I recently was reminded of this video that I posted on December 30, 2020 as A Hard Look at Rent and Rent Seeking with Michael Hudson & Pepe Escobar.

An interactive discussion on wealth inequality and the “Great Game” on the control of natural resources.

In this webinar organized jointly by the Henry George School and the International Union for Land Value Taxation, Michael Hudson and Pepe Escobar will unpack one of the most destructive features of our economic system and the many different ways it drives wealth inequality.

I will embed the video here again.

I learned so much from watching this again. Maybe because I have grown my understanding in the intervening years. There is an education here about why the western media cannot give you an accurate report on any of this. What China and Russia are trying to do is so far from western concepts of how the economy ought to work that people steeped in western economic ideas cannot conceive of what China and Russia are trying to accomplish. I do not know how many western viewers can let go of what has been taught to them to get as much out of this video as I have.

This is the debut of Glenn Greenwald’s new stream on Rumble. It is a bit lengthy, but he has some really good things to say. It does take an annoying 3 minutes and 40 seconds before he actually starts speaking.

The Institute for New Economic Thinking has the article A Nobel Award for the Wrong Model.

This one is going to require a lot more thinking on my part. I have to reconcile this description with my thought that private banks do not create money, but they create promises of money.

The Institute for New Economic thinking has this great interview – How Corporations “Get Away With Murder” to Inflate Prices on Rent, Food, and Electricity.

Antitrust expert Hal Singer shows how big businesses in certain industries are taking advantage of inflation worries to jack up prices far beyond their cost increases, all the while raking in robber-baron profits.

This is a nice complement to my previous post Federal Trade Commission chair Lina M. Khan is interviewed by Mark Glick

The Institute for New Economic Thinking has the article Federal Trade Commission chair Lina M. Khan is interviewed by Mark Glick.

A very informative interview. Lina Khan’s appointment was hailed as an unusually good choice for this agency. I have not been hearing much about what she has been doing since her appointment. This interview fills the void that I have felt. She also discusses many tools that the FTC had that had not made it to my attention before. Anti-trust is not the only tool as I had been assuming.

Dissent magazine has the article Can DSA Go the Distance?

In a matter of years, DSA has turned from a musty debate club for retired social democrats into an electoral powerhouse of young, ecumenical radicals. What’s next?

I didn’t have the stamina to read all of this article, but I think DSA is the wrong organization to hang your hat on. I call myself a “what worksist”, so I do not marry myself to a single “ism” like socialism. I also have the same caution about capitalism. These two “isms” and others have some parts of society where they work well, and other parts where they do not work so well. I care more about what works, than what label you give it. When you get too tied to a single “ism” or a single program, people tend to be blind to the problems of the “ism” or program they favor. For the “isms” they don’t favor, all they can see is its problems, but they cannot admit that it has any parts that would work well to solve certain kinds of problems. No matter which side of the dichotomy you fall on, you tend to lose sight of the fundamental question “Does it work?” In other words, “does it work to make the lives of most people better?” Since the world changes, I don’t believe there is a static collection of programs that will always be the best in all changing situations. Choosing the balance of solutions must be a dynamic process that adjusts to the conditions that exist at the time.

Whatever you think about what is going on in China (or what you have been told is going on in China), I think they come close to my idea of being a “what worksist”. They are willing to have some capitalism and some socialism in their society’s mix. They recognize that there are problems, but they aren’t tied to fixed ideas on how to solve the problems. They try various things, and measure whether or not these things are leading to the goal that they envision. They are also willing to admit that what is good for today’s China is not necessarily good for other countries facing different circumstances.

Staying true to “what worksism”, I am not suggesting that the USA should do exactly what China does. However, it would be good for us to look at what China does to see if there is anything we can learn from their successes and failures. They have certainly invested time in this analysis of what the USA does and what other societies around the world and throughout time have done under the changing circumstances those other societies have lived through.

The Institute For New Economic Thinking has a series called The Laws Of Capitalism.

In this series, Katharina Pistor breaks down the history, process, institutions, and participants involved in the legal coding of capital. She shows us how private actors have harnessed social resources to accumulate wealth, generating not only economic inequality, but inequality in law. Enabling them to opt out of jurisdictions, restrict governmental policy, and erode democracy.

Episode 1 is Coding Land & Ideas.

Films For Action has the article Why Propaganda Works & The Great Question of Our Time | Noam Chomsky

Professor Noam Chomsky explains why propaganda works so well in our modern society and raises one of the most important questions of our time. It’s a clip from the classic documentary Manufacturing Consent. Watch the full film here.

In Part 2, another variation of this clip is used, with additional footage added regarding the successful campaign by the Bush Administration to manipulate public consciousness to build support for war, setting up Iraq and Iran as phantom enemies of the U.S., when our true motivations remain obscured by patriotic and fear-based illusions.

The two clips in this article are good teasers for the documentary Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (1992)

Here is the documentary directly from YouTube.

Manufacturing Consent explores the political life and ideas of world-renowned linguist, intellectual and political activist Noam Chomsky. Through a collage of biography, archival material and various graphics and illustrations, Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick’s 22-award-winning documentary highlights Chomsky’s probing analysis of mass media and his critique of the forces at work behind the daily news.

Watching the full documentary may seem like a daunting task, but if you have watched or considered watching an episode of Joe Rogan, you can certainly devote the time to watching this documentary. You will probably get more value watching this documentary than you will get from watching Joe Rogan.

The Cradle has the Pepe Escobar article ‘Peaceful modernization’: China’s offering to the Global South.

Xi Jinping just offered the Global South a stark alternative to decades of western diktats, war, and economic duress. ‘Peaceful modernization’ will establish sovereignty, economy, and independence for the world’s struggling states.

There are so many useful items in this article that I cannot resist quoting a few of them.

In a nutshell, the CPC master plan is twofold: finalize “socialist modernization” from 2020 to 2035; and build China – via peaceful modernization – as a modern socialist country that is “prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, and harmonious” all the way to 2049, signaling the centenary of the foundation of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

The central concept in the work report is peaceful modernization – and how to accomplish it. As Xi summarized, “It contains elements that are common to the modernization processes of all countries, but it is more characterized by features that are unique to the Chinese context.”

You can believe whom you want, but it doesn’t hurt to hear what each side is saying.

Which side do you think would be more attractive to the global south? Would they want the USA’s offer of war, austerity, and exploitation. Or would they prefer peaceful modernization? Put aside which promise is more likely to be kept, but just consider the message. Is the USA foolish to not even offer a competing message?

Martin Jacques, until recently a senior fellow at the Department of Politics and International Studies at Cambridge University, and author of arguably the best book in English on China’s development, is impressed by how China’s modernization happened in a context dominated by the west: “This was the key role of the CPC. It had to be planned. We can see how extraordinarily successful it has been.”

The implication is that by breaking the west-centric TINA model, Beijing has accumulated the tools to be able to assist Global South nations with their own models.

Who in the USA seems to have the best understanding of China? Micheael Hudson comes to mind. Fadhel Kaboub comes to mind as the person most focused on the needs of the global south.

Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, is even more upbeat: “China will become a leader of innovation. I very much hope and count on China becoming a leader for innovation in sustainability.” That will contrast with a ‘dysfunctional’ American model turning protectionist even in business and investment.

I guess I have to give Jeffrey Sachs credit for what he is saying now if I can wipe from my mind the damage he did advising Russia in the early 1990s.

It was up to Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin to clarify where BRI is heading:

“BRI transcends the outdated mentality of geopolitical games, and created a new model of international cooperation. It is not an exclusive group that excludes other participants but an open and inclusive cooperation platform. It is not just China’s solo effort, but a symphony performed by all participating countries.”

Sounds much too progressive and “what worksist” for me to hope for.

The most important question to ask “Would it help?”

Bridge of spies – “Would it help?” quote