Mainstream Ideology Defends Creditor Claims Over the Indebted Economy
The relationship between money, debt, and power has been central throughout history, yet mainstream economic ideology often overlooks this nexus of connection. Economist Michael Hudson challenges prevailing views, arguing that money originated not from barter but as a means to settle debts owed to public institutions. He contends that the privatization of money and credit has led to social polarization and economic instability.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, Hudson asserts that money was designed to resolve debts, not solely for bartering goods. In ancient times, rulers prioritized economic balance and stability by annulling debts through Clean Slates, ensuring societal well-being over creditor claims. However, modern economic orthodoxy favors private creditors, fearing government intervention may undermine their interests.
The privatization of money and credit has resulted in growing debt burdens and wealth concentration, with banks and financial institutions wielding significant influence. Hudson critiques the free-market ideology that prioritizes creditor rights over public welfare, arguing that it perpetuates economic inequality and instability.
Despite historical evidence of debt crises caused by creditors, mainstream economics remains focused on minimizing transaction costs and protecting creditor rights. Hudson warns that this tunnel vision could lead to further instability and economic decline, as the interests of bankers and financial lobbyists overshadow broader societal concerns.
Ultimately, Hudson urges a reevaluation of economic history and a shift towards policies that prioritize public welfare and debt relief to prevent economic polarization and ensure long-term stability.
đ Â This summary was human-edited with AI-assist.
