Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Adam Smith vs. von Mises (Libertarian Vs Fascist)  (Read 2178 times)

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2838
Adam Smith vs. von Mises (Libertarian Vs Fascist)
« on: November 04, 2015, 12:33:37 pm »

Below are excerpts from Real Economics Interview with Michael Hudson
http://real-economics.blogspot.com/2015/10/michael-hudson-on-baleful-effects-of.html

... The focus of Smith, Mill [Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill], Quesnay and the whole of 19th-century classical economics was to draw a distinction between productive and unproductive labor – that is, between people who earn wages and profits, and rentiers who, as Mill said, “get rich in their sleep.” That is how he described landowners receiving groundrent. It also describes the financial sector receiving interest and “capital” gains.

... Neoliberals say they’re against government, but what they’re really against is democratic government [Republics]. The kind of governments they support are pre-referendum Greece or post-coup Ukraine. ... Neoliberals want the kind of government that will create gains for the banks, not necessarily for the economy at large. Such governments basically are oligarchic.

... Aristotle talked about this more than 2,000 years ago. He said that democracy is the stage immediately preceding oligarchy. All economies go through three stages repeating a cycle: from democracy into oligarchy, and then the oligarchs make themselves hereditary. (Today, Jeb Bush wants to abolish the estate tax to help the emerging power elite make itself into a hereditary aristocracy.) Then, some of the aristocratic families will fight among themselves, and take the public into their camp and promote democracy, so you have the cycle going all over again. That’s the kind of cycle we’re having now, just as in ancient Athens. It’s a transition from democracy to oligarchy on its way to becoming an aristocracy of the power elite.

... The first thing the neoliberal Chicago School did when they took over Chile was to close down every economics department in the country except the one they controlled at the Catholic University. They started an assassination program of left wing professors, labor leaders and politicians, and imposed neoliberalism by gunpoint. Their idea is you cannot have anti-labor, deregulated “free markets” stripping away social protections and benefits unless you have totalitarian control. You have to censor any idea that there’s ever been an alternative, by rewriting economic history to deny the progressive tax and regulatory reforms that Smith, Mill, and other classical economists urged to free industrial capitalism from the surviving feudal privileges of landlords and predatory finance.

... Most rent theory was developed in England, and also in France. English practice is more complex than America. The military conquerors imposed a pure groundrent fee on the land, as distinct from the buildings and improvements. So if you buy a house from a seller in England, somebody else may own the land underneath it. You have to pay a separate rent for the land. The landlord doesn’t do anything at all to collect land rent, that’s why they call them rentiers .... This practice is a carry-over from the Norman Conquest and its absentee landlord class.

...since Margaret Thatcher led Britain down the road to debt peonage and rent serfdom by privatizing ... infrastructure, she and her emulators in other countries turned them into [color=ooth economies[/b][/color]. The resulting economic rent takes the form of a rise in prices to cover interest, stock options, soaring executive salaries and underwriting fees. The economy ends up being turned into a collection of tollbooths instead of factories. So, you can think of rent as the “right” or special legal privilege to erect a tollbooth and say, “You can’t get television over your cable channel unless you pay us, and what we charge you is anything we can get from you.”

... This price doesn’t have any relation to what it costs to produce what they sell. Such extortionate pricing is now sponsored by U.S. diplomacy, the World Bank, and what’s called the Washington Consensus forcing governments to privatize the public domain and create such rent-extracting opportunities.

... The key to the Austrian School [people like von Mises and von Hayek and the Chicago School] is their hatred of labor and socialism. [In Austro-Hungary] It saw the danger of democratic government spreading to the Habsburg Empire, and it said, “The one thing we have to stop is democracy [Republics]. Their idea of a free market was one free of democracy and of democratic government regulating and taxing wealthy rentiers.

... Above all, they opposed governments creating their own money, e.g. as the United States did with its greenbacks in the Civil War. They wanted to privatize money creation in the hands of commercial banks, so that they could receive interest on their privilege of credit creation and also to determine the allocation of resources.

... Real serfdom was when families had to pay all their income to the landlords as rent. Centuries of classical economists backed democratic political reform of parliaments to roll back the landlords’ power (and that of bankers). But Hayek [absurdly] claimed that this rollback was the road to serfdom, not away from it. He said democratic regulation and taxation of rentiers is serfdom. In reality, of course, it’s the antidote [to serfdom].

... So the objectives of the financial sector – of Wall Street, the City of London or Frankfurt in Germany – is to obtain the land. You can look at what’s happening in Greece. What its creditors, the IMF and European Central Bank (ECB) want are the Greek islands, and they want the gas rights in the Aegean Sea. They want whatever buildings and property there is, including the museums.

... Matters are not so much different in the private sector. If you can get a company or individual into debt, you can strip away the assets they have when they can’t pay. A Hayek-style government would block society from protecting itself against such asset stripping. Defending “property rights” of creditors, such “free market” ideology deprives the rest of the economy – businesses, individuals and public agencies.

... In America, in colonial times, sharpies (especially from Britain) would lend farmers money that they knew the farmer couldn’t pay, then they would foreclose just before the crops came in. Right now you have corporate raiders, who are raiding whole companies by forcing them into debt, and then smashing and grabbing. You now have the IMF, European Central Bank and Washington Consensus taking over whole countries like Ukraine. The tactic is to purposely lend them the money that clearly cannot be repaid, and say, “Oh you cannot pay? Well, we’re not going to take a loss. We have a solution.” The solution is to sell off public enterprises, land and natural resources. In Greece’s case, 50 billion euros of its property, everything that it has in the public sector. The country is to be sold off to foreigners (including domestic oligarchs working out of their offshore accounts). Debt leverage is thus the way to achieve what it took armies to win in times past.

... [The U.S.] has created a new iron curtain. Two years ago, Greece was supposed to privatize 5 billion euros of its public domain. Half of this, 2.5 billion, was to be the sale of its gas pipeline. But the largest bidder was Gazprom, and America said, “No, you can’t accept the highest bidder if its Russian.” Same thing in Ukraine. It has just been smashed economically, and the U.S. says, “No Ukrainian or Russian can buy into the Ukrainian assets to be sold off. Only George Soros and his fellow Americans can buy into this.” This shows that the neoliberalism of free markets, of “let’s everybody pay the highest price,” is only patter talk. If the winner in the rigged market is not the United States, it sends in ISIS or Al Qaeda and the assassination teams, or backs the neo-Nazis as in Ukraine.

... Basically, US/NATO strategists want to make sure, by destroying Ukraine’s eastern export industry, that Ukraine will be chronically bankrupt and will have to settle its balance-of-payments deficit by selling off its private domain to American, German and other foreign buyers.

... [Something] rarely mentioned is the way in which many regular working people get swindled. One example that comes to my mind is the mutual funds and other money managers that control what pension funds and lots of retirees invest in. Much of their savings are tied up in heavily leveraged junk bonds and in places like Greece, but also recently in Puerto Rico which is going through a very similar scenario right now. So in many ways, US taxpayers and pensioners are funding the looting and exploitation of these countries and they’re then financially invested in continuing the destruction of these countries. It’s almost like these pensioners are human shields for Wall Street.

... Over the past twenty years the American stock market has become a vehicle for corporate raiding, replacing equity with debt. ... The other point I’m making concerns economic rent. The guiding idea of an economic and tax system should be to lower the cost of living and doing business.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2015, 03:56:18 pm by Luck »
Logged

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2838
Re: Adam Smith vs. von Mises
« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2015, 01:11:07 pm »

Not many folks seem interested in Economics around here. On the other hand, there's a lot of activity on the Libertarian Facebook page.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2015, 03:55:18 pm by Luck »
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5720
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re: Adam Smith vs. von Mises (Libertarian Vs Fascist)
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2015, 06:12:20 pm »

Insane conspiracy theories.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2838
Re: Adam Smith vs. von Mises (Libertarian Vs Fascist)
« Reply #3 on: December 19, 2015, 03:54:26 pm »

Michael Hudson is a mainstream economist. The neocons are fascists and fascists are conspirators. It's not an insane theory. Denial of reality is what's insane.
Logged

Luck

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2838
Re: Adam Smith vs. von Mises (Libertarian Vs Fascist)
« Reply #4 on: December 30, 2015, 05:20:24 pm »

"The most significant socio-political shift in our time has gone almost completely unremarked, and even unnoticed. It is the dramatic shift of the red-state bourgeoisie from leave-us-alone libertarianism, manifested in the Congressional elections of 1994, to almost totalitarian statist nationalism. Whereas the conservative middle class once cheered the circumscribing of the federal government, it now celebrates power and adores the central state, particularly its military wing... My own take is this: the Republican takeover of the presidency combined with an unrelenting state of war, has supplied all the levers necessary to convert a burgeoning libertarian movement into a statist one."

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up