The Fall of NATO

NATO member Turkey has definitively chosen Russia over its so-called allies:

Russia and Turkey are switching to payments for Russian gas supplies in rubles, on which the two presidents agreed at negotiations in Sochi on Friday, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said.

“The presidents have agreed that we are beginning partial gas supplies and payments for them in rubles,” Novak told journalists.

Russia currently ships about 26 billion cubic meters of gas to Turkey annually.

“We are gradually switching to payments in national currencies, and part of the shipments will be paid for in Russian rubles now. This is a new stage indeed, which opens up new opportunities, including for the development of our monetary and financial relations,” Novak said.

Putin and Erdogan also discussed cooperation in the financial and banking sector, he said.

“Our commercial companies and our citizens should have an opportunity to pay [in national currencies] during their tourist trips and in the process of trade turnover,” Novak said.

Therefore, “the presidents discussed the financial-banking block, on which major agreements have been reached,” he said.

The NATO Nazis are very well advised to be concerned:

Western officials are “increasingly alarmed” that Turkey, a NATO ally and prospective EU member, is deepening its cooperation with Russia, the Financial Times has reported. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan recently returned from Sochi vowing to boost trade after talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Six unnamed Western officials told the newspaper that they were “concerned” about the plans of Russia and Turkey to cooperate on trade and energy. One EU official said that Brussels was monitoring relations between Ankara and Moscow “more and more closely,” given how Turkey seems to be “increasingly” becoming a platform for trade with Russia.

Turkey has rejected its formal allies because its leaders are more concerned about its national interests than the fancy pants and lollipops promised them by the Prometheans; Erdogan also knows that the USA sponsored the failed coup that was aimed at unseating him two years ago and is giving refuge to the man who was intended as his replacement. So, the Turks have clearly decided to place their bets on the side of the BRICSIA economic alliance despite being members of NATO.

DISCUSS ON SG


A Quiet Response

In lieu of shooting down Nancy Pelosi’s plane, China opts for a considerably more brutal economic response:

For the past two days, there seemed to be no other news in the world than the visit of the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives to Taiwan. Nancy Pelosi’s plane overshadowed both the fighting in Ukraine and the global financial and energy crisis. As a result, a representative of the American establishment did visit the island, and China confined itself to a series of extremely harsh political statements. This fact triggered an avalanche of alarmist statements from all kinds of experts trumpeting China’s strategic defeat. The emphasis was made exclusively on the military aspect, while completely overlooking the fact that we are talking about an Asian country, that is, a state with a different mentality, power system, political scenarios and approaches from the European one.

While everyone was watching the maneuvers and exercises of the PLA Navy, Beijing delivered an imperceptible, but perfectly calibrated and crushing blow. Since August 3, it has been strictly forbidden to send sand to Taiwan. For Taiwan, this is far worse than a direct military invasion and an amphibious landing.

The disruption of imported supply chains of construction sand and quartz sand could potentially send not only the Taiwanese economy, but the entire global electronics industry, from game consoles to the “brains” of modern missiles and fighter jets, into a deep knockout.

Watching the maneuvers of air units and warship formations off the coast of Taiwan is extremely fascinating. Anyone who has read the works of Sun Tzu understands that this is only a beautiful backdrop and that if you sit on your sandy shore long enough, one day an entire island will come to you.

Anyone who has read Unrestricted Warfare will not be surprised to see China eschew a direct and obvious response that would accomplish nothing but military escalation in favor of a more subtle asymmetric response that will cause severe strategic harm to its adversaries.

DISCUSS ON SG


Paul Krugman, Economics Whore

Not only is Krugman reliably wrong, now he’s perverting the very subject in which he is supposed to be an expert:

Economist and New York Times opinion writer Paul Krugman has been ruthlessly criticized after claiming the US was not in a recession and that the term ‘didn’t matter’ in a CNN interview Sunday. Krugman, 69, appeared on the network’s Reliable Sources talk show to discuss the state of the American economy, and was asked almost immediately by host Brian Stelter: ‘Are we in a recession and does the term matter?’

‘No we aren’t, and no it doesn’t,’ Krugman responded curtly. ‘None of the usual criteria that real experts use says we’re in a recession right now. And what does it matter? You know, the state of the economy is what it is.’

The response prompted a hail of criticism, particularly as it transpired late last week that US GDP shrank for the second quarter in a row – a popular marker of recession. A recession is defined as a ‘widespread and prolonged downturn in economic activity’, and was described in 2000 by former president Bill Clinton as ‘two quarters in a row of negative growth’.

At this point, I’m almost willing to believe that he’s just an actor, spouting off inane lines that have been written for him in support of the Narrative.

What criteria don’t indicate an economic contraction? The fact is that every economics metric has been so completely converged and redefined that they are no longer capable of providing any meaningful information whatsoever. For example, what use is an “employment rate” that eliminates people who aren’t working from the equation?

DISCUSS ON SG


An Ill-Conceived Policy

People are beginning to figure out that economic sanctions do not work, but they still haven’t figured out why:

Western sanctions against Russia are the most ill-conceived and counterproductive policy in recent international history. Military aid to Ukraine is justified, but the economic war is ineffective against the regime in Moscow, and devastating for its unintended targets. World energy prices are rocketing, inflation is soaring, supply chains are chaotic and millions are being starved of gas, grain and fertiliser. Yet Vladimir Putin’s barbarity only escalates – as does his hold over his own people.

To criticise western sanctions is close to anathema. Defence analysts are dumb on the subject. Strategy thinktanks are silent. Britain’s putative leaders, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak, compete in belligerent rhetoric, promising ever tougher sanctions without a word of purpose. Yet, hint at scepticism on the subject and you will be excoriated as “pro-Putin” and anti-Ukraine. Sanctions are the war cry of the west’s crusade.

The reality of sanctions on Russia is that they invite retaliation. Putin is free to freeze Europe this winter. He has slashed supply from major pipelines such as Nord Stream 1 by up to 80%. World oil prices have surged and eastern Europe’s flow of wheat and other foodstuffs to Africa and Asia has been all but suspended.

Britain’s domestic gas bills face tripling inside a year. The chief beneficiary is none other than Russia, whose energy exports to Asia have soared, driving its balance of payments into unprecedented surplus. The rouble is one of the world’s strongest currencies this year, having strengthened since January by nearly 50%. Moscow’s overseas assets have been frozen and its oligarchs have relocated their yachts, but there is no sign that Putin cares. He has no electorate to worry him.

The interdependence of the world’s economies, so long seen as an instrument of peace, has been made a weapon of war. Politicians around the Nato table have been wisely cautious about escalating military aid to Ukraine. They understand military deterrence. Yet they appear total ingenues on economics. Here they all parrot Dr Strangelove. They want to bomb Russia’s economy “back to the stone age”.

I would be intrigued to know if any paper was ever submitted to Boris Johnson’s cabinet forecasting the likely outcome for Britain of Russian sanctions. The assumption seems to be that if trade embargos hurt they are working. As they do not directly kill people, they are somehow an acceptable form of aggression. They are based on a neo-imperial assumption that western countries are entitled to order the world as they wish. They are enforced, if not through gunboats, then through capitalist muscle in a globalised economy. Since they are mostly imposed on small, weak states soon out of the headlines, their purpose has largely been of “feelgood” symbolism.

A rare student of this subject is the American economic historian Nicholas Mulder, who points out that more than 30 sanctions “wars” in the past 50 years have had minimal if not counterproductive impact. They are meant to “intimidate peoples into restraining their princes”. If anything they have had the opposite effect. From Cuba to Korea, Myanmar to Iran, Venezuela to Russia, autocratic regimes have been entrenched, elites strengthened and freedoms crushed. Sanctions seem to instil stability and self-reliance on even their weakest victim. Almost all the world’s oldest dictatorships have benefited from western sanctions.

Whenever one’s logic is proven faulty, the correct response is to question the assumptions that underlie the syllogism. In the case of the repeated failure of economic sanctions, the false assumption is the beneficial nature of free trade. Sanctions intrinsically assume that trade is necessarily good for a nation in any and all circumstances, and therefore imposing sanctions that reduce the amount of trade will weaken the targeted nation.

This is a provably false assumption, as evidenced by the way in which economic sanctions have made Russia wealthier and stronger relative to its former trading partners. Economic sanctions don’t work because free trade doesn’t work.

This conclusive evidence of the failure of free trade dogma should inspire more economists to be skeptical of the claims of the comparative advantagists, but unfortunately, the history of economics suggests that it probably won’t.

DISCUSS ON SG


Dynamic Definitions

Wikipedia locks in the Fake Biden Administrations redefinition of “recession”:

Wikipedia changed the definition of recession on their website to fit the Biden administration’s redefined language. Wikipedia then locked the page preventing individuals from updating the website, which is a tool that Wikipedia has long provided. The White House changed the definition of “recession” last week ahead of the release of Thursday’s economic report, which showed that the US has had two consecutive quarters of declining GDP. This was the standard definition, but the White House declared that the definition should be tied more closely to unemployment numbers.

This obsession with appearances and word spells goes hand in hand with civilizational collapse, because reality doesn’t care what you call it. To concern oneself with the dynamic narrative is to fail to understand the very purpose of a label; the object exists regardless of what the label happens to be.

It’s not as if there was any there there in the first place. The 2001 recession has been redefined out of existence too, not by changing the definition, but by revising the numbers, thereby eliminating one of the previous quarters of declining GDP.

Ironically, the very term “recession” was created to replace the term “depression”, and for precisely the same reason that “recession” is now being redefined. It’s all about trying to maintain those animal spirits.

Ignore the Narrative. It can only mislead you.

DISCUSS ON SG


So THAT Didn’t Work

Sri Lanka’s plan for economic development, VISION 2025, didn’t even survive the summer of 2022:

Our economic policy, Vision 2025, is firmly embedded in several principles, including a social market economy that delivers economic dividends to all. In the first place we need to ensure we have a skill pool that matches the job market’s demands. Sri Lanka’s education system is being transformed through progressive and important policy reform: the minimum length of schooling has been increased to 13 years, while better education is being brought to rural areas through the Nearest School Is the Best School programme, and Sri Lanka is investing in more teachers and better training. Also, opportunities for vocational training in selected areas during school education will be introduced. Further, we have taken action to empower new and innovative ideas by strengthening the intellectual property regime in Sri Lanka. The plan for an “Empowered Sri Lanka” identifies the priorities of raising incomes, ensuring employment and housing for all, and improving the quality of life for all citizens.

The plan is delivering impressive results. The current government has created over 460,000 jobs and helped more than 260,000 families secure a home. Strong progress is being made on plans to bring opportunities to rural communities by building necessary infrastructure such as roads and bridges, connecting rural and urban areas and linking Sri Lanka’s economic hubs. A programme, Enterprise Sri Lanka, has been launched to encourage young and educated entrepreneurs, who will receive loans to start SMEs. The government has also invested in some mega projects, including the Colombo Megapolis constructions – to build a city of the future – and irrigation projects including the Moragahakanda-Kaluganga Dam, to generate green energy and provide water resources for agro-production.

For the first time, Sri Lanka has now been linked to the large ASEAN region by entering into the free trade agreement (FTA) with Singapore. To have struck its first comprehensive trade agreement (including not only goods but services and investment) with a country like Singapore, regarded as one of the most open economies, with high-quality institutions, is an important milestone for Sri Lanka, and a major achievement for the current government. The Singapore FTA is a strong step towards closer integration with ASEAN, and in fact was signed in the same month that Singapore took over the chairmanship of ASEAN for the year 2018. It signals to ASEAN that Sri Lanka is interested in the region, and signals to the world that it is serious about reform.

It only took FOUR YEARS for Sri Lanka’s embrace of free trade to lead to massive riots and politicians being forced to flee the country. This should cause even the most intrepid supporter of the Comparative Advantage concept to consider the possibility that Ricardo is indeed Retardo.


Why Globalism Cannot Survive

Vladimir Putin correctly points out that globalism is inherently doomed to failure due to the same sort of structural incoherencies that afflict communism, feminism, and imperialism.

A new epoch of world history is approaching and only “truly sovereign” states will be able to succeed in the changed environment, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday.

Speaking at a business forum, Putin claimed that “truly revolutionary,” “enormous” changes would lead to the creation of a new, “harmonious, fairer and more community-focused and safe” world order. In this new epoch, “only truly sovereign states can ensure high growth dynamics,” he said.

By the term ‘sovereignty’ the Russian president means “freedom of national development, and thus of each person individually,” as well as “technological, cultural, intellectual, educational viability of the state” and a “responsible, active and nationally minded, nationally oriented civil society.”

Such a state, the president said, will serve as an example for others when it comes to “the standards and quality of people’s life, the protection of traditional values and high humanistic ideals.”

This kind of world is in sharp contrast to the Western-dominated unipolar world order, which, in Putin’s opinion, is “becoming a brake on the development of our civilization.”

He accused the West of being “racist and neo-colonial,” saying that its ideology “is becoming increasingly more like totalitarianism.”

The president argued that despite attempts by Western elites to preserve the existing world order, the changes are “irreversible.”

Globalism is simply another form of imperialism that involves a self-selected, self-serving elite ruling over a diverse collection of different peoples with different beliefs, capabilities, and interests. It utilizes the influence of money rather than the force of military might, but both the effects and the consequences are the same.

However, globalism is even less tenable than standard imperialism because the money it is built upon is an illusion created by the manufacture of debt through finance capitalism. This means that once the debt structure becomes overloaded and begins to collapse, the influence upon which the entire governing system rests begins to vanish as well.

Furthermore, the satanic element that elevates incompetents and degenerates to positions of power relies in part upon rewards that can no longer be provided once the system begins to break down. In the absence of the carrot, this leaves only the systemic stick, the pervasive blackmail, to hold the elite together and there are far too many people who are either immune or unconcerned to it, thus permitting the rise of a rebellious rival elite who have no loyalty to the globalist elite or the system.

This is why globalism has no choice but to become totalitarian and abandon all of its purported Enlightenment ideals, which were never more than propagandistic lies in the first place. And this is why nationalist leaders such as Putin can be so confident that the changes to the world order are irreversible, because the existing neo-liberal one is already collapsing under the weight of its debt and structural incoherencies.

DISCUSS ON SG


A Tale of Two Capitalisms

Michael Hudson explains the difference between industrial capitalism and finance capitalism, and how the latter has destroyed the US economy and impoverished the American people.

Most people think of all kinds of capitalism as being the same and the assumption is that industrial capitalism of the nineteenth century somehow was always financialized because there were always banks but financial capitalism is you just pointed out is a political system and as a political system it’s very different from the industrial capitalism dynamic. In industrial capitalism, the whole aim or the hope of the industrial capitalists in the late nineteenth century, especially in Germany and central Europe was that banking would no longer be just usury, it wouldn’t be just consumer lending to exploit labor, and it wouldn’t be lending to the government somehow.

The financial system would recycle the economy savings and money creation and credit into industrial production and would finance the means of production to make that productive instead of predatory and parasitic as it became and that seemed to be the way that industrial capitalism was evolving up until World War I. Everything changed after that all of a sudden you had the financial system take over as a result of the crisis caused in the 1920s by the German reparations debt that couldn’t be paid and the inter-ally debt that was insisted upon to repay the United States for the arms that have supplied Europe for a century into World War I. Well, the result was a huge depression.

The allies said, well, we didn’t expect to actually have to pay the United States. If we have to pay the United States, then we have to charge reparations on Germany and for a decade there was a debate between John Maynard Keynes and Harold Moulton and others saying that these debts can’t be paid. How are you going to handle a situation where the debts can’t be paid?

The finance capitalists then were the basically the ancestors of today’s neoliberals and they said any amount of debt can be paid by any country if it just lowers the living standards and squeezes labor enough and that’s what basically the philosophy of the IMF ever since world war II when third world countries can’t pay the debt, the IMF comes in with an austerity program and say you have to lower wages, you have to break up labor unions, if necessary you have to have a democracy, and you can’t have a democracy unless you’re willing to assassinate and arrest the labor leaders and the advocates of land redistribution because a democracy means basically rule by the financial sector centered in the united states. And so finance capitalism ever since WWI and especially WWII and especially since 1980 is the nationalistic doctrine of American banks and the American one percent, and the American financial sector that is sort of merged into a symbiotic unit with the finance insurance and real estate.

In other words, finance capitalism instead of trying to promote overall economic growth for the 99 percent, instead of financing the industrialization of an economy with rising productivity and rising living standards, is now cannibalizing the industrial sector, cannibalizing the corporate sector. As you’re seeing in the U.S., finance capitalism is the economic doctrine of deindustrialization that has occurred in America in England and is now occurring in Europe.

Well, the problem is how do you survive if you’re not industrializing, if you’re not producing your own means of subsistence and how are you going to get this from other countries? Well, the answer is you don’t go to war with them like countries used to go to war with each other to grab their money and their land, you use finance as the new means of war so finance capitalism is the tactic of economic warfare by the United States against Europe and the global south to sort of draw all of the economic surplus of these countries in the form of debt service and the debt service is supplied by basically economic rent seeking from land rent, natural resource rent, and just plain interest charges on economy. So, none of these are really the result of industrial profits that are made by employing labor and uh selling its products at a markup.

Finance capitalism is not based on surplus value like industrial capitalism was. In fact, it destroys industry and in this cannibalizing of industrial capital, it basically dries out the economy and makes it unable to break even or even to function and in the United States today, for instance, if you look at the balance sheets of corporate revenue much of it is spent on stock buybacks. You buy back your own stock or dividend payouts. Only eight percent of corporate earnings are spent on new capital investment research and development: factories, machinery, and means of production to employ labor.

How did General Electric (GE) go broke? Basically, Jack Welch said let’s use our income not to continue to invest in making more electronic goods and services and appliances, let’s use it to buy our own stock that’ll push up our stock and essentially, we’ll just sell off our divisions and we’ll use the money of selling off our washing machine companies and stoves and sell it off and we’ll just pay it to the stockholders. That’ll push it up and by the way his salary was based on how much he could push up the stock of GE and he was paid in the form of stock options. Well, all of this is now the normal corporate behavior in the United States and corporations are no longer led by industrial engineers as they were a few centuries ago in the nineteenth and twentieth century.

They’re led by financial engineers of the chief financial officer and the ideal of these corporations is to make money financially not by industrial investment….. so on the narrow microeconomic level finance capitalism is a way of basically selling out a company and giving the proceeds to the stockholders and the bondholders but as a political system, because it is so destructive of the economy as you’ve seen in the United States and you’ve seen in Britain through de-industrializing it, it becomes belligerent in an attempt to make other countries just as equally paralyzed by making these countries pay tribute to the U.S. and England and the financialized economies by means of financial engineering, by means of debt service, by means of selling their mineral resources, their public utilities, their land, their roads all to foreign investors–basically to who borrows the money that’s just simply created in the U.S. and to save all of their money in their central bank reserves in the forms of loans to the U.S. treasury holding treasury bonds which is how the international monetary system worked until just a few months ago when everything changed.

So if you’re England and America right now you can look at President Biden’s speeches and he said well, China is our number one enemy because it’s competing unfairly. China is actually subsidizing industrial development by having its own infrastructure. It gives free education instead of privatizing education and making its labor pay for it. It has public health instead of privatizing social medicine like we do in the United States and making employers and workers pay for it.

Well, industrial capitalism in the nineteenth century was all in favor of strong government infrastructure. The ideal of industrial capitalism was to keep the wage costs of production down not by reducing wages but having government provide a basic infrastructure to cover the basic
needs of employees. The governments would provide free education so that employers didn’t have to pay for it. The governments would provide medical care so that employees didn’t have to pay for it and employers wouldn’t have to pay employees enough money to cover the education costs and to cover the medical care costs. The government would build roads and infrastructure and everything to facilitate the overall cost of doing business by industrial capital.

Well finance capitalism is just the reverse. Finance capitalism wants to privatize and take education, medical care, roads, turn the roads into toll roads, and take all of these and privatize them and make them financial corporations that will essentially pay out their economic rent to the bondholders and the stockholders and this economic rent adds to the cost of education and everything else that workers need to live on so the result is to make it a high cost economy and that’s why Biden has said China and Russia are America’s enemies because the only way that America can succeed given our privatized economy, given the fact that Americans have to pay up to forty three percent of their income for rent, given the fact that eighteen percent of America’s GDP is for medical care, given the heavy student loan debt–only if other countries tie themselves in the same knot, only if other countries impose the same economic overhead on their labor force and on their industry can there be equal competition.

If other countries have a mixed economy and are more efficient because they have an active government providing basic needs, that’s “autocracy” and that’s the opposite of “democracy.” Democracy is where everything is privatized and ultimately the one percent own everything.

Autocracy is any government that’s strong enough to have its own public investment. Any government strong enough to tax or regulate the financial sector is called “autocracy” so the U.S. in the 19th century would be called an autocracy as I guess the Austrian school called it – civilization is basically an “autocracy.”

There never has been an unmixed economy without government regulation, without a government investment, although Rome began to get to that point at the end of its empire and we all know what happened to it. So basically, finance capitalism is a predatory international economic policy aimed at draining the rest of the world all to pay the leading one percent of wealth holders in the U.S. and their satellite oligarchy in England and a few European countries.

Notice how, as always, evil lurks in the endless redefinitions and word spells. The inversions, subversions, and perversions are endless, and remember, we have been told that the root of all evil is the love of money. Therefore, it should be no surprise that an economic system entirely focused on money would prove to be unmitigated evil.

DISCUSS ON SG


The Potemkin “Tech” Industry

Russia and China have figured out what Westerners should have known for decades:

Russia has fined Google about US$373 million for allowing users to access, “prohibited” material about the war in Ukraine and other restricted content. The material was said to include materials attempting to discredit Russia’s military, as well as exhortations to protest the Russian government, according to Roskomnadzor, the country’s communications regulator. It added that the company has proven a “systemic” violator of national laws regarding content.

Google has not commented on the fines.

The company’s local subsidiary had declared bankruptcy last month after Russian authorities had seized its bank account to recover 7.2 billion rubles, or US$130 million which the company had been fined for similar violations last year.

The moves are part of a broader regulatory push by the Russian government to place pressure on tech firms, which they accuse of not moderating their content in accordance with Russian laws, and of trying to meddle in the nation’s internal affairs.

The key phrase: “trying to meddle in the nation’s internal affairs”. AC spells out the obvious conclusion.

It is clear at this point all of these tech companies are just subsidiaries of our intelligence apparatus. And given it is no coincidence that every top tech company is just taking orders from intel, that means intel has been throughout our economic system deciding who wins and who loses, and making sure it is their operations who win every time. We were never in a capitalist system, any more than we elected our leaders. All along, the idea you could have a killer app, form a business, and be just like Bill Gates was just a myth. Intel was always deployed domestically, even throughout the world of American business, working against any American who was not on their payroll and under their control.

We’re going to need a new economic theory simply to explain the way in which the “capitalist” system has been functioning since the 1980s at the absolute latest. Everything that we’re taught in microeconomics is observably untrue; the winners in far too many industries are evidently not determined by efficiency or competition or even luck, but rather by the hidden, but heavy hand of secret government funding.

It’s very much like the oft-criticized industrial policy of Japan, only on steroids. Instead of MITI selecting key industries in which to invest for maximizing economic growth, Big Brother is selecting favored corporations in every industry in which to invest for a) gathering information for the Panopticon and b) establishing official narratives.

Among other things, this absconomic theory will explain why modern corporations, from technology to entertainment, are increasingly unable to address the basic needs and preferences of their nominal customers.

DISCUSS ON SG


The West’s Fatal Flaw

If Michael Hudson is correct, Western Civilization will ultimately fall because Christians failed to understand what “forgive them their debts” actually meant:

The greatest challenge facing societies has always been how to conduct trade and credit without letting merchants and creditors make money by exploiting their customers and debtors. All antiquity recognized that the drive to acquire money is addictive and indeed tends to be exploitative and hence socially injurious. The moral values of most societies opposed selfishness, above all in the form of avarice and wealth addiction, which the Greeks called philarguria – love of money, silver-mania. Individuals and families indulging in conspicuous consumption tended to be ostracized, because it was recognized that wealth often was obtained at the expense of others, especially the weak.

The Greek concept of hubris involved egotistic behavior causing injury to others. Avarice and greed were to be punished by the justice goddess Nemesis, who had many Near Eastern antecedents, such as Nanshe of Lagash in Sumer, protecting the weak against the powerful, the debtor against the creditor.

That protection is what rulers were expected to provide in serving the gods. That is why rulers were imbued with enough power to protect the population from being reduced to debt dependency and clientage. Chieftains, kings and temples were in charge of allocating credit and crop-land to enable smallholders to serve in the army and provide corvée labor. Rulers who behaved selfishly were liable to be unseated, or their subjects might run away, or support rebel leaders or foreign attackers promising to cancel debts and redistribute land more equitably.

The most basic function of Near Eastern kingship was to proclaim “economic order,” misharum and andurarum clean slate debt cancellations, echoed in Judaism’s Jubilee Year. There was no “democracy” in the sense of citizens electing their leaders and administrators, but “divine kingship” was obliged to achieve the implicit economic aim of democracy: “protecting the weak from the powerful.”

Royal power was backed by temples and ethical or religious systems. The major religions that emerged in the mid-first millennium BC, those of Buddha, Lao-Tzu and Zoroaster, held that personal drives should be subordinate to the promotion of overall welfare and mutual aid.

What did not seem likely 2500 years ago was that a warlord aristocracy would conquer the Western world. In creating what became the Roman Empire, an oligarchy took control of the land and, in due course, the political system. It abolished royal or civic authority, shifted the fiscal burden onto the lower classes, and ran the population and industry into debt.

This was done on a purely opportunistic basis. There was no attempt to defend this ideologically. There was no hint of an archaic Milton Friedman emerging to popularize a radical new moral order celebrating avarice by claiming that greed is what drives economies forward, not backward, convincing society to leave the distribution of land and money to “the market” controlled by private corporations and money-lenders instead of communalistic regulation by palace rulers and temples – or by extension, today’s socialism. Palaces, temples and civic governments were creditors. They were not forced to borrow to function, and so were not subjected to the policy demands of a private creditor class.

But running the population, industry and even governments into debt to an oligarchic elite is precisely what has occurred in the West, which is now trying to impose the modern variant of this debt-based economic regime – U.S.-centered neoliberal finance capitalism – on the entire world. That is what today’s New Cold War is all about.

It’s not socialism to forgive debt. It’s not irresponsible to forgive debt. It’s not economically unsound to forgive debt. To the contrary, debt forgiveness is Christian, it is civilized, and it is absolutely necessary on a regular basis in any society that permits legal usury.

DISCUSS ON SG