰持有政府債務作為資產。好吧，鑒於今天所有的悲觀言論，人們可能會驚訝地發現，美國債務可能是地球上最理想的金融資產。這就是為什麽美國最富有的階層擁有如此多的債務。

這是因為沒有人認為這筆債務必須以政府為代價來償還。這可能令人驚訝，但隻要你仔細想想，就很明顯了。

你口袋裏的紙幣從技術上講是政府債務。政府發行紙幣是為了資助某種支出。它發行紙幣，作為紙幣的持有者，持有者對政府擁有財務債權。

所以各位觀眾，如果你口袋裏有政府的貨幣，從財務角度來說，你就是政府的債權人。這實際上使你成為整個社會的債權人。

你不認為自己是債權人，因為它沒有那麽金融化。但從技術上講，如果你看看政府的資產負債表，資產必須等於債務。這就是它平衡的原因。所以左邊是政府債務，右邊是資產。紙幣占了很大一部分。

如果政府償還這些紙幣，大概是給你一些回報，那就沒有紙幣了。所以

當然，政府不會支付這些紙幣。

你會想到錢被花在購買東西上，尤其是小額購買。這是在雜貨店或類似的場所。但實際上，大多數美國貨幣都是以 100 美元鈔票的形式持有的，而且數額很大。它們通常被打包成大捆，用收縮膜包裝起來，被拍到從美國飛機運出，然後支付給我們收買的獨裁者、盜賊和政客。

大多數 100 美元鈔票和大多數美國貨幣不是美國人持有的。而是外國人持有的。通常的說法是，如果人們生活在像阿根廷這樣貨幣疲軟的國家，他們會把錢放在床墊裏。

但當然，擁有這些收縮膜包裝的 100 美元鈔票的人不需要把它放在床墊裏。他們有各種各樣的儲藏室。

因此，這些美國債務是世界大部分盜賊統治者的儲蓄，也是那些試圖將美國視為比他們擁有的貨幣更安全的人們的儲蓄。他們對美國紙幣的信任度肯定高於對自己外幣的信任度。這些錢是用來儲蓄的，而不是用來消費的。

那麽，第二類美國債務有點像這樣。這是外國中央銀行持有的債務。這是他們的外匯儲備。你可以在《財政部公報》上查看。每個月，《財政部公報》都會列出美國債務的所有者，以及美國國債的所有者。

那麽，外國中央銀行擁有很大一部分，有時是整個新發行外債的三分之一，尤其是在幾十年前軍費開支很高的時候。這就是美元本位的本質，我稱之為美國國庫券本位。

自 1971 年尼克鬆總統停止用黃金支付赤字以來，外國中央銀行除了美元之外，實際上沒有其他國際資產可以持有。因此，戴高樂將軍和法國人不再能夠用 20 世紀 60 年代美國在越南和東南亞的支出獲得的美元購買黃金，而現在他們隻能購買美國國債。

外國政府持有的這些國債是為了彌補美國的預算赤字，而這主要是美國軍費開支的結果，美國在世界各地建立了 800 個軍事基地，包圍了其他國家，迫使它們不要放棄美元本位，但他們卻在為自己的包圍和美國針對這些國家的軍事建設提供資金。

這使得美國對外國中央銀行的外債成為免費午餐。美國可以隨心所欲地花這些錢。它所花掉的美元最終流入了歐洲和中國的外國中央銀行。

外國中央銀行別無選擇，除非他們利用這些美元流入購買黃金或其他東西。當然，如果他們這樣做，美國就會宣布他們是試圖去美元化的敵人，並實質上向他們宣戰。

好吧，這頓免費午餐是沒人指望能償還的。美國無法創造足夠的國際收支盈餘來償還它欠德國、法國、中國、俄羅斯和日本的所有證券。所以它不會償還他們。

如果一個國家說，我們想像俄羅斯那樣去美元化，美國就會沒收 3000 億美元的俄羅斯資金，並將其支付給烏克蘭人，利息也支付給烏克蘭人，以幫助攻擊俄羅斯，防止它走上這條路。

好吧，讓我來解釋一下這個係統是如何運作的。假設你去，你可以做美國所做的事情，但規模要小得多。假設你去雜貨店購買食物和其他家居用品。當收銀員打印出你的 30 美元收據時，你簽了一張欠條，欠條 30 美元，並寫上你的名字。嗯，這不是信用卡。那隻是你給商店或任何應該持有這張欠條的人寫了一張紙條，一張簽名的紙條，欠條 30 美元。那麽，經理會出來問你，我該怎麽處理這張欠條？你可以告訴他們，你可以用這張 30 美元的欠條支付你從他們那裏購買農產品的人，你知道，他們正在運送牛奶，你知道，部分支付支票，並給他們我的欠條，讓它流通，它會流通，每個人都會像交易美元鈔票或銀行支票一樣交易它。這是他們資產的一部分。

嗯，顯然這不是你和其他個人的世界運作方式，但這是國際金融體係的運作方式。當美國在國外花錢時，軍事開支是美國國際收支赤字的主要類別，向世界經濟注入了美元，這些美元的外國接收者會將這些美元交給他們的中央銀行以換取本國貨幣，因為他們以本國貨幣經營業務或其他業務。

然後中央銀行

這些美元，就是他們所謂的國際外匯儲備或主權財富基金，並投資於美國國庫券。

1974 年石油戰爭爆發時，歐佩克國家將石油價格翻了兩番，他們被告知，你可以為石油收取任何價格，但你必須保留你所有的儲蓄，你從石油中獲得的所有收入，你必須以美元保留。我們不會讓你購買美國公司，但你可以購買股票和債券，但基本上你必須把錢存入美國銀行購買國庫券。你根本不能花掉它。你隻能用它。如果你不這樣做，我們會將其視為戰爭行為。

因此，外國將這些未動用的美元收入計為貨幣儲備，就像商店可能會將你的 30 美元計為其資產負債表上的資產的一部分一樣。我們有一項資產，它將列在他們的應收賬款或資產上。順便說一句，美國政府的搭便車行為導致其他國家想要去美元化。金磚國家正試圖這麽做。俄羅斯已經這麽做了。如果它持有任何美元證券，美國就會直接拿走。

中國擔心美國可能會像美國對俄羅斯所做的那樣，在某個時候直接拿走它所有的錢，但它希望以某種方式與美國成為朋友。

好吧，我們可以稍後討論這筆債務，但這並不是美國政府沒有理由償還的唯一債務。政府自己的美聯儲欠著一筆巨額且不斷增長的債務。

如果政府想把錢花在經濟上，它就要求美聯儲購買美國國債。因此，美聯儲擁有這些證券，銀行係統擁有美國證券作為其自身存款和貸款的支持和儲備。這就是銀行的運作方式，持有儲備。所以這部分美國債務也不應該償還。而且美國也絕不會破產。如果美國沒有任何債務，就不會有政府債務作為銀行儲備。美聯儲也就沒有存在的理由了。你可以看到問題所在。

所以，就像你口袋裏的紙幣一樣，美聯儲持有的其他債券，外國銀行持有的政府債務預計不會得到償還。我認為這種金融操縱表明，美國實際上並不需要借錢。它實際上可以印鈔。但當它印鈔時，它印的這些錢，就像發行紙幣一樣，它印的錢被算作對美聯儲的債務。所以這都是一場洗白交易，有點像債務不知何故陷入困境的假象。

好吧，如果我們能把所有這些類別的美國聯邦債務都處理掉，那麽最終，我們就有了大多數人想到的那種債務，即國債，即票據，由個人持有，尤其是最富有的人。最富有的投資者都持有大量美國證券或債券市場的資產，美國債務市場已經出現了大量湧入，投資者將美國債務視為避風港。

正如國會警告美國瀕臨破產一樣，華爾街、大型投資者和外國投資者也稱美元為避風港。這聽起來不像是破產。他們正在從股票和債券以及其他資產中撤出，轉而購買美國債務，因為隨著美國經濟變得更加脆弱和頭重腳輕，他們知道美國政府不會破產，因為它的債務全部以本國貨幣計價。它不欠必須印發的外幣債務。它擁有以本國貨幣計價的債務，並且可以印發任意數量的債務。

如果你去銀行或美聯儲說，這是我的 20 美元鈔票，我想把它兌換成錢，他們可以給你兩張 10 美元的鈔票，但這就是你所能得到的全部。

亞伯拉罕·林肯隻是通過印製美元來資助內戰，而美元在技術上是一種債務，這就是正在發生的事情。

盡管尼瑪提到的美國聯邦債務規模巨大，而且當金融天塌下來時，政府破產的警告聲也非常響亮，但國債被視為最受歡迎、最安全的資產。

中國官員告訴我，他們並不認為美元真的會貶值。他們正在減少美元持有量，轉而購買黃金和其他外幣，但他們仍然持有大量美元，因為他們預計美元基本上會保持強勢。

所以基本上，自 2008 年奧巴馬銀行救助計劃以來，美國最富有的 10% 人的財富大幅增加，這源於美國債務被拋入金融領域，並創造了曆史上最大的債券市場繁榮。

債券市場的繁榮隻惠及最富有的金融階層。

所以，底層 90% 人的工資水平和收入持平。對於前 10% 來說，收入一直在不斷上升。

全部

這是由政府債務融資的，將公司債券市場的股票變成了龐氏騙局。所以這是政府債務的光明麵，也是為什麽你不應該因為害怕而不得不解決它。所以我認為我們應該花幾分鍾討論一下為什麽人們會試圖用政府債務來嚇唬人們，他們的動機是什麽？

理查德·沃爾夫：是的，我想我可以在這方麵提供幫助，因為金融市場認為美元是最安全的地方或最安全的形式來持有你的財富，而考慮到世界運作的方式，美國政府的美元義務與美元義務之間並沒有矛盾。

換句話說，美國的地位正在下降，帝國正在分崩離析，但與你的替代方案相比，擁有私人資產的人以這種形式持有這些資產仍然是一個合乎邏輯的地方。這就是安全論點。

現在安全論點的另一部分還沒有說出來，但我現在要明確說明。

美元之所以安全，原因之一是，盡管美元在世界範圍內的影響力正在縮小，但目前中央銀行儲備中美元所占比例低於過去半個世紀以來的任何時候。我可以給出所有你想要的統計數據。為什麽美元仍然安全？

這是私人世界不言而喻的假設，我們將會看到這是合理的。假設是，盡管美國政府的債務水平很高，盡管其全球影響力正在縮小，但它有內部政治能力確保持有這些債務的人不會因這個問題的解決而受到任何損害。

換句話說，他們正在做的是，他們說你有能力把財富留在這裏，我們需要你這樣做，而作為交換，我們將這樣做。我們將確保那些將不得不為這一切付出代價的憤怒的人無法破壞它。

但這就是它的含義。假設，假設美國人民要求他們選出的代表，我們希望有退休的社會保障，這樣我們在 65 歲、66 歲或 67 歲時就可以期待退休生活。我們希望生活在一個尊重一生工作、不會讓你在年老時一貧如洗的社會。這似乎不是一個極端的要求。這是合理的。我們想要這個。

你知道我們還想要什麽嗎？我們希望從出生到死亡都有健康保險，就像世界上許多其他人一樣。

你知道我們還想要什麽嗎？我們想要免費的高等教育。我們希望大學像高中和小學一樣。這是我們作為一個社會為自己投資的東西，就像一個公共公園、一個海灘、一個州立保護區，你可以帶著家人去露營。我們希望像大多數歐洲國家已經為其人民提供的一樣，高等教育完全免費。沒有學費。不。我們想要那個。

好吧。因為我們生活在美國，所以答案是，哦，政府負擔不起。

等一下。你說政府負擔不起是什麽意思？政府目前正在支付，我不知道現在是多少，但目前國家債務的利息有六到八千億美元，預計未來兩三年還會更多，更多。

所以美國人民說，好吧，不要支付債務利息。就是這樣。那麽你現在有 8000 億美元，這遠遠超過了你給我們免費教育、免費醫療和我們剛剛要求的所有其他東西所需的金額。那就這樣做吧。我們選了你。那就這樣做吧。如果你不這樣做，我們就會罷免你，用願意這樣做的人來取代你。

哦天哪，世界上所有擁有債務的人都這麽說。

這是邁克爾提出的一個非常重要的觀點。對於每筆債務，都有人持有這筆債務，而這對他們來說是一項資產，他們想保護自己的資產。他們不希望美國政府停止支付債務利息。

因此，美國政府向他們承諾，雖然沒有明說，但非常真實，別擔心，我們將削減對美國人民的一切，以保護你們的利益，讓你們償還你們所擁有和投資的債務。你們這些歐洲富人，你們這些世界各地的君主，剝削自己的人民，並將其投資於美元。是的，是的，是的。我們會保護你們，你們沒有選舉我們，但卻資助我們。我們會欺騙美國人民，因為你們選舉我們，卻沒有資助我們。

好吧，這就是交易。沒有人會這樣對你說。這就是為什麽在談話中，金錢比其他任何事情都更容易讓人感到困惑。

我們被告知，天哪，我們必須削減公共服務，這樣我們才不會搞砸預算。

等一下，傑克。你不必削減公共服務。你隻需要停止支付利息。哦，是的，但是

那麽人們就不會借錢給我們了。沒錯。然後你該怎麽辦？你必須向富人征稅，因為除非你想賣掉大西洋和太平洋，否則就什麽都沒有了。然後就會有關於誰得到這些錢的爭議。

不，不，你希望事情保持原樣。這是一個由富人發展起來、為富人服務的製度。現在的情況太糟糕了，你需要無休止地談論金錢和其他人們一生都困惑不解的事情。

人們有時會像我一樣提到迄今為止對資本主義最偉大的批評者，在這一點上，我會忍耐一下。我希望我們能有更好的批評者。但到目前為止，是老家夥卡爾·馬克思。他年輕時寫過，如果我沒記錯的話，那是他 20 多歲，也許是 30 多歲，但他是一個非常年輕的人。

他寫了一篇短文，大約 10 頁，名為《資產階級社會中的金錢力量》。難以置信。其中一半引用了德國作家歌德和英國巨匠莎士比亞的名言。他引用了很長的篇幅。他自己的評論占了文章的一半。其他是歌德和莎士比亞的名言。

在那裏，他抓住了金錢的整個奧秘，以及為什麽它一直讓人們感到困惑，以及其中的利害關係。這很了不起。他繼續批評資本主義，因為他明白，資本主義的保存需要像金錢這樣絕對核心的東西被完全神秘化，否則它的功能就無法真正被理解。

邁克爾剛剛做的是給你上了一堂速成課，讓你揭開這一切的神秘麵紗。當美國政府，即財政部，發行債務，即政府欠你的錢的借據時，它會將其中的很大一部分賣給另一個部門，即政府。這個另一個部門叫做美聯儲。

它有權印鈔票，夥計們。這就是它所做的。它印鈔票，並用印出的錢購買政府另一部分的債務。好吧，這很奇怪。你應該馬上明白這很奇怪。難怪它讓人們感到困惑。

但這隻是它一半的目的。你知道，在過去，統治者會在需要的時候印鈔票，用於購買新馬車、新宮殿、新戰爭。然後人們就會緊張起來。天哪，他在印鈔票。

[30:23]
所以我們成立了一個叫做中央銀行的特別委員會。它應該由非常聰明的男人和女人組成。好吧，公平地說，在整個資本主義曆史中，它都是非常聰明的男人。即使是現在，女人也很少。它的工作是充當中間人，確保所有這些都完成。什麽？所有這些都像往常一樣神秘莫測。

隻是現在這有點令人費解，因為在印鈔的政府和我們其他人之間，我們插入了一個中央銀行，它本應讓我們感覺好很多，盡管我們從邁克爾之前提到的文件中知道，我們政府借的債務中有多少是從它自己借的，從城裏另一個辦公室的另一部分借的，而這個辦公室實際上是在印鈔。

現在，如果你覺得這一切都令人非常放心，那麽這個係統就起作用了。如果你看透了，你可能就是一個共產主義者。

邁克爾·赫德森：好吧，理查德提到了“利息”這個神奇的詞。雖然我們都同意債務不是問題，但如果你看看年度預算，問題在於不斷上升的利率，即相對於政府收入的利息支付。

理查德非常正確地指出，由於美聯儲近幾個月將利率從每年僅 0.1% 提高到 4.5% 至 5%，利息正在上升。突然之間，這意味著預算中將有巨額利息支出，這將增加預算赤字的規模。

你知道，我一開始就說過，沒有人會因為借債而破產，但當他們必須償還債務甚至支付債務的利息時，他們就會破產。

利息就是債務。政府支付給自己的利息，美聯儲，奧巴馬領導下的美聯儲表示，美聯儲從政府獲得的所有利息現在都可以支付給銀行。他們可以免費從美聯儲借款，也可以將自己的存款存回銀行，獲得美聯儲從政府那裏獲得的利息。

這是奧巴馬最大的騙局，是曆史上最右翼、最惡毒的金融扭曲。金融市場完全沒有注意到這一點，隻有那些非常、非常了解金融的人才會注意到。

但你現在會發現，而且你已經從拜登政府那裏聽到了關於這一點的口頭聲明，如果我們要增加利息支付，我們就必須有奧巴馬試圖與他任命的共和黨主導的委員會一起創建的平衡預算修正案，以試圖通過憲法

最後修正案規定政府必須平衡預算，這樣債務就不會再增加。

好吧，讓我們看看如果奧巴馬民主黨的這項政策真的實施會發生什麽。如果政府必須避免出現赤字，但要支付每個民主國家都必須支付的緊急支出，那麽你必須將現在 40% 以上的預算用於軍事，因為如果不支持烏克蘭和中東的法西斯主義，你怎麽能在不支持烏克蘭對俄羅斯的戰爭、不對中國和中東國家宣戰的情況下促進民主呢？

除了軍事之外，你還必須支付持有政府債務的 10% 的富人和銀行。好吧，這真的沒有留下多少社會支出。最容易取消的是社會保障、醫療補助、聯邦政府對城市的補助和援助。

這就是卡馬拉·哈裏斯承諾如果有一個民主政府要做的事情，如果特朗普當選總統，他可能也會這樣做。

這是已經計劃了 20 年的大規模緊縮，計劃將社會支出從政府手中奪走，並將其私有化。那麽，他們要做什麽呢？

他們不會簡單地說，我們不會支付社會保障金，因為這是政府已經確定的合同義務。但他們說的是，我們要做的就是接管社會保障基金，並向貝萊德和其他資金管理公司提供政府補助，以龐大的私有化共同基金的形式管理社會保障金，就像華爾街管理的馬來西亞主權財富基金，被金融經理人非法掠奪一樣。

這就是金融經理人所做的事情。這就是高盛被刑事起訴的原因，因為它從馬來西亞主權財富基金中挪用了數十億美元，而這些資金原本應該由它作為受托人來管理。

他們想用所有的社會保障基金來做這件事，他們想把這些錢，也就是你每個月支付的社會保障政府資金，以及將要存入共同基金的錢，用於購買美國股票和債券。

金融部門說，如果我們能做到這一點，就會產生巨大的股市泡沫。轟。因為看，所有這些錢，不是支付給政府來資助戰爭支出和政府的其他支出，而是現在花在股市上。

謝天謝地，現在股市的債務杠杆率過高。它幾乎破產了，我們把過去支付給政府的錢交給共同基金，投入股市，把股市龐氏騙局從破產邊緣拯救了出來。

然後在某個時候，預測者和大型資金管理基金會說，你知道，這真的不會成功。

他們會出售所有股票，讓股東承擔全部責任，就像他們在 18 世紀 20 年代的南海泡沫和密西西比泡沫中所做的那樣。財富就是這樣產生的。你製造一個泡沫，你動員公眾相信如果你加入這個泡沫，這個泡沫會以某種方式為你賺錢。然後你賣掉股票，讓他們承擔全部責任，任由它崩盤。這就是民主黨和共和黨共同計劃在下屆政府中實施的計劃，如果他們能做到的話。

理查德·沃爾夫：他們會把整個事情，或者至少是其中很大一部分，包裝成社會保障體係的改革。這就是這個騙局的運作方式。

我知道你們中的許多人在觀看這個節目時，會因為你們讀到的關於社會保障體係的新聞報道中的各種片段而擔心或思考這個問題。這就是騙局的運作方式。

第一，你要發出警報。這就是警報。社會保障體係的資金即將耗盡。我們沒有足夠的錢。然後你會聽到一位博學的教授，可悲的是，是我們中的一員，站起來說，人口正在老齡化。哦，我們真是天才。人口正在老齡化。所以你看，越來越多的老年人從社會保障體係中提取養老金，而年輕人則在每周的支票扣除中將錢存入養老金體係。這個算術是正確的。結論是荒謬的。

社會保障要麽是，要麽不是社會對自己的承諾。我們要尊重那些終生工作的人，無論是在工廠、辦公室、商店還是在家裏，養育孩子等等？我們要尊重這些人，給他們一個體麵、安全的退休生活嗎？還是我們要把他們扔進垃圾桶？

這告訴你很多關於一個社會的情況，它的發展方向。你現在在世界各地都可以看到這一點。

如果你想支持老年人

作為一個有道德或倫理的社區，作為一名經濟學家，我向你保證，我們並不缺乏資金來做到這一點。完全沒有問題。

但社會保障不是這樣運作的。社會保障的運作方式是從人們的支票中扣除錢，一直持有這些錢直到他們 60 歲，然後支付他們餘生的養老金。

每個人都知道這就是這個製度，因為從 20 世紀 30 年代開始，這個製度就一直存在，當時憤怒的美國工人階級通過動員勞工運動，首次獲得了我們曆史上的社會保障，兩個社會主義政黨和共產黨共同努力，從當時的總統富蘭克林·羅斯福那裏獲得了這項保障。事情就是這樣發生的。

現在，問題的第一部分是，我們是否從每個人的支票中扣除錢？答案是，不，我們從來沒有這樣做過。我們隻從掙工資的人那裏扣除支票。

等一下，難道沒有人從他們收到的利息、股息、資本收益中賺取收入嗎？是的。

從這些收入中扣除多少用於社會保障？答案是沒有。什麽？是的。美國最富有的人如何持有他們的財富？通過股票、債券和現金，產生利息、股息和資本收益。

因此，最富有的人以社會保障免征養老金稅的形式擁有大部分財富。

你知道這叫什麽嗎？可怕的不公正。這就是所謂的。擁有最多錢的人被免除為體麵的社會為自己做的事情做出貢獻。

哇，這就像在一個社區裏有幹淨的水，由社區精心清潔和維護，除了富人之外，整個社區都要為此付費。他們可以喝幹淨的水，而且根本不用付錢。為什麽？嗯，因為他們有錢。等一下，什麽？是的，等一下，什麽？

你應該感到疑惑，但情況比這更糟。事實證明，並非所有的工資和薪金都要納稅。隻有第一筆，我想現在是每年 160,000 美元，差不多這個數額。這很好，我們中的大多數人都是這樣。

但你知道誰又可以免稅嗎？賓果，你猜對了，超級富豪，那些收入超過 160,000 美元的人。這就是它的運作方式，朋友們。每個人每年賺到的前 160,000 美元都要支付相同的百分比。超過 160,000 美元的每一美元，都不會扣繳社會保障，也不會扣除社會保障。

所以，如果你是一名公司高管，你賺了一百萬、兩百萬、六百萬、一千二百萬或二十百萬，所有超過 160,000 美元的金額，你就不需要投入我們老年人的養老金池。你是免稅的。

為什麽？因為你有錢。這就是你獲得豁免的原因。不是你知道什麽，不是你做什麽，不是你是誰，不是你如何為社區服務，不是，不是，不是，不是，不是。隻是因為你有錢，這就是原因。

難以置信，不公平，荒謬，現在到了最好的部分。你怎麽能解決這個問題？好吧，我立刻就給了你答案。你可以對利息、資本收益和股息征稅。對它們征收社會保障稅，問題就解決了。沒有警報，社會保障也不會缺錢，在本世紀不會。

還有另一個。對所有收入、工資和薪金征稅，而不僅僅是 160,000，一直向上。看看伊隆·馬斯克要付多少錢。這就是美妙之處，他必須支付數百萬，但他不會注意到。

但我們這樣做了嗎？不，不，不。我們今天允許數百萬美國人，我說的是幾百萬，幾百萬。我們任由他們為是否要靠社會保障生活、還能享受多久而憂心忡忡。明年、兩年、六年後社會保障會減少嗎？既然他們已經無法靠社會保障給他們的那點微薄收入生活，那麽他們現在應該如何處理儲蓄和養老金問題？

那些足夠聰明的人知道，過去 10 年裏，社會保障並沒有像通貨膨脹那樣大幅上漲，因此，就其可負擔購買的東西而言，現在它的價值實際上比過去更低。

拋開所有這些不談，我們為億萬富翁們節省了大量他們不會注意到損失的錢，而不是為數百萬受苦受難的人做點什麽。這種鐵石心腸讓任何對大蕭條前美國的描述都相形見絀。

因此，這些債務問題、這些政府財政問題，它們直接進入人們的視野，不僅成為一種解謎，試圖解釋正在發生的事情，邁克爾做得很好，而且它們也直接影響到你的個人生活。

如果你還不是擔心退休的老人，我想提醒你，現在三分之一的美國人都在擔心退休，但即使你不屬於這個群體，你知道你是誰嗎？這些人的孩子。

如果他們得不到社會保障，他們就會來

和你說話，因為你是他們的孩子，他們需要你的幫助。你會想這樣做，這會阻礙你的經濟發展。

這就是正在發生的事情。一個萎縮的經濟，一個衰落的帝國，是由一群處於頂層的人管理的，他們正在做我們都期望他們做的事情。他們將衰落帝國的成本轉嫁到社會等級製度中處於他們之下的人身上，那就是你和我。

無論是削減社會保障，還是削減大學資金，還是不允許大學生像邁克爾所說的那樣去破產法庭尋求救濟，就像我們允許所有其他私人債務人那樣，不要被愚弄。

他們會在損害讓他們成為世界上最富有的人的核心之前削減其他所有人。操縱貨幣體係是垂死帝國的精英們再堅持幾年的可靠方法。

邁克爾·哈德森：理查德剛才說的話聽起來太激進了，簡直就是烏托邦。但他對富人征收更多稅的想法，比 1913 年美國最初的所得稅更不具有進步性。

當所得稅首次立法時，隻有 1% 的美國人需要繳納所得稅。這是因為隻有收入超過一定數額（大約是正常工資的 10 倍）的人才需要繳納所得稅。

因此，繳納所得稅的人是大型企業投資者、大型房地產所有者和大型金融家。工人、工薪階層根本不需要繳納所得稅。他們免稅。

在短短 100 多年的時間裏，經濟運作的敘述發生了如此大的改變，以至於人們不記得最初的所得稅應該是累進的，並且實際上能夠通過這些條款為美國參加第一次世界大戰提供資金，這些條款隻對所謂的食利者收入、租金接受者和金融投資者征稅。

當時，在那之後，從 20 世紀 20 年代開始，金融業和它所保護的行業，房地產業、保險業、壟斷企業，開始反擊。他們的計劃是將經濟金融化。

他們在 20 世紀 50 年代初取得了巨大成功，當時他們提出了企業養老金計劃的想法。企業養老金計劃被描述為，現在勞動力是資本家的縮影。我們用股票支付工人工資，這樣工人就可以真正擁有他們公司的股票，把股票投入股市。

有兩種養老金計劃。一種是讓他們成為自己公司的共同所有者。這樣你就會讓工人擁有越來越多的股票，例如《芝加哥論壇報》，這是芝加哥的右翼共和黨報紙。

最後，一旦養老金繳款和股票持有量足夠高，論壇報就會被一位金融家接管，他沒收了自 1950 年代以來工人以論壇報股票形式持有的所有儲蓄，並用這些儲蓄來償還借錢給他購買芝加哥論壇報的銀行。

對於其他人的養老金計劃來說，這基本上意味著，好吧，我們將把你的養老金放在一邊，股市將會增長。這意味著把錢投入股市、投資銀行和資金管理基金，就創建了一個完整的金融體係。

假設你在一家公司工作，它剝削你，欺騙你，但公司說，好吧，想想看，你剝削了工人。你的錢是儲蓄，養老金儲蓄存入了我們的公司。所以想想我們剝削你賺了多少養老金。

嗯，這就是整個經濟範圍內發生的事情。通過投資養老金而不是按現收現付製，而不是像許多歐洲國家那樣將養老金作為公共義務，養老金被金融化到股票市場。

現在，你有像加州公共退休儲蓄基金（CalPERS）這樣的養老金計劃。美國各地的養老基金都迫切希望將他們的錢交給私人資本家，承諾通過收購公司、縮小規模、削減勞動力、榨取更多資金並留下破產空殼來獲得巨額快速收益。

因此，將錢存入養老金計劃的工業雇員正在為經濟的去工業化而不是工業化提供資金。這就是政治家捐助者希望看到的計劃，以同樣的方式轉化為如何處理社會保障。

問題是，金融化和金融資本主義與 19 世紀不僅馬克思而且其他人所描述的工業資本主義正好相反。

理查德·沃爾夫：是的，如果我要扮演激進的角色，我想說的是，資本主義認為利潤是底線。我認識的美國各地商學院的同事們，他們是我的朋友，他們總是

告訴我，他們給學生的基本信息是，如果你想創業，就去勞動力便宜、市場不斷增長的地方。

他們說非常好，他們對老師說，非常感謝。我會從中國向你們匯報，因為我要去中國，因為那裏的工資低，市場是世界上最大的，而且增長速度比其他國家都快。所以我應該去哪裏是顯而易見的。待會兒見。你們被困在芝加哥、辛辛那提或其他地方。我要去北京或上海。我知道你們教我應該去哪裏。

如果你不喜歡資本主義的結果??，即世界一個又一個地方的去工業化，那就來吧，讓我們記住，曾幾何時，資本主義是我們在新英格蘭慶祝的。然後它離開了，你知道，它去了中西部、俄亥俄州、賓夕法尼亞州和威斯康星州。你知道到今天新英格蘭還剩下什麽嗎？那些工廠，四五層樓高，漂亮的長磚建築，現在到處都是藝術家工作室、陶器店和瑜伽課。因為這些空置的工廠隻能容納這些。

現在我們叫什麽中西部？我們稱它為美國的鏽帶，因為它被遺棄了。資本主義拋棄了新英格蘭，去了中西部，又拋棄了中西部，去了南方，去了西方，然後可以預見的是，你不需要在這裏當算命師，他們為什麽要留在美國境內？

他們最終決定，等一下，同樣的邏輯，這樣更有利可圖，我們可以迫使我們還沒有去的國家競標我們去那裏，從而利用利潤機製為他們的世界帶來就業機會。我們準備好了。我們準備好去中國了。我們準備好去月球了。

資本主義，資本主義總是有這樣有趣的地方。當它成長、擴張、發現一些東西時，它希望你看到好的一麵。隻要你不忘記它也有不好的地方，這些都很好。

你知道，我們活著，生活很美好，但我們也會死。這是我們存在的另一部分。資本主義拋棄了我們。

你想去一個資本主義拋棄的地方嗎？去英格蘭吧。去歐洲的工業中心吧。現在，歐洲到處都有法西斯主義的種子。在哪裏？在廢棄的地區，工業已經不複存在，而工業曾經存在。

夥計們，這就是這裏正在發生的事情的現實。利潤動機既是建設者，也是殺手。如果允許我再引用馬克思在《資本論》第一卷開頭的話，他說，是的，資本主義，他說，是巨大財富的不斷生產者和再生產者。

不幸的是，他補充說，它同樣是巨大貧困的生產者和再生產者。一個是另一個的另一麵，這就是這個係統的問題所在。這就是為什麽我們可以做得更好。

我們所說的一切都是為了說明，在組織經濟方麵，資本主義經濟無疑取得了成就。但我們生活在一個廣告社會，我並不是在誇獎他們。

在廣告中，請注意一點。客戶付錢給廣告商，讓他們隻說客戶的好話，無論是真實的還是虛構的，但他們有一個共同點，都是好的。

他們隱藏了什麽？所有不好的東西。這是一種與人交流的方式，與我們小時候被告知的完全不同，你必須看到優點和缺點。你必須權衡利弊。你必須為理解你生活的世界做出平衡的貢獻。

不，不，不，不，不。廣告給你的是一個精心構建的、不平衡的觀點。

你會從民主黨那裏聽到關於卡瑪拉·哈裏斯的美好事物，僅此而已。特朗普先生會說很多關於特朗普的精彩事情，僅此而已。

他們會允許自己把斑馬糞便放在另一個上麵。這就是廣告心態。資本主義給我們的禮物是廣告業，它破壞了整個說話和語言的過程。

這意味著邁克爾和我所做的一半，以及尼瑪擅長組織的事情，是去神秘化，試圖恢複某種類似於經濟體係平衡感的東西，這樣我們就可以做有創造力的人類一直在做的事情，比他們出生在體係中時發現的更好。

這就是我們在這裏要做的一切。我們可以做得比資本主義更好，我們應該停止不吸取這個教訓。

邁克爾·哈德森：所以我們談論的是一個敘述。如果你能看透……

當你聽到一個敘述，比如政府破產了，或者我們必須平衡預算，他們想讓你做什麽？如今，你聽到的任何說法，當然是政客的說法，都是為了塑造你對經濟運作方式和你在其中的地位的看法，讓你去做和支持某項政策。而這些政策是由人民買單的

支持這種敘事的人。

正如理查德剛才所說，我們試圖提出一種不同的敘事，因為沒有人付錢給我們。事實證明，你為敘事獲得的報酬越少，它就越糟糕。

理查德·沃爾夫：是的，沒錯。你被收買得越少，你就越不會為了賺錢而放棄你正在做的其他事情，放棄你的享受、你的快樂、你的希望、你的夢想。一切都妨礙你實現你最好的一麵，因為它質疑或威脅你的生存，這太可怕了。

這是一個非凡的體係。它一直存在，並憑借這一點取得了如此多的成就。但它現在已經完了。我認為它無法挽救了。我和其他人一樣不知道它會首先在哪裏崩潰，如何崩潰，崩潰的速度有多快，這些都不知道。我無法預測未來。

但我很清楚，傳統真理的影響力每天都在一點點減弱。我個人也堅持這一點，將其作為我所做事情的基礎。我認為這也是邁克爾和尼瑪等人的動力。正是這種感覺讓我們必須做點什麽，而這正是我們可以做的。

我們可以說，看，世界並不像主流媒體所報道的那樣。讓我們向你展示這可以幫助你獲得哪些非凡的見解，它們可以讓你的生活變得更好。

尼瑪：是的。理查德，我們這裏有一些觀眾提出的問題。你可以回答。其中一個問題就是針對你的，理查德。

它說，如果政府隨意印鈔，那麽為什麽他們還需要向公眾征稅？

邁克爾·哈德森：說得好。

理查德·沃爾夫：是的。讓人們理解這一點非常非常重要。理查德，這就是問題所在。你可以在屏幕上看到。如果政府印鈔。

有很多原因。就像社會中做出的所有重大決策一樣，特別是如果這些決策持續一段時間，就像這個決策一樣，政府長期以來一直在征稅和印鈔。這絕不是什麽新鮮事。

有些形式是新的，但這兩種現象非常古老。好嗎？

其中一個原因是資本主義的方式，特別是——

它比這更古老，但資本主義的運作方式，你有一個荒謬的，我的意思是，荒謬的情況。你可以把任何資本主義國家的人口分成兩類，一邊是公司和富人，另一邊是其他人。10%、90%，無論你想要什麽，你想怎麽做。

好吧，現在我們開始。這兩個群體，頂層的人和其他所有人，都希望得到政府的服務。企業希望政府保護他們的財富、自由、利潤，並提高利潤，在需要時給予補貼，確保他們生產的產品的國外市場，確保他們生產的產品的廉價外國投入來源。他們有一長串希望政府做的事情。

而人民大眾，為了便於討論，也列出了他們的清單。他們想要公共教育、醫療保健、良好的道路。企業也想要這些，他們想要有人照顧嬰兒和遊泳池，等等。好嗎？這就是他們所有人想要的。

現在的問題是，這些錢怎麽付？他們希望政府來做，政府怎麽來做？在這裏我們可以清楚地看到，企業和富人希望政府做很多事情，但他們不想為此付錢。

而人民大眾希望政府做很多事情，但他們不想為此付錢。好吧，如果沒人付錢，你就得不到它。

那麽我們有什麽呢？我們有一個係統，在這個係統中，我們告訴大眾，每個人都必須支付他們應得的份額，所以我們有一個稅收係統。非常古老。我們都將從政府正在做的事情中受益，至少我們口頭上支持這個想法。所以我們都必須做出貢獻，好嗎？我們有一個稅收係統。

好吧，但是上層人士與我們其他人不同，他們有錢，他們有能力做比“想要”更多的事情。他們可以實現它。這就是成為公司首席執行官、董事會成員或擁有 10 億美元財富的意義。

你有能力做事，那麽你會做什麽？你安排降低稅收，特別是對你、對公司和富人的稅收。所以你把稅收負擔推到中層和底層。但超過某個點，事情就會變得富有創造力，超過某個點，大多數人就無法再做事了。記住，他們是拿工資的人，超過某個點，就會發生稅收起義。每個國家都發生過。我們也發生過。記住，幾十年前始於加州，席卷全國。稅收起義。

好吧，高層人士現在意識到我們必須玩一場遊戲。我們宣布減稅，我們可能

我確信每個人都會得到一點減稅。你知道，你們減稅 5%，你們減稅 10%，我們減稅 40%。哦，我們得到了這樣的減稅。

最好的例子就是特朗普先生在 2017 年實現的減稅。如果你想稱其為唯一的經濟創新，那就是特朗普先生通過的。他的四年無所作為，空洞無用，我知道拜登先生也抄襲了，但盡管如此，這些國家都是相互競爭的親資本主義國家。所以他通過 2017 年的減稅促進了這一點。

現在到了最有創意的部分。當你對每個人減稅時，告訴人們你可以用更少的錢做更多的事情，你知道，你是在削減政府的開支，就好像當你減稅時，它不會對你所能提供的服務產生影響。也許這欺騙了人們。然後你說，好吧，但這裏有一個更簡單的事情。

我們不用納稅，而是借錢。這不是很棒嗎？我們可以給你們想要的東西。我們給你們公司想要的東西。我們會給你們大眾想要的東西。我們不會向你們征稅，因為你們不想要。我們會借錢。這不是很棒嗎？

太棒了，隻要你們不明白邁克爾剛剛花了將近一個小時解釋的內容。政府從誰那裏借錢？他講過。政府從個人那裏借錢。當然，誰？最富有的人。你知道你怎麽知道隻有最富有的人？因為有多少次政府官員到你家裏或辦公室來找你，和你談論向政府提供巨額貸款？

答案是，這在你的生活中從未發生過。那是因為你不算數。你不重要。政府隻從富人、其他國家或自己的中央銀行借錢。這就是政府借款的方式，這對富人來說很棒，因為他們可以避免納稅，但他們不用納稅，而是把錢作為貸款給政府，政府先付給他們利息，然後再償還。

這被稱為輕而易舉，但如果這對富人來說是輕而易舉的，那麽對我們其他人來說，這也是另一種輕而易舉的。

你必須沒有腦子才能接受這樣的製度。這種騙局就像以 18.95 美元的價格賣給你布魯克林大橋一樣荒唐。如果當有人向你推銷這種騙局時你無法識別，那麽也許在某個地方、以某種方式、在另一個宇宙中，你真的應該得到你所得到的懲罰。

這是一個由上層人士設計的係統，為他們服務。我不是指美國體製，也不是指資本主義體製，因為這種遊戲以各種形式在各地重演。

這就是為什麽我們中的一些人批評資本主義。是的。

NIMA：那麽讓我們用最新消息來結束本次會議，我發給你的 Ted Postal 文章鏈接正在討論美國考慮核武器的新戰略。他們說這是一種先發製人的戰略。

但是，拋開核彈這一部分不談，你認為這種戰略與經濟、美國與俄羅斯和中國之間正在進行的經濟戰爭之間有什麽聯係嗎？你認為這兩個討論之間有什麽聯係嗎？一方麵是軍事方麵，另一方麵是經濟方麵。

邁克爾·哈德森：在冷戰期間，美國曾希望通過大量軍備支出讓俄羅斯破產，他們認為這迫使俄羅斯不得不進行與本國軍備支出相當的支出。

他們認為這會推翻蘇聯，因為他們的經濟盈餘不如我們，這將迫使他們壓縮經濟，引起公眾不滿，包括他們自己共產黨員隊伍的不滿，這隻會打擊他們的士氣。因此，如果我們能夠增加支出，迫使其他國家花錢，理論上他們的人民就會起義，投票給其他人當權。

這正是北約在 2022 年的想法，當時它不斷加強對講俄語的烏克蘭人的攻擊，並盡一切可能挑起俄羅斯的戰爭。

再次強調，他們的想法是，如果他們能夠迫使俄羅斯抵製北約對烏克蘭東部俄語區頓涅茨克和盧甘斯克平民的襲擊，那麽俄羅斯首先將不得不將其收入轉用於戰爭開支，無法實現工業化，無法在工業化方麵更加自給自足；其次，由於俄羅斯士兵將陣亡，美國國家民主基金會和其他宣傳組織、俄羅斯的非政府組織將能夠試圖煽動民眾的不滿情緒，顯然這沒有奏效，但這就是計劃。

所以當你提出一個建議，你剛才所做的，這個巨大的

核武器開支的增加，首先，這對美國的軍事工業綜合體來說是一筆意外之財，因為美國的大部分核武器在過去 50 年裏都沒有經過清理和整修。

有一個問題，它們還能用嗎？我們必須把它們拆開再修理嗎？我們是否需要新技術來投資美國，以跟上俄羅斯的高超音速導彈和其他技術？

事實證明，美國用軍事開支讓俄羅斯破產的計劃適得其反。它威脅要用軍事開支讓美國破產，而所有這些的敘述都是我們開場時所構建的。

敘述是，為了負擔得起這筆威脅炸毀世界並重新開始文明的軍事開支，為了為此提供資金，我們必須削減社會保障和社會支出以及向債券持有人支付的利息。

因此，所有這些都是在美國將大量資金用於非社會目的的借口，從而擠占了選民真正想要的社會支出計劃的預算餘地。

當然，要做到這一點，你必須在共和黨和民主黨之間建立雙頭壟斷。你必須讓他們成為一個政黨，阻止任何第三方進入選票，例如，尼瑪，當我們有綠黨反戰候選人吉爾·斯坦時，你和我討論過。

共和黨和民主黨都試圖製定一套錯綜複雜的規則來進入選票，以至於美國人在投票箱上別無選擇，隻能投票給共和黨進行重新武裝，新的冷戰武裝，或者民主黨進行重新軍事化。

你可以投票決定哪一個黨派來做這件事，每個黨派都有自己的身份政治。但你不能讓任何一個黨派試圖敦促和平。

上周，德國上演了一場鬧劇。德國正在談論兩個反戰政黨，為了維護民主，我們必須取締反戰政黨。因為如果不發動戰爭，我們就無法支持全世界的法西斯主義。我們必須支持烏克蘭法西斯分子對抗俄羅斯。如果成立了一個政黨，無論是德國的替代黨還是薩羅瓦涅希特黨，我們都必須阻止他們，不讓他們進入議會，因為這是反民主的。

民主是在冷戰中對美國有利的。這就是我們的定義。民主就是冷戰。專製就是避免戰爭。專製就是金磚國家、中國、俄羅斯、伊朗和其他國家退出整個金融體係。

所以他們不僅有我們談論的不同敘事，還有不同的詞匯，正如喬治·奧威爾所指出的那樣。因此，我們每周都會在您的節目中討論，不僅討論敘事，還討論那些旨在扭曲人們對世界的看法和看法的詞匯。

理查德·沃爾夫：我隻想補充一點。讓我暫時以經濟學家的身份來解釋一下。邁克爾是對的。俄羅斯和美國之間的競爭，戰爭競爭，軍備競賽，無論你想怎麽稱呼它，在某種程度上可以追溯到第二次世界大戰結束時，這是一種非常聰明的策略。

無論是喬治·凱南獲得讚譽，還是後來國務院的一些官員，他們都明白一個非常簡單的事情，我認為美國人從未明白過。

美國在二戰後成為一個絕對獨特的主導經濟強國，所有潛在的競爭對手，經濟競爭對手都消失了。俄羅斯消失了。中國消失了。德國消失了。英國消失了。日本也消失了，要麽被戰爭間接摧毀，要麽被戰爭直接摧毀。

現在，這不是一個可持續的安排。這一切終將結束，但我認為，在 20 世紀餘下的一段時間裏，美國一直保持著主導地位。

因此，美國和俄羅斯之間的競爭、軍備競賽是一種糟糕的笑話。一個國家坐擁經濟強國之位，另一個國家則處於經濟災難區之位。

沒有……這太瘋狂了。就在我上次看的時候，兩三年前，GDP……美國人不明白這一點。三年前俄羅斯的 GDP 約為每年 1.5 萬億美元。一年的商品和服務總產出約為 1.5 萬億美元。同年，美國的 GDP 約為 22 萬億美元。

好吧，每個人都必須停下來，對吧？1.5 對 22。這個比例現在與以前並沒有什麽不同。以 1.5 萬億美元經濟為基礎的軍隊與以 22 萬億美元為基礎的軍隊之間的軍備競賽？我的意思是，這不是一場比賽。

你知道這有什麽神奇的嗎

帽子？俄羅斯人實際上能夠進行的軍事生產水平。即使他們不承認，你也可以看出，他們對軍事的重視程度顯然是巨大的。

也許蘇聯對美國是一個挑戰，在政治和軍事上用這個詞比較寬泛。但在經濟上，它永遠、一點也不接近、根本沒有可能。因此，美國可以自信地認為，兩國之間的軍備競賽會贏。

我們今天沒有處於那種情況。這就是正在發生的事情的一部分。我們的情況不一樣。目前，我上次看的時候，美國的國內生產總值約為 23 萬億美元。中國的國內生產總值約為 17 或 18 萬億美元。這是一個完全不同的故事。

把中國和俄羅斯放在一起，你就有高度的軍事優先權和更大的經濟。而中國是一個山地大經濟體，擁有首屈一指的高科技部門。

這是一個新的遊戲。如果你現在就認為你會贏得軍備競賽，那你就瘋了。你已經脫離了現實。你現在的處境已經不同了，你會犯下可怕的錯誤。

而你犯下的錯誤有多嚴重，第一個跡象就是你認為烏克蘭隻需要你的武器和金錢就能壓倒俄羅斯。

錯了。為什麽？因為俄羅斯有中國，有金磚國家，有盟友，有選擇。

你沒有想清楚。你以為你回到了以前的狀態，但事實並非如此。你就是沒有。結果是一個你還沒有想清楚的新框架。

我聽說這些天來，新保守主義者在管理我們的外交政策，布林肯，你知道，傑克·沙利文，這些人。他們聽起來、看起來、說話都像冷戰戰士。他們還在那裏。他們在另一個地方，有其他當時有一定意義的算計。危險，有風險，但他們有一定的邏輯。

現在你有了危險，你有了風險，但勝算不大。現在的情況已經大不相同了。事實上，每年都在朝著相反的方向發展。這是一個失敗的提議，但他們一直在失敗，他們想不出出路。他們輸了。他們沒能打贏朝鮮戰爭。他們在越南失敗了。他們在阿富汗失敗了。他們在伊拉克失敗了。他們在烏克蘭也失敗了。他們仍然不明白。

這就是為什麽我認為我們比任何人都更接近我認為即將到來的巨大變化。

邁克爾·哈德森：好吧，理查德，給他們點讚。我們確實在 2022 年擊敗了德國。現在完全依賴它。我們擊敗了歐洲。

理查德·沃爾夫：是的，但你知道大眾汽車正處於最大的危機中，大眾汽車是德國的標誌性產業。這是一個偉大的成功故事。直到去年，大眾汽車在中國的銷量比任何其他品牌的汽車都多，等等。他們現在正處於危機之中。他們宣布即將關閉德國各地的工廠，這是他們 70 年曆史上從未做過的事。

他們陷入了絕境，但他們知道原因。要小心。我們看到的是表麵，他們必須安撫美國，因為邁克爾腦子裏有各種理由，他們說得對。

但在表麵之下，還有另一層德國工業，正如邁克爾即將說的那樣，是美國在烏克蘭的政策讓德國的經濟奇跡消失了。

我們知道我們沒有奇跡。我們 [德國] 的技術技能並不比法國人、英國人或意大利人高超。停下來。我們更清楚。我們擁有的是廉價的石油和天然氣，是歐洲最便宜的石油和天然氣，加上美國人炸毀的管道，我們在未來 30 年內都會擁有它。

我們完蛋了，因為我們是歐洲的引擎，所以整個歐洲都完蛋了。我們真的要在本世紀餘下的時間裏成為美國的附庸嗎？其實我們根本不必這樣做。這是一個痛苦的問題，它就潛藏在表麵之下，不僅僅是在德國、法國、意大利，甚至在英國。

他們正處於關鍵時刻。我不確定他們會往哪個方向走。我理解邁克爾的意思。他們可能已經出賣了他們的整個未來。

他們讓歐洲，順便說一句，歐洲，歐洲共同體，成為了世界上最富有的單一集團。它的財富集團比美國還要大。它的財富集團至少比原來的金磚國家還要大，或者至少接近原來的金磚國家。

它已經消失了，或者，對於幾個世紀、幾千年來一直是世界中心的那個地區來說，這將是件了不起的事情，但在這麽短的時間內，它被一個相對較新的國家——美國，和一個完全新的國家——資本主義中國——擠到了一邊，而不是之前那樣。

因此，我確實相信，這些對話，除了來自左派的有趣評論和所有這些之外，已經足夠了。但我比以往任何時候都更相信，我們正處於許多這樣的邊緣，在

矛盾浮出水麵。

我們將討論事情如何能如此迅速地發生變化，而事實上，我們的討論已經記錄下來，這些變化是長期存在的，已經醞釀了很長一段時間。

NIMA：是的。非常感謝理查德和邁克爾今天與我們在一起。一如既往的高興。

理查德·沃爾夫：是的，談話很愉快。邁克爾讓我們知道，我希望我沒有透露任何信息，他擔心自己會就金錢問題發表演講。但我很高興你這麽做了。我很高興我們圍繞這個話題展開，因為我認為這個話題需要不止一次，我希望我們將來有機會再次回顧其中一些問題。

NIMA：沒錯。很快再見。再見。

由於以色列在加沙的戰爭罪行，我們將報道時間從每周五天增加到六天。我們沒有資金來做這件事，但覺得這是唯一正確的選擇。所以如果你今年還沒有捐款，請現在就捐款。捐款請點擊這裏。

Michael Hudson, Richard D. Wolff – Debunking U.S. Bankruptcy Myths

September 15, 2024 

https://braveneweurope.com/michael-hudson-richard-d-wolff-debunking-u-s-bankruptcy-myths

 

NIMA: So nice to have you, Michael, and Richard on again on this podcast. And let’s get started with the current situation of the economy of the United States. And the question is, Michael, to you, is the United States rapidly approaching bankruptcy?

MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, when Republicans and now the Democrats, ever since Obama, sought to frighten voters into supporting an attack on Social Security by trying to privatize it with the right-wing congressional commission he sponsored, there’s been a lot of deceptive rhetoric about the federal debt and how the budget deficit forces us to make hard choices, hard for the people, the 90% of the population who are going to have their social spending, Social Security, and other basic government programs squeezed out by what the both Democrats and Republicans want to cut back.

The real problem leading to bankruptcy today is private debt. There’s no problem at all with government debt going bankrupt. Governments don’t go bankrupt. They can always print the money. And in many cases, going bankrupt can be a very good thing, most obviously in the case of student debt.

If private debtors were allowed to do what almost all other individuals are able to do to the student debtors, what companies and financial institutions are able to do, the student debtors could cope with their student debts by declaring bankruptcy. That would say, we don’t have enough money to pay the student debts we’re loaded down with.

But Joe Biden led the fight to prevent student debt from being subject to the bankruptcy declarations, thereby creating this unfair student debt crisis that we have today that makes students the only category in the whole American economy that’s unable to wipe out its debts by bankruptcy and to free itself.

And the excuse is, well, we need to finance the government budget. Otherwise, we’re going to raise the government debt. And the pretense is that if we don’t make students pay their student debt, then the government will go bankrupt. And as if somehow the government going bankrupt is like an individual going bankrupt.

Well, the major reason that Biden cited all this, government needed the money, is to basically say, no, we have to enable the government to avoid deficits that are contributing to the debt.

Didn’t say anything about the tax cuts for the rich or the unequal taxation or the fact that anyone who earns over $120,000 doesn’t have to pay any of the increased income at all for their Social Security. It’s all paid to them by people who earn less than $120,000. None of that’s in discussion.

Well, I want to put this debt issue in perspective. And in order to do that, I think it’s necessary to think in terms of balance sheets. In one way or another, it’s a question of who, whom. To whom does the U.S. government owe its debts?

And I want to make two points clear that always should be made at the outset of any discussion. First of all, nobody ever got in trouble by running into debt itself. The problem is having to repay it and to pay its carrying charges if you can’t pay it down.

And I’ll explain later, the government has no intention or likelihood of having to pay a large part of its foreign debt.

So the second point that’s important to start with is to recognize that one party’s debt is another party’s assets. The government debt is a preferred asset of most of the economy.

So let’s look at who holds the government debt as an asset. Well, with all of today’s gloom and doom talk, it may surprise people to say that the U.S. debt is perhaps the most desirable financial asset on the planet. That’s why so much of it is owned by the wealthiest layer of the U.S. population.

And that’s because nobody expects this debt to have to be paid at a cost to the government. That may be surprising, but it’s obvious when you think about it.

The paper money that you carry around in your pocket is technically a government debt. Government issued paper money in order to finance some kind of spending. And it issues a paper money and as its holder, the holder has a financial claim on the government.

So each of you viewers who have the currency of any government in your pocket, in financial terms, you’re creditors to the government whose paper currency you’re holding. And that makes you, in effect, a creditor to the whole society.

You don’t think of yourself as a creditor because it’s not that financialized. But technically, if you look at the government balance sheet, assets have to equal debts. That’s why it’s balanced. So you have government debt, liabilities on the left side, and on the opposite side, the assets. Paper money is a big chunk of this.

And if the government would repay this paper currency, presumably by giving you something in return, there wouldn’t be any paper money left. So of course the government’s not going to pay this paper money.

And you think of money being spent for what you buy, especially in small amounts. It’s a grocery store or similar venues. But actually, most U.S. currency is held in $100 bills, large amounts. Often they’re packaged together in shrink-wrapped large bundles that are photographed being transported out of U.S. aircraft and paid to the dictators and kleptocrats and politicians that we’re buying off.

Most $100 bills and most U.S. currency isn’t held by Americans. It’s by foreigners. The phrase usually is, people keep it in their mattresses if they’re living in a country with a bad, a weak currency like Argentina.

But of course, the people who have this shrink-wrapped $100 bills don’t need to put it in their mattresses. They have all sorts of storage rooms for that.

So this U.S. debt is the savings of a large portion of the world’s kleptocracy and also just people trying to look at the U.S. as a safe currency compared to what they have. They certainly have more faith in U.S. paper currency than they have in their own foreign currency. And this money is considered for saving, not for spending.

Well, a second category of U.S. debt is sort of like this. It’s the debt that’s held by foreign central banks. It’s their currency reserves. And you can look in the Treasury Bulletin. Every month, the Treasury Bulletin lists who is the U.S. debt owed to, who owns Treasury securities.

Well, a huge chunk, sometimes one-third of the entire new issue of foreign debt is owned by foreign central banks, especially a few decades ago when military spending was very high. And that’s the essence of the dollar standard, which I call the U.S. Treasury Bill standard.

Since 1971, when President Nixon stopped paying deficits in gold, foreign central banks don’t really have an international asset that they can hold apart from U.S. dollars. So instead of General De Gaulle and the French being able to take the dollars that they’re getting from U.S. spending in Vietnam and Southeast Asia in the 1960s to buy gold, now all they could do is buy U.S. Treasury securities.

And these Treasury securities that foreign governments hold are to finance the U.S. budget deficit that is a result largely of U.S. military spending to create the 800 military bases we have around the world to surround countries and sort of force them not to abandon the dollar standard, but they’re financing their own encirclement and their own basic U.S. military buildup against them.

And that makes the U.S. foreign debt to foreign central banks a free lunch. The U.S. can just spend it as much as it wants. The dollars that it spends end up in the foreign central banks of Europe and also of China.

And foreign central banks don’t have an alternative unless they’re to use these dollar inflows and buy gold or something else. And of course, if they do that, the United States declares them an enemy for trying to de-dollarize and essentially declares a financial war on them.

Well, this free lunch is something that nobody expects to be repaid. The U.S. is not able to create enough of a balance of payment surplus to pay Germany and France and China and Russia and Japan, all of the securities that it owes them. So it’s not going to repay them.

And if a country says, we want to de-dollarize like Russia did, the United States simply confiscated 300 billion dollars of Russian money and paid it to the Ukrainian, the interest of it to the Ukrainians to help attack Russia to prevent it from going down that road.

Well, let me spell out just how this system works. Suppose you go to, you could do what America does and in miniature. Suppose you go to a grocery store and you buy food and other household items. And when the cashier prints out your receipt for $30, you sign an IOU, IOU $30 and put your name. Well, that’s not a credit card. That’s just you’re writing a note, a signed note, IOU $30 to the store or whoever should be the bearer of this note. Well, the manager would come out and ask you, well, what am I supposed to do with this IOU? And you could tell them, well, you can use this $30 IOU to pay whomever you buy your produce from, you know, they’re delivering milk, you know, pay them partly in check and give them my IOU and let it just circulate around and it’ll circulate and everyone will trade it just like they’d trade a dollar bill or a bank check. It’s part of their assets.

Well, obviously that’s not how the world works for you and for other individuals, but it’s how the international financial system works. When the US spends money abroad and military spending is by far the leading category of the US balance of payments deficit that is pumping dollars into the world economy, the recipients of these dollars in foreign countries will turn these dollars over to their central banks in exchange for domestic currency because they operate their businesses or whatever in domestic currency.

And the central banks then have these dollars, is what they call their international foreign reserves or sovereign wealth fund, and invested in US treasury bills.

When the oil war happened in 1974 and the OPEC countries quadrupled their price, the price of oil, they were told, you can charge whatever you want for your oil, but you have to keep all of your savings, all the receipts you get from this oil, you have to keep that in US currency. We’re not going to let you buy US companies, but you can buy stocks and bonds, but basically you have to put it in US banks to buy treasury bills. You can’t really spend it for anything at all. You’re stuck with it. And if you don’t do that, we will treat that as an act of war.

So foreign countries count these unspent dollar receipts as their monetary reserves, just as a store might count your $30 as part of its assets on its balance sheet. We have an asset from, it would be listed on their receivables or assets. Well, by the way, the free ride for the US government is what has led other countries to want to de-dollarize their economies. That’s what the BRICS are trying to do. And Russia has already done it. If it holds any US dollar securities, the US will simply grab it.

China is worried that the United States may do to it what America has done to Russia and simply grab all of its money at a point, but it’s hoping that somehow it can be friends with the United States.

Well, we can discuss this debt later, but that isn’t the only debt that the United States government has no reason to pay. A large and growing debt is owed to the government’s own Federal Reserve.

If the government wants to spend money into the economy, it asks the Federal Reserve to buy US Treasury securities. So the Federal Reserve owns these securities and the banking system owns US securities as backing and reserves for its own deposits and loans. That’s how banks work, holding reserves. So this part of the US debt also isn’t supposed to be paid. And there’s no way that the US is going to go bankrupt. If the US had no debt at all, there’d be no government debt to hold as bank reserves. There’d be no reason for the Federal Reserve to exist. You can see the problem.

So just like the paper money in your pockets, this other Federal Reserve holding, foreign bank holding of government debt are not expected to be repaid. And I think this kind of financial maneuvering shows that the United States doesn’t really have to borrow. It can really, in effect, print the money. But when it prints the money, this money it prints, just like issuing paper money, the money it prints is counted as a debt to the Federal Reserve. So it’s all a wash transaction, sort of the illusion of a debt that somehow is in trouble.

Well, if we can get all these categories of the US federal debt out of the way, then finally, we have the kind of debt that most people think of, the treasury bonds that are notes, that are held by individuals, especially by the wealthiest people. The wealthiest investors all have substantial holdings, either in US securities, the bond market, there’s been a flood, a run into the US debt as a safe haven.

Just as the Congress is saying, warning, well, the US is near bankruptcy, Wall Street and the large investors and foreign investors too are calling the dollar a safe haven. That doesn’t sound like bankruptcy. They’re moving out of stocks and bonds, out of other assets into the US debt because as the US economy gets more fragile and top heavy, they know that the US government can’t go bankrupt because its debt is all in its own currency. It doesn’t owe foreign currency debt that it would have to print. It owns debt in its own currency and it can print as much as it wants.

If you go to the bank or the Federal Reserve and say, here’s my $20 bill, I want to cash it in for money, they can give you two $10 bills, but that’s all you’re going to get.

Well, Abraham Lincoln financed the Civil War simply by printing the greenbacks and the greenbacks were technically a debt and that’s what’s happening.

Despite the enormous magnitude of US federal debt that Nima mentioned and the loud warnings of government insolvency when the financial sky’s falling, the treasury bonds are viewed as the most desirable, safest asset around.

Chinese officials have told me that they don’t expect the US dollar really to go down. They’re reducing their holdings of dollars in favor of gold and other foreign currencies, but they still hold enormous amounts of dollars because they expect them essentially to remain a strong currency.

So basically, the enormous increase in wealth that the wealthiest 10% of Americans have made since the Obama bank bailout in 2008, this stemmed from the fact that the US debt has been thrown under the finance and created the largest bond market boom in history.

This bond market boom has only benefited the wealthiest financial classes.

So here’s wage level and income for the bottom 90%, flat. For the top 10%, it’s gone up and up.

All this is financed by the government debt, turning the stock in the corporate bond market into a Ponzi scheme. So this is the bright side of government debt and why you shouldn’t be frightened into having to solve it. So the question is that I think maybe we should spend a few minutes discussing is why are people, what’s their motive in trying to frighten people about the government debt?

RICHARD WOLFF: Yeah, I think maybe I can help in this regard because there really isn’t a contradiction between the notion of the financial markets that the dollar is the safest place or the safest form in which to hold your wealth, the dollar obligations of the United States government given the way the world is working.

In other words, the United States’ position is shrinking, the empire is falling apart, but compared to your alternatives it’s still a logical place for people with private assets to hold them in that form. So that’s the safety argument.

Now the other part of the safety argument isn’t spoken, but I’m going to make it explicit now.

One of the reasons the dollar is safe, despite the fact that the dollar’s footprint in the world is shrinking, that the percentage of central bank reserves held in dollars is less now than it’s been at any time in the last half century, and on and on. I could give all those statistics that you could want. Why is it still safe?

Here’s the unspoken assumption of the private world, which we’ll see is reasonable. The assumption is that the United States government, despite the level of debt it’s involved in and despite its shrinking global footprint, has an internal political capability of making sure that the people who hold that debt will not be in any way damaged by how this problem gets solved.

In other words, what they’re doing is they’re saying you can afford to keep your wealth here, which we need you to do, and here’s what we’ll do in exchange. We’ll make sure that the angry people who are going to have to pay the freight of all of this will not be able to disrupt it.

But here’s what that means. Suppose, suppose, that the American people demanded of their elected representatives, we want the social security of having a retirement that we can look forward to after we reach age 65 or 66 or 67. We want to live in a society that honors a lifetime of work by not making you destitute when you’re old. It doesn’t seem like an extreme demand. It’s reasonable. We want that.

And you know what else we want? We want a health insurance from the day we’re born till the day we die, like so many other people have around the world.

And you know what else we want? We want a free higher education. We want college to be like high school and elementary school. It is something we as a society invest in ourselves, like a public park, like a beach, like a state reserve where you can take your family and go camping. We want a higher education like most of Europe already offers its people for no fee at all. No tuition. No. We want that.

All right. We all know, because we live in the United States, what the answer is. Oh, the government can’t afford it.

Wait a minute. What do you mean the government can’t afford it? The government is currently shelling out, I don’t know what it is right now, but six to eight hundred billion dollars of interest on the national debt right now, and it’s forecast to become more over the next two or three years, a lot more.

So the American people say, okay, don’t pay the interest on the debt. There it is. Then you have 800 billion bucks right now, and that’s way more than you need to give us free education, free health care, and all the rest we’ve just asked for. Do that. We elected you. Do that. And if you don’t do that, we will unelect you and replace you with people who will.

Oh my gosh, say all the people in the world who own the debt.

That’s a very important point that Michael made. For every debt, there’s somebody holding that debt for whom it is an asset, and they want to protect their assets. They don’t want there to be a risk that the United States government will stop paying interest on the debt.

So the American government’s pledge to them, unspoken but very real, don’t worry, we will cut back on everything to the American people to preserve your interest in getting paid off for that debt that you own and that you invested in. You European rich people, you potentates around the world ripping off your own populations and investing it in dollars. Yeah, yeah, yeah. We’ll protect you who don’t elect us but who fund us. And we will screw the American people because you elect us but you don’t fund us.

Okay, so that’s the deal. No one will say that to you. That’s why it’s so important that in the conversations, things get confused about money more than anything else.

We’re told, gee, we’ll have to cut public services so we don’t mess up the budget.

Wait a minute, Jack. You don’t have to cut public services. You just have to stop paying interest. Oh yes, but then people won’t lend to us. Exactly. And then what will you have to do? You’ll have to tax the rich people because there’ll be nothing left unless you want to sell the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean. And then there’ll be a dispute about who gets that money.

No, no, you want things to stay the way they are. And that’s a system developed of, by, and for the rich. And it is so gross these days that you need an endless amount of blah, blah noise about money and other things people have had mystified all their lives.

People like me sometimes to mention, and I will at this point, bear with me, the greatest critic of capitalism so far. I hope we have better ones coming. But so far, it’s the old guy Karl Marx. And he wrote as a young man, it was in his 20s if I’m not mistaken, maybe his 30s, but a very young man.

He wrote something called an essay, a short essay, about 10 pages, called The Power of Money in Bourgeois Society. Unbelievable. Half of it is quotations from the German writer Goethe and the British giant Shakespeare. He quotes in lengthy. His own comments are half the article. The others are quotations from Goethe and from Shakespeare.

And there he captures the whole mystery of money and why it has confused people all along, and what’s at stake. It’s extraordinary. He went on to criticize capitalism because he understood its preservation requires something as absolutely central as money to be absolutely mystified, lest its function be actually understood.

What Michael just did is gave you a crash course in demystifying what this is all about. When the government of the United States, the treasury, issues the debt, the IOU that the government owes you money, it then sells a large part of it to another branch of itself, the government. This other branch is called the Federal Reserve.

It has the right to print money, folks. That’s what it does. It prints the money, and it uses the money it prints to buy the debt of the other part of the government it is. Okay, this is weird. You should understand right off the bat this is very strange. No wonder it confuses people.

But that’s half its purpose. You know, in the old days, the rulers would print money whenever they needed it for a new coach, for a new palace, for a new war. And then people would get nervous. Oh my god, he’s printing.

[30:23]
So we had a little special commission set up called the Central Bank. It’s supposed to be composed of very wise men and women. Well, to be fair, throughout the history of capitalism, it’s very wise men. The women are few and far between, even now. And its job is to be an intermediary to make sure all of this is done. What? All of this is done with the same mystification as always.

Only now it’s a bit more mystified, because between the government that prints the money and the rest of us, we interpose a central bank who’s supposed to make us feel all a lot better, even though we know from the very documents Michael mentioned earlier, how much of the debt borrowed by our government it’s borrowing from itself, from the other part of the other office across town that literally prints the damn stuff.

Now, if you find that all terribly reassuring, then the system has worked. If you see through it, you’re probably a communist.

MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, Richard mentioned the magic word interest. And while we’re both in agreement that debt isn’t the problem, the problem, if you’re looking at the annual budget, is the rising interest rates, the interest payments relative to the receipts of the government.

And Richard pointed out quite right that interest is rising now that the Federal Reserve has raised the interest rates from only 0.1% per year to 4.5% to 5% in recent months. All of a sudden, this means a huge payment of interest in the budget, and that is going to increase the size of the budget deficit.

And that’s, you know, I said at the start that nobody went broke running up debt, but they get broke when they have to repay the debt or even to pay its carrying charges.

And interest is the carrying charges. The interest that the government pays to itself, the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve, under Obama, said all the interest that the Federal Reserve gets from the government can now be paid to the banks. They can borrow from the Federal Reserve at nothing, and they can put their own deposits back at the bank and get the interest that the Federal Reserve is paid by the government.

That was the big Obama deception for the most right-wing, vicious financial twist in history. And it went completely unobserved by the financial markets, except for people who follow finance very, very clearly.

But what you’re going to find now, and you’ve already heard verbals about it from the Biden administration, is if we’re going to have this increase in interest payments, we’ve got to have the balanced budget amendment that Obama tried to create with the Republican-dominated commission that he appointed to try to get a constitutional amendment saying the government must balance its budget so that its debt doesn’t go up anymore.

Well, let’s see what happened if this Obama Democratic Party policy actually came through. If the government had to avoid running a deficit, subject to paying the emergency spending that every democracy has to do, you have to spend more than now 40% of your budget on military, because without supporting fascism in Ukraine and the Middle East, how can you promote democracy without supporting Ukraine’s war against Russia and without declaring war on China and Middle Eastern countries?

And next to the military, alongside of it, you have to pay the 10% of wealthy people and banks that hold the government debt. Well, that really doesn’t leave very much left for social spending. And the easiest thing to cancel is Social Security, Medicaid, grants and aid from the federal government to the cities.

And this is what Kamala Harris has pledged to do if there is a democratic administration and probably what Trump, if he gets to be president, also will do.

This is the big squeeze that has been planned now for 20 years, the plan to take social spending out of the hands of government and to privatize it. Well, what are they going to do?

They’re not going to simply say, we won’t pay Social Security, because that’s a contractual obligation that the government has settled up. But what they say is, what we’re going to do is we’re going to take the Social Security Fund and we’re going to create a government grant to, let’s say, BlackRock and other money management companies to manage the Social Security in the form of a huge privatized mutual fund, just like the Sovereign Wealth Fund of Malaysia was handled by Wall Street and criminally just ripped off by the financial managers.

That’s what financial managers do. That’s what Goldman Sachs was criminally prosecuted for, for the billions of dollars that it embezzled from the money that it was supposed to be handling as a fiduciary from the Malaysian Sovereign Wealth Fund.

They want to do that with all of the Social Security Fund and they want to take this money, the government funding for Social Security that you’re paying every month, and all that’s going to be paid into this mutual fund that’s going to buy U.S. stocks and bonds.

And the financial sector says, if we can do that, this will create a huge stock market bubble. Boom. Because look, all this money, instead of being paid into the government to finance its war spending and the other spending that governments do, now it’ll be spent on the stock market.

And thank heavens, the stock market is so over debt leveraged now. It’s so almost insolvent that we’ve saved the stock market Ponzi scheme from the brink of insolvency by giving the money that used to be paid to the government to the mutual funds, put it into the stock market.

And then at a certain point, forecasters and the big money management funds will say, you know, that’s really not going to succeed.

They’ll sell all of their stock holdings, leaving the stockholders holding the bag just like they did in the South Sea bubble in the 1720s and the Mississippi bubble. That’s how wealth is made. You create a bubble, you mobilize public belief that somehow this bubble is going to make money for you if you join it. And then you sell out, you leave them holding the bag and let it collapse. That’s the plan that the Democrats and Republicans together are planning to do if they can do it in the next administration.

RICHARD WOLFF: And they’ll package the whole thing, or at least a large part of it, as a reform of the social security system. Here’s how this scam works.

And I know many of you watching this program will have been, you know, provoked into worrying or thinking about this by various fragments in this or that news report you read about the social security system. Here’s the way the scam goes.

Number one, you raise alarms. Here’s the alarm. The social security system is running out of money. We don’t have enough money. Then you’ll hear an erudite professor, sadly, one of us, getting up there and saying, the population is getting older. Oh, genius we got here. It’s getting older. So you see there’s more old people pulling money out of the social security system as a pension, relative to the young people working and putting money into the pension system in their weekly check deductions. The arithmetic is correct. The conclusion is absurd.

Social security either is or isn’t a commitment a society makes to itself. Are we going to honor the people who give a lifetime of work, whether it’s in the factory or the office or the store or at home, raising children and all the rest of it? Are we going to honor those people by giving them a decent, secure retirement? Or are we going to throw them in the garbage?

And that tells you a lot about a society, which way it goes on that one. And you can see that around the world right now.

If you want to support older people as a matter of a decent moral or ethical community, let me assure you as an economist, we have no shortage of funds available to do that. No problem at all.

But that’s not how the social security works. Social security works by taking money out of people’s checks now, holding that money until they reach 60, whatever, and then paying out a pension for the rest of their lives.

Everybody knew that that was the system, because that has been the system from the beginning in the 1930s, when an angry population of the American working class got social security for the first time in our history, by mobilizing the labor movement, two socialist parties and the communist parties worked together to get that from the president at the time, Franklin Roosevelt. That’s how this happened.

Now, first part of the problem, do we take money from the checks of everybody? Answer, no, we never did. We only take checks from the people who earn wages and salaries.

Wait a minute, aren’t there people who earn income from interest they receive, from dividends they receive, from capital gains they receive? Yes.

What is the amount of money deducted from those incomes for social security? Answer, nothing. What? Yes. How do the wealthiest people hold their wealth in America? By stocks and bonds and cash, which generate interest dividends and capital gains.

So the richest people own the bulk of their wealth in that form which social security exempts from taxing for raising the money for pension.

You know what that’s called? Grotesque injustice. That’s what that’s called. The people who have the most money are exempted from contributing to what the decent society wants to do for itself.

Wow, that’s like having clean water in a community, carefully cleaned and maintained by the community, for which the whole community is charged except the rich people. They get to drink the clean water and they’re not charged at all. Why? Well, because they’re rich. Wait a minute, what? Yes, wait a minute, what?

You ought to wonder, but it’s worse than that. It turns out that not all wages and salaries are taxed. Only the first, I think it’s now 160,000 a year, something in that order. That’s very nice, that is the bulk of us.

But you know who’s exempt again? Bingo, you guessed it, the super rich, the people who make more than 160,000. Here’s how it works, friends. Everybody pays the same percentage on the first 160,000 a year you earn. On every dollar over 160,000, no social security is withheld, no social security is deducted.

So, if you’re a corporate executive and you make a million or two or six or twelve or twenty, everything above 160,000, you’re not required to put into the pool for the pensions for our elderly. You’re exempt.

Why? Because you’re rich. That’s what got you the exemption. Not what you know, not what you do, not who you are, not how you serve the community, no, no, no, no, no. Just because you’re rich, that’s why.

Unbelievable, unjust, grotesque, and now comes the best part. How could you fix this problem? Well, instantaneously, I’ve given you the answer. You could tax interest, capital gains, and dividends. Put the social security tax on them, problem solved. No alarm, no social security running out of money, not in this century.

Here’s another one. Tax all income, wages and salaries, not just 160,000, all the way up. Look how much Elon Musk would have to pay. And here’s the beauty, he would have to pay millions and he wouldn’t notice.

But do we do that? No, no, no. We allow millions of Americans today, I’m talking many millions, millions. We allow them to worry themselves sick over whether or not they will live on social security, how much longer they’ll have social security. Will it get cut back next year, two years, six years from now? What should they do now about savings and pensions, given that they couldn’t possibly live already on the small amount that social security gives them?

Those who are smart enough to know that social security did not go up over the last 10 years as much as inflation did, so it’s actually worth less now in terms of what it can afford you to buy than it used to.

Put all of that aside, but we’re saving billionaires quantities of money they wouldn’t notice they’re losing, rather than do something for the millions of people that are suffering. It is a level of hard heartedness that makes any depiction of pre-depression America look like child’s play in comparison.

So these issues of debt, these issues of government finance, they come right in and become not only a demystification, trying to explain what’s going on, which Michael did so well, but they also touch you right in your personal life.

If you’re not yet an old person worrying about retirement, and I want to remind you a third of the American people right now are doing that, but even if you’re not in that group, you know what you are? The children of those people.

And if they don’t get a social security, they’re going to come and talk to you, because you’re their children, and they’ll need you to help them. And you’ll want to do that, and that’ll impede your economic development.

That’s what’s going on folks. A shrinking economy, a declining empire, is run by a group of people at the top who are doing what we all would have expected them to do. They’re offloading the costs of a declining empire onto those below them in the social pecking order, and that’s you and me.

And whether it’s pinching the social security, or cutting back on funding for colleges, or not allowing the college students, as Michael opened up with, to go and get relief in the bankruptcy courts the way we allow all other private debtors to do, don’t be fooled.

They’re going to cut everybody else before they damage the core of what keeps them the richest people on earth. And manipulating the money system is a tried and true way for the elites in dying empires to hold on for a few more years.

MICHAEL HUDSON: What Richard just said may sound so radical that it seems, well, that’s utopian. But his idea of taxing the rich more is less progressive than the original U.S. income tax in 1913.

When the income tax was first legislated, only 1% of Americans had to pay income tax. That’s because income tax was paid only by those who made over a given amount, something like 10 times the normal wage.

So it turns out that who paid the income tax were large corporate investors, large real estate owners, and large financiers. The workers, wage earners, did not have to pay income tax at all. They were tax-free.

And in just over 100 years, there’s been such a reframing of the narrative of how an economy works that people have no memory that originally the income tax was supposed to be progressive and actually was able to finance America’s participation in World War I by these terms that only taxed what was called rentier income, rent recipients, financial investors.

And at that time, in the wake of that, ever since, beginning in the 1920s, you had the financial sector and the sectors it protects, the real estate sector, insurance, monopolies, fought back. And their plan was to financialize the economy.

And their great success was in the early 1950s when they developed the idea of corporate pension plans. And the corporate pension plans were presented as if, now labor is a capitalist in miniature. We’re paying our workers in stocks so that the workers can actually own stocks in their companies, put it into the stock market.

Well, there were two kinds of pension plans. One is make them co-owners of your own company. So you would have the workers own more and more stock, for instance, in the Chicago Tribune, the right-wing Republican paper of Chicago.

Well, finally, once the pension contributions and stock holdings got high enough, the Tribune was taken over by a financier who confiscated all of the workers’ savings since the 1950s in Tribune stock and used it to pay the banks that had lent him the money to buy the Chicago Tribune.

And for other people whose pensions plans that essentially said, well, we’ll put aside your pension and the stock market is going to be growing. What that meant is that putting the money into the stock market and into investment banks and into money management funds created a whole financial system.

So suppose you work for a company and it was exploiting you and it was cheating you, but the company said, well, just think of it, you exploited workers. Your money is savings, pension savings are put into our company. So think of the pension savings you’re making by our exploiting you.

Well, that’s what’s happened on an economy-wide basis. By investing pensions instead of on a pay-as-you-go basis, instead of making pensions a public obligation as it is in many European countries, it was financialized into the stock market.

And now you have pension plans like CalPERS in California, the California Public Retirement Savings Fund. The pension funds throughout the United States have become desperate to turn their money over to private capitalists to promise huge fast gains in buying up firms, downsizing them, cutting back the labor force and squeezing out more money and leaving bankrupt shells in their place.

So the industrial employees who put the money into their pension plans are financing the de-industrialization of the economy instead of its industrialization. That’s the kind of plan that the politician donors would like to see translated into what to do with Social Security in that same way.

The problem is the financialization and finance capitalism has turned out to be just the opposite of the industrial capitalism that was described in the 19th century, not only by Marx but by everybody else.

RICHARD WOLFF: Yeah, and I would like to just, if I’m going to play the role of radical a bit, you know, capitalism says that profit is the bottom line. My colleagues in business schools across America who I know and who are friends of mine are constantly telling me that their basic message to students is if you want to build your business, you go where the labor is cheap and the market is growing.

And they said very good, they say to their teachers, thank you very much. I’ll be reporting back to you from China because I’m going to China because the wages are low and the market is the biggest one in the world and it’s growing faster than everyone. So it’s kind of obvious where I should be. I’ll see you later. You’re stuck in Chicago or Cincinnati or somewhere else. I’m going to Beijing or Shanghai. I know where you’ve taught me I should be.

If you don’t like the results of capitalism, which is the de-industrialization of one part of the world after another, come on, let’s remember once upon a time capitalism was what we celebrated in New England. Then it left, you know, it went to the Midwest, Ohio and Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. And you know what’s left in New England to this day? Those factories, four or five stories high, nice long brick buildings that now are full of artist studios, pottery shops, and yoga lesson businesses. Because that’s all that will go into these empty factories.

And now what do we call the Midwest? We call it the rust belt of America because it’s abandoned. Capitalism abandoned New England, went to the Midwest, abandoned the Midwest, went south, went west, and then predictably, you don’t need to be a fortune teller here, why would they stay inside the United States?

They decided finally, wait a minute, the same logic that it’s more profitable, that we can force the countries we haven’t yet gone to to bid for us to go there and thereby use the profit mechanism to bring jobs to their part of the world. We’re ready to go. We’re ready to go to China. We’re ready to go to the moon.

Capitalism, it’s always this funny thing about capitalism. It wants you to see the good parts when it grows, when it expands, when it discovers something. And those are fine as long as you don’t forget it has the bad things.

You know, we live and life is wonderful, but we also die. That’s another part of our existence. Capitalism abandons.

You want to go to a place that capitalism has abandoned? Visit England. Visit the industrial heartland of Europe. Now basket cases that are the seeds of a fascism growing everywhere in Europe. And where? In the abandoned areas where industry isn’t anymore, when it was.

That’s the reality, folks, of what is going on here. The profit motive is a builder and a killer. If I can be allowed another quote from Marx early in volume one of Capital, he makes the remark, yes, capitalism, he says, is a constant producer and reproducer of great wealth.

Unfortunately, he adds, it is likewise the producer and reproducer of great poverty. One is the other side of the other, and that’s what’s wrong with this system. That’s why we can do better.

And all that we’ve been saying is a kind of an illustration that when it comes to organizing an economy, the one we have in capitalism has achievements to its credit, no question. But we live in an advertising society, and I don’t mean that as a compliment.

In advertising, notice something. The client pays the advertiser to say only good things about the client, true ones or make them up, but they have one quality in common, it’s all good.

And what do they hide? Everything that’s bad. That’s a way of communicating to people that has nothing to do with what we’re told as children, that you have to see the plus and the minus. You have to weigh the pro and the con. You have to give a balanced contribution to understanding the world you live in.

No, no, no, no, no. Advertising is giving you a carefully constructed, unbalanced view.

You’re going to hear from the Democrats wonderful things about Kamala Harris, that’s all. And you’re going to hear from Mr. Trump wonderful things about Trump, that’s all.

They will allow themselves to put zebra doo-doo on the other one. That’s advertising mentality. Capitalism’s gifts to us is the advertising business, which has corrupted the whole process of speaking and of language.

It means that half of what Michael and I do, and what Nima is so good at organizing, is the demystification, trying to recoup something remotely like a balanced sense of the economic system, so that we can do what creative human beings have always done, better than what they have found when they were born into the system.

That’s all we’re trying to do here. We can do better than capitalism, and we ought to stop not learning that lesson.

MICHAEL HUDSON: So what we’re talking about is a narrative. And if you can pierce the…

When you hear a narrative, like the government is broke, or we’ve got to balance the budget, what is it that they want you to do? Any narrative that you get these days, certainly by politicians, is an attempt to shape how you’re perceiving how the economy works and your place in it, to make you do and support some policy. And this policy is paid for by the people who back the narrative.

And as Richard just said, we’re trying to suggest a different narrative because nobody’s paying us. And it turns out that the less you’re paid for a narrative, probably the poorer it is.

RICHARD WOLFF: Yes, that’s right. The less you’ve been bought off to stop whatever else you’re doing, your enjoyments, your pleasures, your hopes, your dreams, in order to make a buck. It’s awful that everything intrudes between you and the best in you because it questions or threatens your survival.

It’s an extraordinary system. It has lasted and done as much as it has by virtue of that. But it’s done now. And I don’t think it’s going to be salvageable. I don’t know any more than anybody else does where it’ll break first, and how, and how quickly, and none of that. I can’t predict the future.

But it is crystal clear to me that the hold of the traditional truths is slipping a little more every day. And it’s that that I also personally hold on to as a basis for what I do. And I think it’s what animates people like Michael and Nima also. It’s this sense we’ve got to do something, and here is something we can do.

We can say, look, the world isn’t quite the way it’s made out to be in the mainstream media. And let us show you what remarkable insights this can help you to develop, and they can make your life better.

NIMA: Yeah. Just, Richard, we have here some questions from our audience. And you may answer. One of the questions is pointing to you, Richard.

It says, if the government prints money at will, then why do they need to tax the public?

MICHAEL HUDSON: Good point.

RICHARD WOLFF: Yes. It’s very, very important that people understand. Here is the question, Richard. You can read it at the screen here. If the government prints.

There are many reasons. Like all big decisions that are made in a society, especially if they last over a period of time, as this one clearly has, governments have been taxing as well as printing money for a very long time. This is not in any way new.

Some of the forms of it are new, but the phenomena of these two sorts are very old. Okay?

So one of the reasons for it is the way capitalism particularly—

And it’s older than that, but the way capitalism works, you have this absurd, and I mean that, absurd situation. You could divide the population in any capitalist country between those who are corporations and rich on the one hand, and everybody else on the other. 10%, 90%, whatever you want, however you want to do that.

And all right, now here we go. Both of those two groups, the people at the top and everybody else, want services from the government. Corporations want the government to protect their wealth, to protect their freedoms, to protect their profit making, to enhance that, to subsidize them as needed, to secure a foreign market for what they produce, to secure cheap sources of foreign inputs to what they produce. They have a whole list of things they want the government to do.

And the mass of people, just for the sake of argument, they have their list. They want public education, they want health care, they want decent roads. Corporations want that too, and they would like help with babies and swimming pools, you name it. Okay? That’s what they all want.

Now comes the question, how is this going to get paid for? They want the government to do it, how is the government going to do it? And here we can see very clearly, corporations and the rich would like lots of things done by the government, but they don’t want to pay for it.

And the mass of people want lots of things done by the government, and they don’t want to pay for it. Well, you can’t have it if somebody doesn’t pay for it.

So what have we got? We’ve got a system in which we tell the mass of people, everybody’s got to pay their fair share, and so we have a tax system. Very old. We’re all going to benefit from these things the government is doing, at least we give lip service to the idea. So we all have to contribute, okay? We have a tax system.

All right, but people at the top, unlike the rest of us, they have the money and they have the power to do a lot more than “want” something. They can make it happen. That’s what it means to be a corporate CEO, or on the board of directors, or to own a billion dollars of wealth.

You’re in a position to do things, and so what do you do? You arrange for the taxes to be brought down, particularly on you, on corporations and the rich. So you push the tax burden onto the middle and the bottom. But beyond a certain point, and here’s where things get creative, beyond a certain point the mass of people can’t. Remember, they’re the ones who get the wages and salaries, and beyond a certain point you’re going to have a tax revolt. Every country has had it. We’ve had it too. Remember, started back in California several decades ago and swept the country. Tax revolt.

Okay, the people at the top realized now we’ve got to play a game. We announce a tax cut and we make very sure that everybody gets a little cut. You know, five percent for you, ten percent for you, and forty percent for us. Oh, we get that kind of tax cut.

The best example of that is the 2017 tax cut that Mr. Trump achieved. The only economic innovation, if you want to call it that, that Mr. Trump got passed. His was a do-nothing four years of empty crapola, which Mr. Biden copied, I understand, but nonetheless these are competing pro-capitalist countries. So he facilitated that with his 2017 tax cut.

And now here comes the creative, most creative part. When you cut taxes on everybody, telling the people that you can do more with less, you know, you’re cutting the fat out of the government, as if when you cut the taxes it has no consequence on the services you can provide. Having fooled people, maybe. You then say, okay, but here’s an even easier thing.

Instead of taxes, we’ll borrow the money. Isn’t that wonderful? We can give you what you want. We give you the corporations what you want. We’ll give you the masses what you want. We won’t tax you because you don’t want that. We’ll borrow the money. Isn’t that wonderful?

It is, as long as you don’t understand what Michael just spent, you know, almost an hour explaining. Who does the government borrow from? He went through it. It borrows from individuals. Of course, who? The richest. You know how you know it’s only the richest? Because how many times has a government official come to you in the privacy of your home or office and talked to you about making a big fat loan to the government?

The answer is, that’s never happened in your life. That’s because you don’t count. You don’t matter. The government borrows only from the rich, or from other countries, or from its own central bank. That’s how the government borrows, and that’s great for the rich because they get to avoid taxes, but instead of paying the money in taxes, they give the money as a loan to the government, which pays them interest and then pays the money back.

This is called a no-brainer, but if it’s a no-brainer to the advantage of the rich, it’s a no-brainer in a different way for the rest of us.

You got to have no brain to accept such a system. This is a hustle as grotesque as selling you the Brooklyn Bridge for $18.95. If you can’t recognize that hustle when it’s offered to you, then maybe somewhere, somehow, in some other universe, you actually deserve the hiding that you’re getting.

This is a system designed of, by, and for the people at the top. I don’t mean the American system, and I don’t mean the, I mean capitalism as a system, because this game is reproduced in one form or another all over the place.

That’s why some of us are critics of capitalism. Yeah.

NIMA: Then let’s just wrap this session up with the latest news that the link that I’ve sent to you from the article of Ted Postal is talking about the new strategy of the United States considering nuclear weapons. They’re talking about that this is a strategy of preemption.

But do you see, putting this part of nuclear bombs aside, do you see any sort of connection with this type of strategy and with the economy, the war that is going on between the United States and Russia and China in terms of their economy? Do you see any link between these two discussions? On one part, the military part, on the other part, you see their economy at war.

MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, the United States hoped to bankrupt Russia in the 1980s by arming, under the Cold War, so much spending that they thought that forced Russia to make a mirror image spending of its own military budget.

They thought that this is going to bring down the Soviet Union because they don’t have as large an economic surplus as we do, and that will force them to squeeze their economy and cause public discontent, including discontent among their own ranks of the Communist Party people, and it will just demoralize them. So if we can increase our spending, forcing other countries to spend their money, the theory was their populations will revolt and vote somebody else in the power.

Well, that’s just what NATO thought in the 2022 when it kept stepping up the attacks on the Russian-speaking Ukrainians and tried to do everything they could to provoke Russia into war.

The idea, once again, was if they could force Russia to counteract the NATO attacks on civilians in Donetsk and Luhansk, the eastern Ukrainian Russian-speaking regions, then Russia would, number one, have to divert its income to war spending, and it would not be able to industrialize and become more self-sufficient in its industrialization, and number two, since Russians were going to have their soldiers dying, the American National Endowment for Democracy and other propaganda organizations, non-government organizations in Russia, would be able to try to fan the flames of popular discontent, and obviously that didn’t work, but that was the plan.

So when you bring out a suggestion, what you just did, this enormous increase in atomic weapon spending, number one, this is a bonanza for the military-industrial complex in the United States because most of America’s atomic weapons haven’t been cleaned and spruced up for the last 50 years.

There’s a question, do they still work anymore? Do we have to take them apart and fix them? And do we need new technologies to somehow invest in America to keep up with the Russian technology of the hypersonic missiles and everything?

It turns out that America’s plan to bankrupt Russia with military spending has backfired. It threatens to bankrupt America with military spending, and the narrative of all of this is being framed by how we began the show.

The narrative is, in order to afford this military spending to threaten to blow up the world and start civilization all over again, in order to finance this, we have to cut back social security and social spending and interest payments to the bondholders.

So all of this is an excuse to spend enough money on non-social purposes in the United States that it crowds out the budgetary leeway for the social spending programs that the voters actually want.

And of course, to do that, you have to make a duopoly between the Republicans and the Democratic Party. You have to make them into a single party, preventing any third-party access on the ballot, such as, Nima, you and I have discussed when we had Jill Stein, the anti-war candidate from the Green Party, on.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats have tried to make such a labyrinthine set of rules to get on the ballot that really, Americans don’t have any option on the ballot box but to vote either for the Republicans to do this rearming, new Cold War arming, or the Democrats to do the re-militarization.

You can vote which one is to do it, and each party has its own identity politics. But you can’t have any party that is trying to urge peace.

You’re seeing this whole charade being performed last week in Germany. When you have the two anti-war parties, Germany’s talking about, to preserve democracy, we have to ban the anti-war parties. Because without going to war, we cannot support fascism throughout the world. We have to support the Ukrainian fascists against Russia. And if a party is formed, either the alternative for Deutschland or the Sarovagnecht party, we have to prevent them and just not let them take a position in Parliament, because that’s anti-democratic.

Democratic is what benefits the United States in the Cold War. That’s what we define. Democracy is the Cold War. Autocracy is avoidance of war. Autocracy is the BRICS, China, Russia, Iran, and other countries withdrawing from this whole financialized system.

So they not only have a different narrative that we’re talking about, they have a different vocabulary, as George Orwell had pointed out. So we’re talking on your show every week, not only about the narrative, but about the very vocabulary that is meant to misshape how people perceive and what they think is happening in the world.

RICHARD WOLFF: Let me only add something. Let me put on my hat as an economist for a moment. Michael is right. The contest, the war contest, the arms contest, whatever you want to call it, between Russia and the United States, which in some ways goes all the way back to the end of World War II, was a very clever strategy.

Whether it’s George Kennan who gets the credit or some of the later people in the State Department, they understood a very simple thing, which I don’t think Americans ever understood.

That the United States came out of World War II as an absolutely unique dominant economic powerhouse, and that all the potential competitors, economic competitors, were gone. Russia was gone. China was gone. Germany was gone. Britain was gone. Japan was all gone, either destroyed by the war indirectly or literally destroyed in the war directly.

Now, this was not a sustainable arrangement. It would eventually end, but for a good while, I would argue for the rest of the 20th century, the United States maintained its dominant, overwhelming position.

Therefore, a contest, an arms race between the United States and Russia was a kind of a bad joke. One was sitting on top of an economic powerhouse. The other one was sitting on top of an economic disaster zone.

There was no… This is crazy. As recently as the last time I looked, two or three years ago, the GDP… Americans don’t get this. The GDP of Russia three years ago was around one and a half trillion dollars per year. The GDP total output of goods and services for one calendar year, roughly one and a half trillion. In that same year, the GDP of the United States was about 22 trillion dollars.

Okay, everybody has to stop, right? One and a half versus 22. And that ratio isn’t all that different now from what it was before. An arms race between a military based on a 1.5 trillion dollar economy versus a military based on a 22 trillion? I mean, that’s not a contest.

You know what’s amazing about that? The level of military production that the Russians were actually able to undertake. You can tell, even if they didn’t admit it, that the priority they put on military was obviously enormous.

Maybe the Soviet Union was a challenge to the United States, using the word loosely in politics and in military. But in economics, never, not close, no way at all. So an arms race between them is something the United States could confidently think it would win.

We are not in that situation today. And that’s part of what’s going on. We are not in the same. Right now, the GDP of the United States is in the neighborhood of 23 trillion last time I looked. The GDP of China, about 17 or 18 trillion. That’s a completely different story.

Put China and Russia together and you have a high priority on the military and a bigger economy. And the Chinese a mountainous bigger economy with a high tech sector second to none.

This is a new game. If you assume you’re going to win the arms race now, you’re crazy. You’ve lost touch with reality. You are not in the same situation and you’re going to make terrible mistakes.

And the first clue of how bad the mistakes are is the mistake made when you decided that all Ukraine needed was your weapons and your money to overwhelm Russia.

Wrong. Why? Because Russia has China and Russia has BRICS and Russia has allies and Russia has options.

You didn’t figure. You thought you were where you once were, but you’re not. You’re just not. And the result is a new framework which you haven’t figured out yet.

I listen to the neocons running our foreign policy these days, the Blinkens, you know, the Jake Sullivan, those folks. They sound, look, and speak like cold warriors. They’re still there. They’re in another place with other calculations that made a certain sense then. Dangerous, risky, but they had a certain logic.

Now you get the danger, you get the risk, but the odds, they’re not there. The context is not what it was. In fact, it’s pushing the other way more so every year. This is a losing proposition, but they keep losing and they can’t think their way out. They lost. They couldn’t win the war in Korea. They lost it in Vietnam. They lost it in Afghanistan. They lost it in Iraq. They’re losing it in Ukraine. They still don’t get it.

That’s why I think we’re much closer than any of us dare hope for the very big changes I think are coming.

MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, give them credit, Richard. We did beat Germany in 2022. It’s now completely dependent on it. We beat Europe.

RICHARD WOLFF: Yep, but you know Volkswagen, which is in its greatest crisis, Volkswagen is the emblem industry of Germany. There’s a great success story. Up until last year, more VWs were sold in China than any other brand of car, etc., etc., etc. They are now in a crisis. They’ve announced they’re about to close factories all across Germany, which they have never done in their 70 years of history before.

They’re in desperate trouble, but they know why. Be careful. What we see is the surface which has to placate the United States for all the reasons Michael has in his mind, and they’re right.

But right below the surface, there’s a whole other layer of German industry which says, as Michael was about to say, it’s the American policy in Ukraine that makes the Wirtschaftswunder of Germany disappear.

We knew we had no Wunder. We [Germany] don’t have greater technical skills than the French do, or the British do, or the Italians do. Stop. We know better. What we had was cheap oil and gas, the cheapest oil and gas of any European, and with the pipeline that the Americans blew up, we would have had it for the next 30 years.

We are screwed, and because we were the engine of Europe, all of Europe is screwed. Are we really going to go into the rest of this century becoming a vassal of the United States when we really didn’t have to? This is the painful question that sits right below the surface, not just in Germany, in France, in Italy, in Britain itself.

They are at a crucial point. I’m not sure which way they’re going to go. I understand what Michael is saying. They may have sold their whole future.

They have made Europe, which by the way, just a footnote for everybody, Europe, the European community, is now the richest single block in the world. It’s a bigger wealth block than the United States. It’s a bigger wealth block than at least the original BRICS, or at least close to it.

It is gone, or maybe, which would be a remarkable thing for that part of the world that has been the center in many ways of the world for centuries, for millennia, to be pushed aside in this relative short time by a relative newcomer, the United States, and an utter newcomer, China, capitalist China, as opposed to earlier.

I really do believe, therefore, that these conversations, besides being interesting commentary from the left and all that, that would be enough. But I believe more than ever before, we are on the edge of a lot of these under the ground contradictions coming up to the surface.

We’re going to be talking about how things could change so quickly when in fact our discussions have been documented that these are long-running changes that have been building for quite a while.

NIMA: Yeah. Thank you so much, Richard and Michael, for being with us today. Great pleasure as always.

RICHARD WOLFF: Yeah, good conversation. And Michael had let us know, I hope I’m not revealing anything, that he was worried that he was going to give a lecture on money. But I’m glad you did. I’m glad that we structured it around that, because I think that topic needs it more than once, and that we will have a chance, I hope, in the future to go and revisit some of these questions again.

NIMA: Exactly. See you soon. Bye-bye.

Due to the Israeli war crimes in Gaza we have increased our coverage from five to six days a week. We do not have the funds to do this, but felt that it was the only right thing to do. So if you have not already donated for this year, please do so now. To donate please go HERE.