Which is why Jews survived and prospered, ironicall

Jews practiced usury, and hence their debt claims grew exponentially, making demands outside of nature. These debts were in the form of pledges, i.e. a debt instrument.

Said debt instruments would be housed at Jewish establishments/homes.

As Hudson says, that which cannot be paid, won’t be paid. Jewish usurers, practicing their family tradition (usury), also tended to physically isolate themselves, as an in-group.

When the public, who were being hosted, could no longer bear exponential burdens of usury, said public would torch houses and business of Jews, thus wiping out records of debts.

It was a form of Jubilee by fire. Jews did not survive and prosper until Catholic Church created a policy, where Jews were not to be persecuted, but on the other hand, Jews were not allowed to attack and undermine their host society. This Catholic Policy is now lost to history, and the West has morphed into State Sponsored Usury, often with Jews at the helm.

The only thing I agree with is that Khruschev was not up to the task. But not because of his ideals but because of his fecklessness in key moments; it was the nomenklatura that replaced him, after all. However, as expected, he was replaced with a Brezhnev that was louder and more populist but who also really only depended on higher oil prices, because corruption under him became endemic. And most people cannot remember Andropov’s short term of reforms without remembering also his KGB ruthlessness. Therefore, as much as you can complain about Gorbachev selling out, it was perhaps inevitable because of all the systematic failure provoked by the nomenklatura. It is not helpful that by the early 50s Stalinism had undeniably and already become way too oppressive and even backwards, and perestroika showed all the nomenklatura corruption under the sun from then and through the decades.

Then again, it is also true that Russians are used to strong leaders and therefore prefer them, even when despotic, as long as they keep things kinda working for most. Same for Hispanics, because of the strong caudillo cultural tradition. So perhaps neither culture can do any better, and thus you may be right overall.

Collectivization just sped up the process and made it much more bloodier than needed be.

You have the right to an opinion; however, considering that the massive western attack on the USSR was less 10 years away, and it seems obvious that Soviet leaders correctly (more or less) estimated it by 1932, your “than needed be” appears to be a wholly unwarranted claim.

The US demanded lend-lease compensation from everyone. Difference is, the capitalist countries could afford it eventually because they grew productive again (and the US wanted them to remain capitalist anyway – the threat of the German Revolution of 1919-1920, plus the early 20s’ misguided policies of the German left, helped the Brownshirts’ rise). The other kind, even when given aid, they tend to vacuum it into their pockets. Yugoslavia for example, which shone under Tito and NATO aid, but which suffered anyway when he died; sectarian lines arose again, and the oil-stagflation crisis made it hard to give away money to them anyway. Thus their Western-friendly socialism fell like a house of cards.

As for the offered aid to the USSR, I don’t recall if it was true or not. At any rate, the Soviets had military and industrial advantage on the rest of Europe right after the war, and more arable land than even America; why did they not become the new breadbasket of the world (a world that sorely needed bread, mind you) and thus become the new ruling economic power? It goes to show that the better remembered Soviet era among Russians today is the early Brezhnev one, where high oil prices hid everything.

Wrong, industrialization everywhere was accompanied by peasants losing livelihoods, which not necessarily happened due to collectivization, but simply because the old serfdom-order was not as economically productive as industrialization in a global scale (lest we forget, industrialization arose in the age of empires, aka captive markets, which globalization intends to replicate, with its pros and cons). Collectivization just sped up the process and made it much more bloodier than needed be. Obviously in the Soviet case it was a step up from the previous feudal system, better late and botched and forced than never; but that does not mean collectivization is the only alternative. In the Western world, the nobility eventually had a lot of its land overtaken by the monarch and/or bourgeoisie and/or farmer’s co-ops (a later development) and/or agribusiness, achieving the same result but with much higher and varied production, and less loss of life due to starvation.

Plus, Stalin trusted the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, and only would have needed enough armies to hold the border with the German General Government of Poland had Hitler not drank the Himmlerian Lebensraum Kool-aid nonsense so much. Even when victors, the USSR military that you extol led the world in losses; thankfully due to its size it could afford many of them. Not too different from when the backwards Tsarist regime defeated Napoleon.

A Constitutional Convention where we would enthrone Zuckerberg as Supreme Leader.

Grow up. I find it hilarious that Georgists like Mr. Hudson are the best socialism can offer. While I agree on slightly raising land taxes and taxes on Wall Street overall, it is clear that the “land tax only” approach works in places where the land is solely owned by big wealthy Junkers, where said land is scarce and easily accessible, and where said Junkers do not make any effort to produce from said land. These conditions limit who would pay this tax (specially in nations with many small landowners, more remote areas, and more farmers), and therefore it is not the silver bullet Georgists pretend it to be. Henry George did live in Victorian England, where the conditions were more ripe for this; even now many English are not owners. But the world is not the same all over. Nowadays, land taxes in most of the West are more often levied by city governments, where it levies a good amount of money, but also causes the rise of property prices and allows only the wealthier Junkers who can afford to pay the tax to own most of the land. So again, it is not a panacea.

Which is why Jews survived and prospered, ironically.

My favorite lines from this long piece:

Industry has become a vehicle for financial engineering to increase stock prices and strip assets, not to increase the means of production. The result is that capitalism has fallen prey to resurgent rentier interests instead of liberating economies from absentee landlords, predatory banking and monopolies. Banks and bondholders have found their most lucrative market not in the manufacturing sector but in real estate and natural resource extraction.

The late 1940′s were hungry times. Even in the ’60′s things got bad at times. Not 1921 in Saratov bad but food a bit short, according to people I talk to about their childhood.

I’ve been doing business in Russia for 25 years. I’ve met people who thought Stalin was good because he was strong but not many not even amongst nationalists, certainly not amongst politically active communists. Bolshevism is now seen as a huge mistake. Only Brezhnev is considered warmly. He had good oil prices.

And yet poverty is falling everywhere excepting such as Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

and remember that marx was also engels. so the idea that authentic marxism is jewish is not quite right.

Moreover, Marx was a complete apostate Jew, completely estranged from Judaism and any community of those who practiced it.

How do you expect to maintain a welfare state (which is what basic income amounts to) if the next generation is smaller in size than the former one? Unless you plan mass euthanasia after retirement – which would not even happen a lot if the proposed basic income is deemed too sufficient by enough people that would rather give up attempting to produce.

Several problems here. When it comes to numbers, Soviet records are notoriously spotty, even deliberately falsified. Most historians n those writers who experienced the Ukrainian famine alone put the number of victims at well over 3 million n closer to 6. Then there are the 2 M Volga famine victims in 1918, another 2 M in 1921, n another 2 M in 1923. Solzhenitsyn puts the total victims of the Soviet state at 66M, the Gulag never having less than several million people being worked to death (including women n small children) in its camps at any given time from the early 1920s to the late 1950s, requiring a constant source of new condemned laborers to be acquired by whatever means necessary since the average life span of a prisoner was only 3 years. I say prisoner rather than convict since most were condemned without trial. We haven’t even mentioned the 6 million Soviet POWs forcibly returned to SU after the war (mostly by Truman n Eisenhower) most of whom were sent permanently to the Gulag for having surrendered to Germans during WW2. Soviet undercounted the numbers of dead for obvious reasons just as they overcounted economic production.

That is why I am asking Sergey Krieger to back up his point of view with some evidence.

Well, what about the most obvious, common sense evidence I posted in 41:

the USSR fully industrialized, defeated the EU version 3, expanded its borders and greatly expanded its sphere of influence, built and tested atomic weapons.

It seems to me, by all the usual criteria it was a huge success.

Take Napoleon Bonaparte, for example. He was successful leader for a while, building an empire – but he was defeated eventually and lost everything, with his empire collapsing during his lifetime. Yet, he is considered one of the greatest heroes of France. With Stalin, it seems far less controversial.

Your boy Lourie (Clinton adviser) doesn’t like collectivization, but every industrialization everywhere was accompanies by an agrarian reform. Industrialization can’t happen without consolidation of small family farms, masses of peasants losing their livelihood and becoming factory workers. In the 1930s USSR, due to the geopolitical situation — anticipation of a big war — super-rapid industrialization required a super-rapid agrarian reform. Thus, collectivization. What would Mr Lourie, the Hillary adviser, do instead? Faced the most brutal war in history with no tanks and a bunch of peasants?

Although the participation of the Soviet Union and East European nations was an initial possibility,

So, this, from a government website, is your best evidence of the claim that “the U.S. offered massive economic aid to the Soviet Union after the defeat of Germany and Japan in 1945″?

Not much, eh?

And don’t you think that if true aid was offered – altruistic shipments of food, vehicles, consumer products – then surely it would’ve been accepted? And are you aware that, contrary to offering aid, the US was demanding compensation for the war-time lend-lease?

[At least this sort of comment is half-reasonable and connected with the discussion. But if you return at any point to your very bad behavior, most of your comments, both reasonable and unreasonable will just be trashed for an extended period of time to teach you a lesson.]

It was clearly offered, but there were complications, aka: Stalin

FWIW:

“The State Department worked out the Marshall Plan, which its Secretary offered at first to the Big Four
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol13/no08/notm1.htm”

“What the Secretary of State left unsaid was that while the U.S. plan would be open to the Soviet Union and its satellites in Eastern Europe … ”

https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/short-history/truman

“Although the participation of the Soviet Union and East European nations was an initial possibility …”

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/marshall-plan

The numbers of those who were incarcerated are out. Total from 1921 till 1953 around 3 million including about 700 000 executed, not exactly everyone considering population of the time. Frankly, not that much considering what time it was. And you should not forget that those people were jailed for breaking laws of the time. Vast majority were jailed and executed because they were guilty of crimes. Simple. Archives are opened. Numbers are out. Also, you should always remember who started smearing Stalin. Elites had great interest in smearing him, otherwise nobody would dare.

Well, for them, Stalin was a step up from the Bolsheviks, Cheka and the NKVD. The Russian revolution was a revolution against the Russian ethno state just was it was about economic ideology. Individual Russians suffered surely, but he rehabilitated Russian ethnicity itself by the 30s. Before that it was Russian guilt , then called Russian Chauvinism. Its not unlike white guilt we see today. He did so for selfish reasons of course. Without Russians any old Western power would have picked the Soviets apart.

To some extend the Russian rulers did provoke this with rather clumsy Russfication polices , thus the backlash was to some extend cultivated by Russia. Finland is a particularly painful example of a people provoked. they were causing any trouble but got Russification anyway. However in other cases it was religious and ethnic tension. One far East Islamic leader stated that Russian made life too good and thus it was too corrupting. It was not unlike the leading Russian Rabbi fighting against Napoleon because of a far too liberating civil code for Jews. More than once we have seen religious leaders hating material competition for the attention of their flock.

Socialism isn’t communism light. The problem with communism is related to socialism in a rather complicated and apparent paradox. We do have several advantages in that it was suggested by political philosophers like Montesquieu and then we saw it actually occur with the Russian revolution. The closer one gets to complete freedom the closer one is to loosing it.

Communism delegitimizes authority with “power to the people”. Thus communism acts as a fumigant. This leaves a power vacuum that is filled with another “people loving” enterprise called socialism which is just like communism in that is “good for the people”. the only difference is that its centrally managed and authoritarian. The Bolsheviks easily wrested the Russian empire from the formless mass of orthodox Marxists. Then came the punch line : “war communism”.

Again this effect of freedom leading to bondage is easily observed. The Federalists argued this same point.

“Spain thinks it convenient to shut the Mississippi against us on the one side, and Britain excludes us from the Saint Lawrence on the other; nor will either of them permit the other waters which are between them and us to become the means of mutual intercourse and traffic.
…

Apply these facts to our own case. Leave America divided into thirteen or, if you please, into three or four independent governments–what armies could they raise and pay–what fleets could they ever hope to have? If one was attacked, would the others fly to its succor, and spend their blood and money in its defense? ”

- John Jay.

The individual freedom of each state may have led to a greater servitude .

Communism would not be bad at all if it were not for the fact that it is absolutely defenseless from being usurped. This is not to mention that one is perfectly free to be a communist as we speak. One may go and form a commune . They may find like minded people and live according to this ethos. However when people speak of “communism” it seems its never without the force of the state. Thus once again all it is is a phase of self immolation where the protection of the people is completely removed.

Uuuuh. No. That’s a horrible suggestion.

I’ve read 50 books on Stalin and Russia. Another 50 on the Cold War. Those two I happen to have out of the library right now. I entered that text myself. I don’t need to Google anything.

My point of view obviously makes more sense that’s why I am writing about it.

That is why I am asking Sergey Krieger to back up his point of view with some evidence. He is simply providing his opinion without argument or facts or evidence.

All you guys need is to provide one book. One author. Something. One metric to compare and at the same time show it would have been worse without what happened during the Stalin years. That should be easy.

Then I can go read that book and be amazed by how you guys are right about everything all the time.

I’ve been studying Russia for 30 years. I’ve never known anybody but Russian World War II vets ,who lived and weren’t sent to the Gulag as a reward for their service, speak fondly of the Stalin experience. I find it amusing.

Even Putin is on record repeatedly speaking of what a disaster it was.

It’s always striking how easily manipulated Russians were (and are) by Stalin’s cynical (and desperate) appeals to Russian nationalism.

“The USSR’s main use for oil was for domestic purposes, Moscow always prizing independence from a hostile capitalist world. But Moscow needed that world too because Russia, which before the revolution had been the world’s greatest exporter of grain, ”
Now, Russia did export grain but who exported grain? Few big producers while majority was starving. Hence Russia was exporting while peasants regularly had no enough bread to eat and most had to actually buy bread to survive., It is long story. But many look at Russia exports and do not know what was going on in Russia of the time. After collectivization starvation and famines stopped. Some magic?

Regarding debates in 1920′s party. Debates are good only so far. They should lead to actions. The destiny of the country was on line. You cannot debate all the time.
The problem of lack of debates later after Stalin death wa snot Stalin doing. Each generation has got own problems to solve. Khrushchev was not up to the task. Intellectual midget, I would say moron frankly. He undermined the whole system.

Agree. Stalinism kept elites under control. Hence once he was dead they rushed to abandon Stalinism under which they had to be responsible for the actions and inactions. They eventually wanted more and he we arrived at 1985 and what followed. Stalinism was no more for some 30 years by then and still it built the foundation upon which Russia still depends.

“You should ask yourself this question. Stalinism encompassed Soviet history from 1924 till 1953. Under Stalin. Take a look at both ends and compare.”

Isn’t it a clue. Ok, compare Russia in 1924 to 1953. Even better, compare it to Russia 1914 in every respect including standing in World ranks, GDP, literacy, health and so forth and compare. not enough? Sorry. I am not kindergarten teacher.
Another clue would be from your very own Churchill ““Stalin found Russia working with wooden plows and left it equipped with atomic piles,” attributed to Winston Churchill”

So, you read a book? Or did google suggest these quotes to you?

In any case, that’s a good start. And now, why don’t you read or google something with the opposite point of view, compare, and see which one makes more sense.

You aren’t even giving us a clue as to what we would be comparing. “Great success” – your words. If you can’t define anything than you can say that about virtually any leader who has presided over an empire for thirty years (and lived). It’s meaningless.

Give me a link to a history book that says what you state and a page reference.

Because I’m reading this right now and I’m getting a distinctly different feel about Stalinism than what you are trying to say:

Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy by Dmitri Volkogonov

Volkogonov entered the military at the age of seventeen in 1945, which was common for many orphans. He studied at the Lenin Military-Political Academy in Moscow in 1961, transferring to the Soviet Army’s propaganda department in 1970. There he wrote propaganda pamphlets and manuals on psychological warfare and gained a reputation as a hardliner.

It was as early as the 1950s, while a young Army officer, that Volkogonov first discovered information that created cognitive dissonance within himself. While reading early journals of Party members from the 1920s, Volkogonov realized “how stifled and sterile political debate in the Soviet Union had become in comparison to the early days.” Khrushchev’s 1956 secret speech further solidified this thought within him, but he kept these thoughts to himself at that time.

-this from wikipedia about the author

And then there is this:

“The USSR’s main use for oil was for domestic purposes, Moscow always prizing independence from a hostile capitalist world. But Moscow needed that world too because Russia, which before the revolution had been the world’s greatest exporter of grain, had become by the late 1970s the world’s largest importer. In 1963 Khrushchev had spent a third of the country’s gold to buy grain. The collective agriculture forcibly imposed by Stalin was a failure. As the head of a collective farm once said to me: “.. . collective farming could have worked. It worked in Israel.. .. But it couldn’t be done by force and decree.” Storage and distribution were also significant problems, up to a third of a year’s crop lost to spillage and spoilage.”
-pg. 106

Putin: His Downfall and Russia’s Coming Crash
by Richard Lourie (July 2017)

Yeah, it’s certainly odd that he calls the Soviet collapse under Gorby “The collapse of Russian Stalinism“.

Of course it was neither Russian nor Stalinism.

And indeed, Stalinism, when it ended, was nowhere near collapse, quite the opposite: the USSR fully industrialized, defeated the EU version 3 (the Roman empire being v1, and then the French v2), expanded its borders and greatly expanded its sphere of influence, built and tested atomic weapons.

You are still believe in old lies?

The deliberate starvation of millions of Christians was a great success.

You remind me of Kevin Kline’s character in A Fish Called Wanda (“We did not lose Vietnam (Afghanistan)! It was a tie!”)

You should ask yourself this question. Stalinism encompassed Soviet history from 1924 till 1953. Under Stalin. Take a look at both ends and compare. If it is not great success you should go and see a shrink.

Nobody, we pay more to Brussels than we get back

I don’t see anything is your link indicating that “The U.S. offered massive economic aid to the Soviet Union” (as per 7). Try again.

Stalinism most certainly did not fail. It was greatest success. What was after Stalin could not be called Stalinism

.

I’m sure that makes sense to somebody, somewhere. What planet are you from?

That plus the murder of a couple hundred million of their own people.

To this day a majority believes they are a “capitalist” if they “believe” in capitalism

They don’t even understand what you mean when you inform them that Marx believed in capitalism
For decades the threat of a socialist superpower kept capitalists behaving – finding ways to divide the wealth equitably
For decades the American middle and working class reaped the benefits of socialism – sideways – by way of volunteering for the US military, which allowed millions of them to prosper from veteran socialism while preaching individual capitalism, and no one would ever challenge them on this, and they existed inside an echochamber of their own making

For decades the strength they drew from this grew a sort of middle class collective, the benefits, prosperity and virtues of which overflowed into all kinds of other things

Anyway – jorge videla writing upstairs from here is right – there is a middle way – combine the known aspects of the middle way with S.Sailor “citizenism” and we may steer through Scylla and Charybdis

Where lies that champion though? Certainly not yet in DT

Rentier: Donald Trump

Rentier (property owner), someone whose income derives from rents, interest on investments, and the like.

Rentier capitalism, economic practices of gaining profit by monopolizing access to property.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rentier

Donald (Archie Bunker) Trump did not seize power.

He and the majority of elected USA government representatives are a reflection of the values held by America’s middle class that continually gives them the power to act on their behalf.

I hope I’m wrong but I’ve come to the conclusion as long as the majority of voters have a loaf of bread under each arm, a credit card account and subscribes to the main stream social entertainment media they will live out their short existence as slaves of a rentier class.

The Koran is read a lot!

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/soviet-union-rejects-marshall-plan-assistance

the justification for capital’s share is that it is reinvested in expanding production or productivity.

but this isn’t happening now. 90% of s&p profits go to shareholders in the form of dividends and share buy-backs.

the justification for private ownership is efficiency.

this is a real thing.

as chomsky has noted the business is a dictatorship.

this may be a more efficient form of corporate governance than “worker co-ops”.

the PRC and singapore have thriven without “democracy”. and that has to be in quotes because the US is NOT a democracy.

the vanguard of the proletariat can be more democratic, without any voting, than supposed democracies can be. the bolshies were right about that. too bad they themselves were a counter-example.

You know, it is amazing how the various forms of -isms in the marketplace of ideas –monetarism, Keynesianism, Marxism— are all basically forms of fraud.

It is all an attempt to somehow sever the relationship between creditor and debtor. Everybody wants you to work but get paid later in dubious amounts with declining currency. Or, they want to borrow gold from you now and pay you back in silver later. Or, they want you to work for free now with the promise that you will gain greatly in the distant future. The same fraud over and over again.

Does anyone really believe that rent collected on the basis of property and interest is not something economically valuable? Without interest, no one lends. Without rent, property is not built to begin with. Once again, people want something for nothing.

Oh, and it’s hilarious how people think David Ricardo is some kind of social reformer. Ricardo was a bond trader. Now, why would a bond trader want to see taxes on interest? Well, the taxes impose costs on an underlying enterprise, which means less profit becomes available to the enterprise itself, threatening the viability of the business. How does a business paper over any shortfalls in income. Why, it borrows more. What does that mean for David Ricardo? More bond transactions at higher interest rates.

Gee…

the commercial bank is ultimately a highly leveraged closed-end private debt fund.

there are economic advantages to private ownership of the means of production, including finance.

there are economic advantages to the phenomenon of capital taking a share of income.

there are economic efficiencies which can only be realized with some inequality.

there is a middle way. scandinavia seems to have found it. maybe china has too.

the human desire to be richer, greater, better than his fellow men should be harnessed not hobbled.

but most of these advantages are coming to an end.

be cool. don’t swallow your chew like lenny.

unlike 20th c french “philosophers” marx did not write gibberish.

he may be difficult to understand but the fault is with the reader not with him.

it took me a few tries to get him.

plus marx was a lot more than a critic of capitalism. ultimately he was an idealist in the contemporary sense of the term. what he means by “materialism” is NOT what richard dawkins and other vulgar people mean by it, people marx (or marxists) termed “vulgar materialists”.

The German Ideology is his greatest work imho.

if marx now has no influence because he appears to be gibberish, this is a sign that the brightest are duller than they were or that the brightest are now excluded from the commanding heights in which they formerly had some representation.

and remember that marx was also engels. so the idea that authentic marxism is jewish is not quite right.

The majority of the Marshall Plan proceeds went to England.

How many can understand any of this article? Not that many, hell not that many can read much, be surprised how many that only barely read anything, and more so many who fake reading, by learning ”look say” means.

But then there are many who are in denial about their own intelligence who can read somewhat, but similarly also fake at some level competence to fathom things that are above their ability.

Hudson is patiently breaking it down, and even so, it is too much to get for most poorly educated idiots. But they want to think they get it. But they are too stiff necked and totally brain washed to boot, to put any effort to do so.

But they got so much to say about it all!

“Coerced socialism is a racket to plunder the commons, middle class, and worker, period. ”

You want to tell me how oligarchic capitalism under the guise of Democracy is doing anything other than your theoretical coerced capitalism?

Plunder the commons. Check.
Imprison the middle class in debt and stagnant wages. Check.
Import foreigners to directly compete with native workers. Check

The US is on the precipice. As soon as people realize we have the technology to do direct democracy today, not tomorrow, it is game over. The wealthy rentier class knows it. They are executing their last push to gain wealth before we change the rules of the game and start over. All it would take is a well-liked Facebook call for a new Constitutional Convention.

Agree.
China too.

So much for that “multipolar” delusion rather popular around.

One should point out that Marx certainly didn’t invent the criticism of usury.
The Catholic Church understood and protected against this evil for 1800 years before Marx.

In order to produce some food ourselves, and not let the countries become vast woods between cities, towns and highways, agriculture is subsidized. Without subsidy no farmer could earn a living considered decent here.

So how do you explain your country? The World’s Second-Biggest Food Exporter. Who is subsidizing the Netherlands?

The terms offered and the scrutiny required to accept the funding guaranteed Soviet rejection of the plan. The US public was not privy to the inclusion of the USSR even being considered as recipient. The Cold War had begun.

The U.S. offered massive economic aid to the Soviet Union after the defeat of Germany and Japan in 1945.

Citation needed.

Socialism ie communism light is what we have right here in river city, in fact it is communism brought to us by the Bolshevik families that destroyed Russia ie these same extended families have spread the cancer of communism in America and are destroying America.

Starting with their Federal Reserve and the IRS which the Bolsheviks fastened on America in 1913 right on through to unlimited emigration our country is being destroyed by communism and for anyone who doubts this, read the 10 planks of the communist manifesto.

And while bank credit has enabled buyers to bid up housing prices, the price has been to siphon off more and more of labor’s income to pay mortgage loans or rents.

And taxes.

All democratic paths lead to oligarchy, but socialism is the fast lane.

Oligarchy eventually breaks down under its own corruption.

Evolution continues.

Stalinism most certainly did not fail. It was greatest success. What was after Stalin could not be called Stalinism. Nevertheless system was working well for majority common folk but not good enough for elites hence elites dismantled it . They are doing great now but common folk not so good. Hence non stop attempts by those who dismantled socialism for personal gain to show that socialism was failure. Now campaign to discredit October revolution of 1917 and lionize Tsarist Russia while keeping silence about real catastrophe they inflicted upon own country in 1991 causing probably irreparable damage all for their little gain. The whole later developments show that capitalism is unsustainable neither financially nor ecologically.

Rent certainly is a big part of our bills but FOOD is more! Fuel is not a problem because I do not commute.

Russia itself has chosen neoliberalism.

Taboo and forbiden subject in RF state sponsored media.
Oligarchs of the world united!

The best countries to live in were, the EU is making things worse and worse through globalisation, mass immigration, and neoliberalism, the NW European countries.
They had mixed economies, water, electricity, gas, public transport, etc., provided by state enterprises, cars, tv’s, jeans etc. by commercial enterprises.
Maybe one can say socialism mixed with capitalism.
In order to produce some food ourselves, and not let the countries become vast woods between cities, towns and highways, agriculture is subsidised.
Without subsidy no farmer could earn a living considered decent here.
Why Marx still is considered important is beyond my comprehension, Das Kapital has, with the bible, Mein Kampf and the Koran, the honor that hardly anyone read it.
I never heard of anyone who read further than the first 20 pages of Das Kapital.
Completely incomprehensible.

very good. i know that american economists are mere running dogs 95% of the time, but why? is it all down to the cold war propaganda? it’s very clear at this point that the evil empire is the US.

but what so many miss is that the poor of the developed world are not exploited as they were in marx’s time. they are redundant, excluded. raising the minimum wage doesn’t solve the problem of bullshit jobs. with each passing year less and less human labor is needed to maintain a given level of output, and the economy cannot grow forever. the expectation that everyone must work for his bread is delusional.

basic income is the only way. but the below replacement birthrates of the OECD must be maintained, and immigration must be reduced to a few geniuses. the poor world is not made richer by making the rich world poor by flooding it with more people.

The result is that today, most wealth is not gained by capital investment for profits. Instead, asset-price gains have been financed by a debt-leveraged inflation of real estate, stock and bond prices.

Yes, and it’s enough to look at the close match of charts of US debt growth and US GDP growth or the S&P 500 since 1980 to see that this is true.

Attempts at “half-way” socialism via tax and regulatory policy against monopolies and banking have faltered repeatedly.

A generalized failure as the US has become the land of “Special Interests” and their political clients.

By taking land, industry and finance into state control, Soviet Russia’s October Revolution created an economy without private landlords and bankers.

It also created an economy without a middle class, but with a police state, and ultimately failed like every other Communist economy around the world. The link between private industry and private reward was missing.

The only way to control banks and their allied rentier sectors is outright socialization. The past century has shown that if society does not control the banks and financial sector, they will control society.

Another way may be to localize banks. Connect them to their local communities and link them to local credit creation among people they know. Then they can corrrectly assess the risks that they carry on their books.
Also, if they were the only entities allowed to create credit, who would fund the $ 6 Trillion requirement for Middle East wars?

Sorry that is not true. The U.S. offered massive economic aid to the Soviet Union after the defeat of Germany and Japan in 1945. Stalin feared and distrusted the United States and was an enemy of democracy and capitalism and flatly refused, choosing to try and extend Marxism worldwide by military subversion and his own foreign aid programs.

Coerced socialism is a racket to plunder the commons, middle class, and worker, period.

It’s trick is to do it while distracting with envy for some achiever. They once promised that under their regime, why, everyone would have a salary of $2 a day. Now they’re producing articles that #taxationistheft is untrue because they (posing as society) own your paycheck. GOOGLE it.

Anyone claiming to be such a socialist like this guy is equally guilty of all of communism’s crimes and should be jailed or sent to an asylum. Only voluntary libertarian socialism for small groups is valid.

Get rid of these left-wing worse-than NAZI’s already.

RE:http://www.unz.com/mhudson/socialism-land-and-banking-2017-compared-to-1917/

“The classical economists sought to make their nations more competitive by keeping down the price of labor so as to undersell competitors.”

Oh, keeping wages depressed is still a big part of the policy mix … but they’ve turned the national competitive aspect on its head and into inter-class competition by encouraging outsourcing of jobs as part one of destroying wages to labour in the middle classes, coupled with mass importation of foreign labour to destroy wages to labour in the lower class. All the benefits accrue to the upper class across national boundaries. A sort of globalist proto-monopoly of class where nations and boundaries must necessarily be destroyed. This explains the recent comments of Hanoi Johnny about “all we have worked for.”

In 1945 the United States certainly feared the efficiency of socialist planning. Its diplomats opposed Soviet membership on the ground that state enterprise and pricing would enable such economies to undersell capitalist countries.

If the United States had treated its ally, the USSR who defeated Germany in WWll, to the largess of the Marshal Plan, instead of enriching her enemies, Germany, Japan etc etc. the financial picture would look vastly different today. But then, that’s not how we do things.

http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

Hallo Michael:if the essential issue here is the moral corruption ,what difference is going to make the system ?
How is going to be better a national bank form a federal reserve if the people that are in control are corrupt ?

And everyone making less than 250K a year took a hard one up the rear.

By 1991, when the Soviet Union’s leaders decided to take the “Western” path, the Western economies themselves were reaching a terminus.

You make it sound like the collapse of the USSR and the western crisis a couple of decades later were unconnected events. But I think it could be argued that the mere existence of an alternative model kept the western system somewhat prudent, focused, mobilized. With the USSR gone, any need for keeping up appearances was gone too. Thus, the ensuing orgy of financialization, chasing the cheapest labor all over the world, and all the rest.

Nomi Prins is jewish. She has worked as a managing director at Goldman-Sachs for 2 years and as a Senior Managing Director at Bear Stearns for 7 years, as well as having worked as a senior strategist at Lehman Brothers and analyst at the Chase Manhattan Bank. You decide how much trust you want to place on this article.

This is controlled oppostion. She is telling us to reinstate Glass Steagall, when what we really need to do is break up big banks and big media using anti-trust laws. We also need to jail a few bankers (and maybe media owners) for their fraud.

Ron Unz, the jewish owner of this site repeatedly advises us not to take down Big Media (see the American pravda articles) and now we have this woman telling us not to take down the banks.

Freedom from elites will never come without breaking up big banks and big media using all legal means available. Which means we need to think beyond Glass Steagall

Actually, it was the stupidity of the morons out of the Chicago School of Economics and their worship of markets and “maximizing shareholder value” that screwed everything up.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/06/26/the-origin-of-the-worlds-dumbest-idea-milton-friedman/#3bcca7ad870e

Since when do the free market as the solution to everything Austrians from Mises.org support Glass-Steagall or any other form of government intervention??? Destroying the Fed and fiat currency, yes. But Glass-Steagall, no way.

… but, behind your many reasonable and thought-provoking posts, there is a pile of misdirection and crypto-zionism in most.

You do your arguments no favour by naively attributing to “Nathan Meyer Rothschild” one of the many versions of a dictum that anti-Semites have attributed to one or more of the Rothschilds since, if one has at least done a quick online check, 1935. Of course one can well imagine a rich banker tossing off “in the end I don’t mind who’s in government as long as I can go on printing money”. But the way you have used a purported quote makes you sound like part of the tinfoil hat brigade.

Art… you’ve gone off message. You’ve omitted Rothschild direction of the Bank of England 25 years before the Rothschilds set up shop in England, directing and/or owning the several incarnations of a Federal Reserve Bank for America from Alexander Hamilton’s day till 1911-12 and onward. All these plain and indisputable facts can be learned on UR from its modestly contributing sage-commenters. And to put them in context for those who doubt the power of one family you should recall from diligent reading of UR threads that the Rothschilds own 80 per cent of the land in Israel.**

**To be fair in case you might be influenced by thinking you detect a note of scepticism in what I write I think the relater of that 80 per cent may be like the old monastic scribe with his “mumpsimus”. My understanding is that now, as under the Ottomans, only about 7 per cent of Israel’s land is freehold and it may well be that Rothschild financed settlers 110-140 years ago bought a lot of that. Anyone know?

But I liked the comment at the end by one Peter Dews that Lyotard’s work “lacked any [?all] moral or political orientation”. Come back and tell us when you have read Lyotard…..

In 1987, still in the age of Reagan, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, a past board member of JPMorgan, said that non-bank subsidiaries of bank holding companies could sell or hold “bank ineligible securities” —

1986 marks the end of traditional American enterprise.

Greenspan is the father of the Jew takeover of America’s finances. He changed American enterprise from a fiduciary responsible system – to a money hungry cabal of greedy financers.

In 1986 the US corporation had an obligation to it owners, employees, customers, its locality, our country, and to the future of all of them.

Post 1986 the corporation became an instrument to be used to make money for its top management and big percentage owners.

Greenspan financed the junk bond/savings and loan debacle, he financed the internet bubble, and he financed the home bubble. He provided the money that the Jews used to indebt everyone to their detriment.

Today corporations are bought and sold like toys only in the interest of short term monetary gain – the future of those below the top, be dammed.

Jews run that system – that is the way they are.

Trump can’t be “breaking up” banks because the federal reserve is a federal government sanctioned monopoly.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/interstate-banking.asp

Banks could not cross state lines after the Great Depression. They were slowly allowed to consolidate – first into regional banks and then nationwide.

The reasoning is like all political arguments – you can make a case that up is down if you use the right words.

The idea behind keeping banks within a state is that they would never get too big to cause a lot of damage should they fail (as in the case of a regional economic crisis) and that they would tend to make more of an effort to serve small customers.

The idea behind letting them merge was that they would be big enough so that they couldn’t fail if there was a small localized crisis. The profits from the successful sectors would compensate for the depressed area and the FDIC would not have to intervene as it would if the economy of a small area brought down small intrastate banks. The idea that there could be a country-wide financial crisis seemed remote.

May 21, 2013 Why the whole banking system is a scam – Godfrey Bloom MEP

• European Parliament, Strasbourg, 21 May 2013

• Speaker: Godfrey Bloom MEP, UKIP (Yorkshire & Lincolnshire)

“Who controls the issuance of money controls the government!” Nathan Meyer Rothschild

June 13, 2016 Which Corporations Control The World?

A surprisingly small number of corporations control massive global market shares. How many of the brands below do you use?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44864.htm

Sounds like an interesting book

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libidinal_Economy

Trump can’t be “breaking up” banks because the federal reserve is a federal government sanctioned monopoly.

The best that can be done right now is to force banks to separate their investment business from their loan business.

Bank investment businesses should by law have zero access to government subsidies and guarantees of solvency.

Also cease the government scheme of performing social engineering by subsidizing or insuring sub prime loans.

The ideological war in the world right now I see as between on the one hand globalisation and money, on the other hand politics, politics in nation states.

The weird thing is the muddle headed thinking on this.
The majority of political parties in the Netherlands is pro EU, yet, when Air France seems to swallow up Dutch KLM, great uproar, the same when a USA hedge fund tries to buy AKZO.
Our government even considers new legislation to prevent hostile aquisitions.

So on the one hand they say they’re in favor of free capital movement and globalisation, but when these forces threaten Dutch enterprises protection jumps out of the hat.

In France the same problems, when an enterprise now in France, because of lower wages, wants to go to Poland, uproar, Macron so honest that he says he can do nothing about it, yet his party wins the elections, be it as a result of the French district system, where the winner takes all in each district.

Just one of the problems of “junk colleges” is that they help multipĺy the number of people who believe they should form and express opinions on matters which they will never understand.

Well another win for Obama: he said and did nothing about either swamp. What a leader!

I wonder how Ms. Prins forget about his glorious 8 years in her story about Goldman Sachs (still) running the country? Hell, even the Caliph of Crawford actually jailed white-collar miscreants after the NASDAQ/Enron disaster. Barry and Eric didn’t charge a single person, and he had no shortage of Vampire Squid and other Wall Street vultures in his administration.

Frank-Dodd is a joke, Emperor’s New Clothes Part Two (or Twenty), which like most “laws” intend to fight the “big banks” just penned Main Street even tighter into the TBFB’s slaughtering pens.

[…] = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Read more at: http://www.unz.com Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on […]

For all of the rhetoric, did we really belive it was a long shot that Trump would come through? Why, after six or seven decades of having Wall Street and the MIIC install their corrupted hind ends in important executive branch positions, why would we sincerely believe anyone that isrunning for that office. They rarely ever tell the truth, today more than ever. He knew years ago and bragged then that he would be President. They “alowed” him to run and become President in the first place. He did upset the apple cart by winning. He really did a number on the completion. And the MSM is so livid that, here, four months in, the nightly news anchors were in a full court press, tonight, disparaging his accomplishments and doing there best to say, with their twisted sentences, surely biased, that he has failed in his promises. Here we are, 115 or so days into his office and America is, like your article is slamming the living bejezuz out of our poor trumpter. Well, he has shown that he can win and, in the face of scurrilous attacks, I’m keeping the money my on the unknown, much maligned horse. Call it a gut feeling. Every attack, so far has failed and the provocatours have been exposed as liars. In this next race, the oldest horse in the field will be pitted against the tag team of Comey and Mueller, two really good sacks of… potatoes who have had plenty of public exposure while probably lying through their teeth. Whoa is me! The U. S. has already been taken from the people so this is nothing more than a dog-and-poney show than a real horse race to keep everyone occupied for another couple of months while, in the back room, the Republicans are all scratching their heads and discussing how they can “fix” Healthcare while maximizing profits and providing the least amount of Healthcare for the most amount of “taxes”. Tonight Trump was shown in a video commenting on Comey and said, “I am not a liar.” Good stuff.

Prof. Shamir,
Often times your penning inspires the reader. This is not one of them.
Capitalism is based on greed and communism on envy. The only thing that can truly liberate the masses from both vices is the teaching of the one and only True Master: you shall eat by the sweat of your brow (Gen. 3) while feeding and clothing those who couldn’t (Matt. 25). An American intellectual once quipped: the left and the right (capitalized) are the two hands of the devil. Some hands (like Lenin) are more effective than others (as in effective bullet).
Nothing wrong with being rich, provided that you did not steal it and are cheerfully committed to charity. Nothing wrong with being poor as long as you do not burn with envy and hatred of the more fortunate or industrious or clever.
May God keep you this day of Pentecost and always.

College has become the AAA team or “farm club” or “minor league” for the NFL.

what a racket.

College costs are skyrocketing for a myriad of reasons. My grad degree is $60 grand (thank God my licensure comes with a bunch of avenues for repaying all in a lump sum). I can only imagine what other programs cost. Of course, my alma mater also just recently decided our basketball coach is worth 4$ million dollars a year and that the football stadium needed millions in upgrades.
When a college coach is making millions and college admin staff is making huge amounts, something is seriously wrong. I know I’m coming out with debt, it’s why I chose a degree that had multiple applications, mobility, and a licensure that qualifies for loan repayment as a medical service.
There needs to be serious policing of what the article referred to as “Junk Colleges”. It like the government keeps trying to set itself up to fail.

I believe this will bring down Banking worldwide and housing will be a tiny part of it.

Mar 20, 2017 Why does US national debt and total debt only and always increase?

Showing stacks of physical cash in following sequence: $100, $10,000, $1 Million, $2 Billion, $1 Trillion, $20 Trillion. The faith and value of the US Dollar rests on the Government’s ability to repay its debt. “The money in the video has already been spent”

“save tens of thousands on a rent”

I will continue to rent for 1/2 the price of buying and the luxury of paying twice the purchase price (if you have a mortgage) for a crap shack

The universities have been turned into profit centers and they’re not hiring more professors, they’re hiring more part-timers…

Most people have no idea how bad the situation is. A lot of those part-time university teachers are making less than $10,000 a year.

Parents pay $50,000 a year to send their kids to colleges where the teachers are paid less than kindergarten teachers.

Adjuncts are routinely paid less to teach a class than their students pay to take it. In fact, the income of a part-time adjunct will often be less than half of a teaching assistant’s stipend…

http://100rsns.blogspot.com/2014/10/94-it-warps-your-expectations.html

Here’s hoping. Sooner is better than later. The longer this s#!t goes on the worse it’s going to be when it blows up.

Correct. A hedge fund with a university attached..

Dr. Hudson is either seriously misinformed or is engaging in a bit of class-warfare hyperbole. Rental real estate prices to yield something comparable to a risk-adjusted return comparable to other asset classes, e.g. much closer to the 1.8% to 1.9% your friend is getting for his rental, in the current rate environment.

Having said that, I bought into a portfolio of distressed properties in 2010 and got 17% IRR over the last 7 years, so it is possible to get that sort of return in some corners of the market; to wit, in some shit-holes like Detroit, Blackstone undoubtedly picked up houses for a couple grand (one of my Brit colleagues asked in 2009 if he should take a punt on a Detroit house for $4k) … renting these out to Section 8′s would give you the kind of returns he cites, but that would not be the case across the entire portfolio across the entire country.

I don’t argue that we’re in a bubble. Where exactly in the bubble are we and when is it going to pop up? And how much the prices are going to go up before it bursts? and how much will it go down after? These are the real questions, which are hard to answer.
To get a perspective, if a house currently costs 600k and the price is gonna rise to 900k before it pops up and then go down to 700k. Then it makes to buy a house now, even though we’re in a buble, and save tens of thousands on a rent. But if the bubble is gonna burst in a year or two then it makes sense to wait.

They can make five, 10, 15%.

Read up until this line, which is total BS. This so-called professor makes money by feeding public BS, just the opposite one to Wall Street. Our friends rent out condo in Seattle area (Bellevue to be specific) worth 550k for 2k per month.
- HOA $550
- Taxes $450
- 5% of vacancy time (HOA + Taxes + utilities) $60
- Put away profits in case of tenants wrecking something $50-100
- And they rent it out on their own, so no need to spend on it.
At the end they left with $840-890 or 1.8-1.9% yearly returns, on which they have to pay taxes. On the bright side, they would be able deduct taxes on maintenance and remodeling.

Ditto property speculators. I spoke to one in year 2000 who had the idea to sell at the current inflated price and buy back the same property 3 years later after the price collapse.

In fact, 8 years later the price of the property had more than doubled (again) so they got that one wrong.

It’s a race between the housing bubble or the car purchasing bubble bursting first!

[…] Another Housing Bubble? http://www.unz.com/mhudson/another-housing-bubble/ […]