/lit/ - Literature

capital

>>20423497
Das
Manuscripts
Brumaire
Theories
Origins
Imperialism

>>20423497
free trade doesnt work
general theory of employment interest money

bump

>>20423497
I hope that book has one page with the word "Niggers" right in the middle of it.

>>20423514
Everything in origins has been debunked by Modern Anthropologists. Read Graeber's Debt, Federicci's Caliban and the Witch, & Gerner's Invention of Patriarchy, instead.
Reat of your list is solid, though.

>>20423497
Joan Robinson collected papers

>>20423636
Free trade obviously "works" on some level otherwise you could get positive results by introducing protectionist measures at a lower and lower level sub-nationally. If you abstract away most all of reality it's the most efficient system possible

>>20423497
Das Kapital, Marx
Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Piketty
The War on Normal People, Yang
The Deficit Myth, Kelton
The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, Keynes
The Shock Doctrine, Klein
The Wealth of Nations, Smith

>>20426084
>Be industrialised
>Allow free trade
>Porky moves factories overseas where labour is cheaper and laws are laxer
>You now have more competitively priced lower quality goods from overseas that destroy domestic industry
>But LINE GO UP!!
>Have no industry and get conquered
Is this the power of free trade? Obviously a degree of autarky (self-sufficiency) is good, in combination with trade. Free trade is a policy that could only be conceived by a merchant class

Maybe it is Race and IQ and not economics? I would rather live in Moldova than Paraguay

>>20423497
My economics class in high school consisted of nothing except reading and quizzing on Basic Economics by Sowell. I enjoyed it a lot.

>>20428121
>I would rather live in Moldova
hi fren :^)

>>20428108
I was being snarky and not really defending free trade if you were to stupid to tell but the point is cheaper consumer goods e.g. America started liberalizing trade and running larger trade deficits/exporting lots of industrial production while the USSR kept all of theirs running. The soviet union collapsed because no one could afford consumer goods anyone wanted even though they could of invade and conquered western europe since they had the industrial capacity. Having more domestic industries won't do much for you when you take into account other factors. Super-imperialism is running bigger trade deficits and building more domestic war capacity all at the same time

>Obviously a degree of autarky (self-sufficiency) is good, in combination with trade.
That's a literally impossible mix to accomplish for most of the world even if they wanted. You could of advised Japan that before 1941 but it wouldn't of changed the facts on the ground. Check your privilege

>Free trade is a policy that could only be conceived by a merchant class
Werner Sombart crap sociology

>>20428200
Proof libtards groom children, report this shit

>>20430182
Free trade as the dominant power isn't the same as being the free bitch. If I have dominant industry and military, I force you to open your markets to me so my economy gets resources cheaper. Its a different case when said power allows porky to send the industry overseas because they can make more money.

When, not if, when your complex free trade supply chains get kinks, you now have major problems if you don't have a degree of autarky. You're kind of retarded for not noticing this in recent years. Fossil fuels in Europe right now. Ukranian wheat in Africa right now. Medical supplies during coofid.

>>20423497
is this book leftist bullshit

>>20430244
if want u a book that's not leftist bullshit, try "why nations fail" by acemoglu. it's not perfect, but it's a lot better than some antique marxist turds or protectionist bs that would be at home in 1650.

>>20423497
>Or; White people, Brown people.

>>20430226
>Free trade as the dominant power isn't the same as being the free bitch. If I have dominant industry and military, I force you to open your markets to me so my economy gets resources cheaper. Its a different case when said power allows porky to send the industry overseas because they can make more money.
I'm well aware of infant industries theory and such but that's not exactly the same as claiming the most advanced economies are victims. Is America China's bitch? That's a strange transvestiture of theory. The old Marxist bugaboo of imperialism was that industrialization was impossible for underdeveloped countries and they would stay resource extraction hubs for an industrialized core.

>when your complex free trade supply chains get kinks, you now have major problems if you don't have a degree of autarky
Like I said that's literally not possible for most of the world. You can't strike a mix of autarky and trade because that's not how international trade work. Take Japan before pearl harbor as a case study. America demanded they pull back from conquered territory if they wanted to maintain the trade necessary to keep their economy running. The "degree of autarky" necessary wasn't possible for the "degree of trade" necessary which resulted in war.

>Fossil fuels in Europe right now. Ukranian wheat in Africa right now. Medical supplies during coofid.
Western Europe domestically doesn't have the fossil fuels they need. Africa is a hot mess under dictate regulating their relations to the international economy. Medicine opens up all kinds of intellectual property disputes. How you strike a mix of autarky and trade becomes the problem.

Free trade is hated by neo nazis because it doesn't allow them to keep the wealth they plundered during colonialism

>>20430401
Yeah that's why
>Pg. 51: The merchant bankers of London had already at hand in 1810-1850 the Stock Exchange, the Bank of England, and the London money market when the needs of advancing industrialism called all of these into the industrial world which they had hitherto ignored. In time they brought into their financial network the provincial banking centers, organized as commercial banks and savings banks, as well as insurance companies, to form all of these into a single financial system on an international scale which manipulated the quantity and flow of money so that they were able to influence, if not control, governments on one side and industries on the other. The men who did this, looking backward toward the period of dynastic monarchy in which they had their own roots, aspired to establish dynasties of international bankers and were at least as successful at this as were many of the dynastic political rulers. The greatest of these dynasties, of course, were the descendants of Meyer Amschel Rothschild (1743-1812) of Frankfort, whose male descendants, for at least two generations, generally married first cousins or even nieces. Rothschild's five sons, established at branches in Vienna, London, Naples, and Paris, as well as Frankfort, cooperated together in ways which other international banking dynasties copied but rarely excelled.

>Pg. 52: The names of some of these banking families are familiar to all of us and should be more so. They include Raring, Lazard, Erlanger, Warburg, Schroder, Seligman, the Speyers, Mirabaud, Mallet, Fould, and above all Rothschild and Morgan. Even after these banking families became fully involved in domestic industry by the emergence of financial capitalism, they remained different from ordinary bankers in distinctive ways: (1) they were cosmopolitan and international; (2) they were close to governments and were particularly concerned with questions of government debts, including foreign government debts, even in areas which seemed, at first glance, poor risks, like Egypt, Persia, Ottoman Turkey, Imperial China, and Latin America; (3) their interests were almost exclusively in bonds and very rarely in goods, since they admired "liquidity" and regarded commitments in commodities or even real estate as the first step toward bankruptcy; (4) they were, accordingly, fanatical devotees of deflation (which they called "sound" money from its close associations with high interest rates and a high value of money) and of the gold standard, which, in their eyes, symbolized and ensured these values; and (5) they were almost equally devoted to secrecy and the secret use of financial influence in political life.

>>20430411
>Pg. 53: The influence of financial capitalism and of the international bankers who created it was exercised both on business and on governments, but could have done neither if it had not been able to persuade both these to accept two "axioms" of its own ideology. Both of these were based on the assumption that politicians were too weak and too subject to temporary popular pressures to be trusted with control of the money system; accordingly, the sanctity of all values and the soundness of money must be protected in two ways: by basing the value of money on gold and by allowing bankers to control the supply of money. To do this it was necessary to conceal, or even to mislead, both governments and people about the nature of money and its methods of operation.

>Pg. 62: In addition to their power over government based on government financing and personal influence, bankers could steer governments in ways they wished them to go by other pressures. Since most government officials felt ignorant of finance, they sought advice from bankers whom they considered to be experts in the field. The history of the last century shows, as we shall see later, that the advice given to governments by bankers, like the advice they gave to industrialists, was consistently good for bankers, but was often disastrous for governments, businessmen, and the people generally. Such advice could be enforced if necessary by manipulation of exchanges, gold flows, discount rates, and even levels of business activity. Thus Morgan dominated Cleveland's second administration by gold withdrawals, and in 1936-1938 French foreign exchange manipulators paralyzed the Popular Front governments. As we shall see, the powers of these international bankers reached their peak in the last decade of their supremacy, 1919-1931, when Montagu Norman and J. P. Morgan dominated not only the financial world but international relations and other matters as well. On November I l, 1927, the Wall Street Journal called Mr. Norman "the currency dictator of Europe." This was admitted by Mr. Norman himself before the Court of the Bank on March Zl, 1930, and before the Macmillan Committee of the House of Commons five days later. On one occasion, just before international financial capitalism ran, at full speed, on the rocks which sank it, Mr. Norman is reported to have said, "I hold the hegemony of the world."

>>20430415
>>Pg. 324: the powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank, in the hands of men like Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank, sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.

>Pg. 326: Norman (Montagu) had a devoted colleague in Benjamin Strong, the first governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Strong owed his career to the favor of the Morgan Bank, especially of Henry P. Davison, who made him secretary of the Bankers Trust Company of New York (in succession to Thomas W. Lamont) in 1904, used him as Morgan's agent in the banking rearrangements following the crash of 1907, and made him vice-president of the Bankers Trust (still in succession to Lamont) in 1909. He became governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York as the joint nominee of Morgan and of Kuhn, Loeb, and Company in 1914. Two years later, Strong met Norman for the first time, and they at once made an agreement to work in cooperation for the financial practices they both revered.

>In the 1920's, they were determined to use the financial power of Britain and of the United States to force all the major countries of the world to go on the gold standard and to operate it through central banks free from all political control, with all questions of international finance to be settled by agreements by such central banks without interference from governments.

>Pg. 326-327: It must not be felt that these heads of the world's chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called "international" or "merchant" bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks.

>>20430421
>These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks. This dominance of investment bankers was based on their control over the flows of credit and investment funds in their own countries and throughout the world. They could dominate the financial and industrial systems of their own countries by their influence over the flow of current funds through bank loans, the discount rate, and the re-discounting of commercial debts; they could dominate governments by their control over current government loans and the play of the international exchanges. Almost all of this power was exercised by the personal influence and prestige of men who had demonstrated their ability in the past to bring off successful financial coupe, to keep their word, to remain cool in a crisis, and to share their winning opportunities with their associates. In this system the Rothschilds had been preeminent during much of the nineteenth century, but, at the end of that century, they were being replaced by J. P. Morgan whose central office was in New York, although it was always operated as if it were in London (where it had, indeed, originated as George Peabody and Company in 1838).

>Pg. 936-937: Behind this unfortunate situation lies another, more profound, relationship, which influences matters much broader than Far Eastern policy. It involves the organization of tax-exempt fortunes of international financiers into foundations to be used for educational, scientific, "and other public purposes." Sixty or more years ago, public life in the West was dominated by the influence of "Wall Street." This term has nothing to do with its use by the Communists to mean monopolistic industrialism, but, on the contrary, refers to international financial capitalism deeply involved in the gold standard, foreign-exchange fluctuations, floating of fixed-interest securities and, to a lesser extent, flotation of industrial shares for stock-exchange markets. This group, which in the United States, was completely dominated by J. P. Morgan and Company from the 1880's to the 1930's was cosmopolitan, Anglophile, internationalist, Ivy League, eastern seaboard, high Episcopalian, and European-culture conscious. Their connection with the Ivy League colleges rested on the fact that the large endowments of these institutions required constant consultation with the financiers of Wall Street (or its lesser branches on State Street, Boston, and elsewhere) and was reflected in the fact that these endowments, even in 1930, were largely in bonds rather than in real estate or common stocks.

>>20430411
>>20430415
>>20430421
summerize it. I ain't gonna read all that

>>20430428
>As a consequence of these influences, as late as the 1930's, J. P. Morgan and his associates were the most significant figures in policy making at Harvard, Columbia, and to a lesser extent Yale, while the Whitneys were significant at Yale, and the Prudential Insurance Company (through Edward D. Duffield) dominated Princeton.

>Pg. 937: The names of these Wall Street luminaries still adorn these Ivy League campuses, with Harkness colleges and a Payne Whitney gymnasium at Yale, a Pyne dormitory at Princeton, a Dillon Field House and Lamont Library at Harvard. The chief officials of these universities were beholden to these financial powers and usually owed their jobs to them. Morgan himself helped make Nicholas Murray Butler president of Columbia; his chief Boston agent, Thomas Nelson Perkins of the First National Bank of that city, gave Conant his boost from the chemical laboratory to University Hall at Harvard; Duffield of Prudential, caught unprepared when the incumbent president of Princeton was killed in an automobile in 1932, made himself president for a year before he chose Harold Dodds for the post in 1933. At Yale, Thomas Lamont, managing partner of the Morgan firm, was able to swing Charles Seymour into the presidency of that university in 1937.

>The significant influence of "Wall Street" (meaning Morgan) both in the Ivy League and in Washington, in the period of sixty or more years following 1880, explains the constant interchange between the Ivy League and the Federal government, an interchange which undoubtedly aroused a good deal of resentment in less-favored circles, who were more than satiated with the accents, tweeds, and High Episcopal Anglophilia of these peoples

>Pg. 938: Because of its dominant position in Wall Street, the Morgan firm came also to dominate other Wal1 Street powers, such as Carnegie, Whitney, Vanderbilt, Brown-Harriman, or Dillon-Reed. Close alliances were made with Rockefeller, Mellon, and Duke interests but not nearly so intimate ones with the great industrial powers like du Pont and Ford. [Because] ... of the great influence of this "Wall Street" alignment, an influence great enough to merit the name of the "American Establishment," this group could ... control the Federal government and, in consequence, had to adjust to a good many government actions ... [which they had secretly supported ]. The chief of these were in taxation law, beginning with the graduated income tax in 1913, but culminating, above all else, in the inheritance tax. These tax laws drove the great private fortunes dominated by Wall Street into tax-exempt foundations, which became a major link in the Establishment network between Wall Street, the Ivy League, and the Federal government.

>>20430434
>More than fifty years ago the Morgan firm decided to infiltrate the Left-wing political movements in the United States. This was relatively easy to do, since these groups were starved for funds and eager for a voice to reach the people. Wall Street supplied both. The purpose was not to destroy ... or take over but was really threefold: (1) to keep informed about the thinking of Left-wing or liberal groups; (2) to provide them with a mouthpiece so that they could "blow off steam," and (3) to have a final veto on their publicity and possibly on their actions, if they ever went "radical." There was nothing really new about this decision, since other financiers had talked about it and even attempted it earlier.

>Pg. 939: The New Republic was founded by Willard and Dorothy Straight, using her money, in 1914, and continued to be supported by her financial contributions until March 23, 1953. The original purpose for establishing the paper was to provide an outlet for the progressive Left and to guide it quietly in an Anglophile direction. This latter task was entrusted to a young man, only four years out of Harvard, but already a member of the mysterious Round Table group, which has played a major role in directing England's foreign policy since its formal establishment in 1909. This new recruit, Walter Lippmann, has been, from 1914 to the present, the authentic spokesman in American journalism for the Establishments on both sides of the Atlantic in international affairs.

>Pg. 950: There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the ... Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies (notably to its belief that England was an Atlantic rather than a European Power and must be allied, or even federated, with the United States and must remain isolated from Europe), but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.

Reminder the fascists were the only ones who ever actually threatened the Anglo-American establishment enough to scare it.

>>20430430
The person who excerpted these quotes already has summarized it pretty well, this is from a 1500 page book by Carroll Quigley, Harvard Professor of History and Bill Clinton's professor, totally mainstream and NEVER contradicted in anything he said here.

If you read these words today, and then read his shorter book if you're lazy (The Anglo-American Establishment), you will understand 90% of world history since 1800. THIS is what people are really talking about when they talk about "capital" in some vague sense, or "bankers" in some vague sense, or "the new world order" in some vague sense. It's these groups of people, and their offshoots after the 1970s and down to today.

Like fascists or don't like them, but they actually almost beat these people, and nobody else ever has. Not even the USSR or China.

>>20430278
I think a publisher would be to know how to use a semicolon.

>>20430451
>Like fascists or don't like them, but they actually almost beat these people, and nobody else ever has. Not even the USSR or China.
what does this have to do with the paragraphs that have been pasted there.
I always laugh when fascists think hitler was the epitome of counter culture, he was not.

>>20430467
Read these four articles if you actually want to know:
https://counter-currents.com/tag/breaking-the-bondage-of-interest/

I know you probably won't read them, I'm more talking to anyone with an open mind who might be lurking and interested.

An excerpt, gain beginning from AJP Taylor who is a totally mainstream and celebrated academic and not some fringe fascist:
>Prof. A. J. P. Taylor, the eminent British historian, and hardly a Nazi sympathizer, writes:

>"Fascism, it was claimed, represented the last aggressive stage of capitalism in decline, and its momentum could be sustained only by war. There was an element of truth in this, but not much. The full employment which Nazi Germany was the first European country to possess, depended in large part on the production of armaments; but it could have been provided equally well (and was to some extent) by other forms of public works from roads to great buildings. The Nazi secret was not armament production; it was freedom from the then orthodox principles of economics . . . the argument for war did not work even if the Nazi system had relied on armaments production alone. Nazi Germany was not choking in a flood of arms. On the contrary, the German Generals insists unanimously in 1939 that they were not equipped for war and that many years must pass before “rearmament in depth” had been completed."

>Hitler next explained precisely the foundations of the new economic and financial system:

>"If ever need makes humans see clearly it has made the German people do so. Under the compulsion of this need we have learned in the first place to take full account of the most essential capital of a nation, namely, its capacity to work. All thoughts of a gold reserves and foreign exchange fade before the industry and efficiency of well-planned national productive resources. We can smile today at an age when economists were seriously of the opinion that the value of currency was determined by the reserves of gold and foreign exchange lying in the vaults of the national banks and, above all, was guaranteed by them. Instead of that we have learned to realize that the value of a currency lies in a nation’s power of production, that an increasing volume of production sustains a currency, and could possibly raise its value, whereas a decreasing production must, sooner or later, lead to a compulsory devaluation."
This last part is the sense in which Hitler, whatever else he thought or did, made a revolutionary break from Anglo-American financial tyranny. Simply by shifting the nation to autarky. Many other nations have tried and failed to do the same - look up Peron's Justicialism and the attempt at breaking away from American imperialism and financial colonialism. That's why the deep state destroyed and terrorized Latin America into a mushy, fragmented series of vassal state, which they still are today.

Peron and Allende were friends because they had a common enemy and a common cause.

>>20430182
Ironically, the Soviet Union collapsed because Gorbachev decided to force its industries to become efficient by instantly revoking the guaranteed annual quotas of what the Soviet government would purchase from them and instead advertised that they would look for the best price/quality they could find on the market. Gorbachev quite literally told the entire Soviet economy to "sink or swim" and, unsurprisingly, a Soviet economy that had grown used to planned economic stability and a single, massive, guaranteed customer couldn't quite survive Gorbachev's impatience with them.

Quite funny that he also freed the industries from central influence by allowing the workers to democratically elect their managers and, of course, the short-sighted workers voted for whichever candidate would raise their wages the most, and these bidding wars siphoned all the industries' capital and caused massive inflation of the rouble nation-wide. Anyway, not to say that the free-market destroyed the Soviet economy, just Gorbachev's socialist-lite naivete - because at least the Marxist hardliners were able to maintain a stable, if stagnant, economic climate

>>20423497
Shit, I have that book. Anyways I like

GDH Cole - Guild Socialism
Friederich List - National System Of Economy

>>20424511
Millions of hours have been spent on economic questions where this was the answer the entire time

>>20430451
this and all the quotes were very interesting.

>>20430620
ok

>>20430484
Hitler had no serious commitments. Ya you can say he liked Gottfried Feder but he marginalized him and never gave him or those ideas any power. Any serious radicalism was purged and kept away from power after the night of long knives so he could make peace with the traditional elites. Hjalmar Schacht is more credited with Germanies performance in the 30s and that could of been engineered without the Nazis in power. Hitler got rid of Schacht after the start of war and let bigger retards into power concerned with looting gold throughout Europe.

> a revolutionary break from Anglo-American financial tyranny
Quite the opposite when you look into the details. Hitler was an Anglophile and had no interest in antagonizing or weakening Britain.

>>20430609
Gorbachev wanted to integrate the USSR into the international economy but the Reagan/Bush administrations didn't. When efficiency started to become about microelectronics they couldn't import and had to reverse engineer more expensive less reliable copies it was over.
And the problem in the late USSR was shortages not inflation, prices were still being regulated, hyperinflation was allowed to happen as "shock therapy" and you have the Harvard Boys and Yeltsin to thank for that

>>20426084
kek

>>20428108
free trade is a class warfare strategy aimed at breaking the power of organized labor. despite its claims to general abundance it's actually deliberately maintaining a scarcity of production by fragmenting existing systems and spreading them around the globe. capitalists think they'll be able to stay in control forever by rendering the means of production incomprehensible to the bulk of humanity and only operational via their secret algorithms

>>20431513
free trade is just an extension of what colonialism was

>economics

does it actually have any predictive powe or is it all just political and partisan mumbo jumbo

>>20431548
economics is properly placed as a part of moral theology
make of that what you will

bump