Destiny of Civilization, Interview by Ben Norton

《文明的命運(yùn)》，本·諾頓訪談：

MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, the Nobel Prize is given basically for junk economics. And probably the worst junk economist of the century was Paul Samuelson.
He made the absurd claim that he proved mathematically that, if you have free trade then, and don’t have tariffs, and don’t have any government protection, then everyone will become more equal. At least the proportions between labor and capital will be more equal. Well, the reality is just the opposite.
And the term “free-trade imperialism” was actually created by a British historian of trade theory who pointed out that, wait a minute, when England went for free trade, the idea was, if we have free trade, we can stifle other countries from being able to industrialize, because if we have free trade, then we can tell America, we will open our doors to your markets – meaning the markets of the slave South, that Britain supported – and in exchange, you will open your markets to our industrial goods.
And America followed that until the Civil War, which was fought not only over slavery, but by the Republican Party after 1853 that said very explicitly, if we’re going to win the election – the Whigs never could win – if we, the new party, are going to win the election and industrialize America, we’ve got to integrate ourselves with the anti-slavery issue, with emancipation, but for us, the economic war of America is a war of, either we’re going to have protective tariffs in the North, or we’re going to end up as a non-industrial, raw materials-producing society, as the South wants.

邁克爾·哈德森:
諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)基本上是頒給垃圾經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的。本世紀(jì)最糟糕的垃圾經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家可能是保羅·薩繆爾森（Paul Samuelson）。他提出了一個(gè)荒謬的主張，他從數(shù)學(xué)上證明了，如果你有自由貿(mào)易，沒有關(guān)稅，沒有任何政府保護(hù)，那么每個(gè)人都會(huì)變得更平等，至少勞動(dòng)力和資本的比例會(huì)更加平等。但事實(shí)恰恰相反。
“自由貿(mào)易帝國(guó)主義”一詞實(shí)際上是由一位研究貿(mào)易理論的英國(guó)歷史學(xué)家創(chuàng)造的。當(dāng)英國(guó)追求自由貿(mào)易時(shí)，我們的想法是，如果我們有自由貿(mào)易，我們就可以扼殺其他國(guó)家的工業(yè)化，因?yàn)槿绻覀冇凶杂少Q(mào)易，我們就可以告訴美國(guó)，我們將向你們的市場(chǎng)——即英國(guó)支持的南方奴隸市場(chǎng)——敞開大門，作為交換，你們將向我們的工業(yè)產(chǎn)品開放市場(chǎng)。
美國(guó)聽從了建議，直到南北戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。這場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)不僅是為奴隸制而戰(zhàn)，而且在1853年后由共和黨發(fā)起。它非常明確地說，如果我們要贏得選舉，輝格黨就絕不能勝選。如果我們，這個(gè)新黨，要贏得選舉，實(shí)現(xiàn)美國(guó)工業(yè)化，我們就要把自己和反奴隸制以及解放運(yùn)動(dòng)結(jié)合起來。但對(duì)我們來說，美國(guó)的經(jīng)濟(jì)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)是一場(chǎng)——要么我們?cè)诒狈綄?shí)施保護(hù)性關(guān)稅，要么我們將像南方所希望的那樣，成為一個(gè)非工業(yè)的、原材料生產(chǎn)的社會(huì)。

that was the debate from 1815, when the Napoleonic wars ended and world trade began again, until really the Civil War.
And America became strong in the way that Germany became strong too, by having protective tariffs, in order to have prices large enough to nurture what was called infant industry, to nurture American manufacturing.
And I wrote a long book about this, published some years ago based on my PhD dissertation, “America’s Protectionist Takeoff.”
Well, the English tried to fight against other countries protecting their economy, saying that if you just have free trade, you’ll get rich. Whereas the reality is, if we have free trade, you’ll get poor, if you’re not already able to have industrial and labor productivity and agricultural productivity on par with the most advanced countries.
Free trade was an attempt to prevent other countries from investing government money and building up their agriculture, and building up their industry, and building up their productivity, and creating a school system, to raise wages, to make wages more productive.

這種爭(zhēng)論從1815年開始，拿破侖戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)結(jié)束，世界貿(mào)易重新開始，直到（美國(guó)）內(nèi)戰(zhàn)爆發(fā)。美國(guó)變得強(qiáng)大，就像德國(guó)變得強(qiáng)大一樣，通過保護(hù)性關(guān)稅，為了讓價(jià)格足夠高來培育所謂的嬰兒工業(yè)，培育美國(guó)制造業(yè)。
關(guān)于這個(gè)問題，我寫了一本很長(zhǎng)的書，幾年前以我的博士論文《美國(guó)的保護(hù)主義起飛》為基礎(chǔ)出版。
英國(guó)人試圖與其他國(guó)家對(duì)抗，保護(hù)他們的經(jīng)濟(jì)，他們說，如果你有自由貿(mào)易，你就會(huì)變得富有。然而現(xiàn)實(shí)是，如果我們有自由貿(mào)易，你會(huì)變窮，你就不能擁有與最先進(jìn)國(guó)家相當(dāng)?shù)墓I(yè)、勞動(dòng)和農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)力。
自由貿(mào)易試圖阻止其他國(guó)家投入政府資金發(fā)展農(nóng)業(yè)，發(fā)展工業(yè)，提高生產(chǎn)力，建立教育體系，提高工資，提高工資效率。

the American protectionists said, well, we’re going to have a high-wage economy because high-wage labor undersells pauper labor. And skilled, well-fed, well-rested American labor can produce much more than the pauper labor of other countries that have free trade.
Well, what the leading American protectionist economist, Erasmus Peshine Smith, went to Japan and helped industrial help Japan break away from British free trade, helped Japan industrialize.
And other American economists, other foreign economists, all picked up the ideas of the American protectionist, like Friedrich List went to Germany promoting protectionism.
And Peshine Smith’s book, “The Manual of Political Economy,” was translated into all the foreign languages – Japanese, Italian, French, German.
And you had Europe realizing that free trade polarizes economies. Well, it was this that after World War One, and especially World War Two, when you had orthodox economics turning into basically propaganda.

美國(guó)的保護(hù)主義者說，好吧，我們將會(huì)有一個(gè)高工資的經(jīng)濟(jì)，因?yàn)楦吖べY的勞動(dòng)力（成本）低于貧窮的勞動(dòng)力。有技能、吃得好、休息得好的美國(guó)勞動(dòng)力可以比其他擁有自由貿(mào)易的國(guó)家的貧窮勞動(dòng)力生產(chǎn)出更多的產(chǎn)品。
美國(guó)著名的保護(hù)主義經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家伊拉茲馬斯·佩辛·史密斯（Erasmus Peshine Smith），去了日本，幫助日本脫離英國(guó)的自由貿(mào)易并實(shí)現(xiàn)工業(yè)化。其他美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家，其他外國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家，都接受了美國(guó)保護(hù)主義的觀點(diǎn)，比如弗里德里?！だ钏固兀‵riedrich List）去德國(guó)提倡保護(hù)主義。
佩辛·史密斯的書《政治經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)手冊(cè)》被翻譯成日語、意大利語、法語和德語。你讓歐洲意識(shí)到自由貿(mào)易使經(jīng)濟(jì)兩極分化。正是在一戰(zhàn)之后，尤其是二戰(zhàn)之后，正統(tǒng)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)基本上變成了宣傳。

That’s where you and Samuelson and others try to convince other countries, governments are bad, leave everything to the wealthy people, to the finance people, trickle-down economies, it’s all going to trickle down, don’t worry, just give more money to the rich, and don’t have any government interference with markets. Whereas America had got rich by interfering with markets, to shape them in the years leading up to World War One. But after World War One, America had already achieved its industrial dominance. And it was after World War One that America said, ok, now our protective tariffs have enabled us to outproduce all the other countries, and our protectionist agriculture especially – the most protected sector in America, has always been agriculture, since the 1930s.
Basically it said, well, now we can outproduce other countries, we can undersell them, now we can tell them to go for free trade.
And after World War Two, the Americans created the World Bank for economic impoverishment, and the International Monetary Austerity Fund.

薩繆爾森等人試圖說服其他國(guó)家：政府是糟糕的，（應(yīng)該）把一切都留給富人，留給金融家，這是涓滴經(jīng)濟(jì)，它會(huì)涓滴下去，別擔(dān)心，把更多的錢給富人，政府不干預(yù)市場(chǎng)。而美國(guó)是通過干預(yù)市場(chǎng)致富的，在第一次世界大戰(zhàn)之前的幾年里對(duì)市場(chǎng)進(jìn)行了塑造。
但在第一次世界大戰(zhàn)后，美國(guó)已經(jīng)取得了工業(yè)主導(dǎo)地位。第一次世界大戰(zhàn)后，美國(guó)說：現(xiàn)在我們的保護(hù)性關(guān)稅使我們的產(chǎn)量超過了所有其他國(guó)家，尤其是我們的保護(hù)主義農(nóng)業(yè)——自20世紀(jì)30年代以來，美國(guó)最受保護(hù)的部門一直是農(nóng)業(yè)?；旧纤谡f，現(xiàn)在我們可以在生產(chǎn)上超過其他國(guó)家，我們可以在售價(jià)上低于他們，現(xiàn)在我們可以讓他們進(jìn)行自由貿(mào)易。
第二次世界大戰(zhàn)后，美國(guó)人為解決經(jīng)濟(jì)貧困創(chuàng)立了世界銀行和國(guó)際貨幣緊縮基金組織。

the World Bank’s leading obxtive was to prevent other countries from investing in their own food production.
The guiding line of the World Bank was, we’ve got to provide infrastructure for building up plantation agriculture in Latin America, and Africa, and other countries, so that they will grow tropical export crops, but they cannot be permitted to grow grain or wheat to feed themselves; they must be dependent on the United States.
And so the function of free trade, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund has been to finance dependency, backed up by the American support of dictatorships throughout Latin America who agree to have client oligarchies supporting pro-American trade patterns and avoiding any kind of self-reliance, so that the United States can do what it has recently done to Russia and other countries, impose sanctions – say, well, now that you depended on us for your grain, we can now impose sanctions, and you can’t feed yourself if you don’t follow the policies we want.

世界銀行的主要目標(biāo)是阻止其他國(guó)家投資本國(guó)的糧食生產(chǎn)。世界銀行的指導(dǎo)方針是，我們必須為拉丁美洲、非洲和其他國(guó)家的種植園農(nóng)業(yè)建設(shè)提供基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，所以他們可以種植熱帶出口作物，但他們不能種植谷物或小麥來養(yǎng)活自己，他們必須依賴美國(guó)。
所以自由貿(mào)易的功能就是，世界銀行/國(guó)際貨幣基金組織一直在為依賴提供資金，美國(guó)支持整個(gè)拉丁美洲的獨(dú)裁政權(quán)，這些獨(dú)裁政權(quán)同意政治支持親美貿(mào)易模式，避免任何形式的自力更生。這樣美國(guó)就可以像它最近對(duì)俄羅斯和其他國(guó)家所做的那樣，施加制裁——比如說，好吧，現(xiàn)在你們的糧食依賴我們，我們現(xiàn)在可以施加制裁，如果你們不遵循我們想要的政策，你們就無法養(yǎng)活自己。

That was the policy that America tried to use against China after M’s revolution. And fortunately for China, Canada broke that monopoly, and said, well, we’re going to sell grain to China. And China was always very friendly to Canada in those earlier decades.
So basically, free trade means no government, no socialism. It means central planning essentially by Wall Street – countries should let American firms come in, buy control of their raw materials, resources, control of their oil and gas, and mineral rights, and forests and plantations, and basically let other countries send their whole economic surplus to the United States, where it will be duly financialized to buy out other countries’ raw materials and rent yielding resources.

這也是新中國(guó)成立后美國(guó)試圖用來對(duì)付中國(guó)的政策。幸運(yùn)的是，加拿大打破了美國(guó)的壟斷，它說，我們要向中國(guó)出售糧食。在新中國(guó)成立后的幾十年里，中國(guó)一直對(duì)加拿大非常友好。
所以基本上，自由貿(mào)易意味著沒有政府，沒有社會(huì)主義，意味著由華爾街主導(dǎo)的中央計(jì)劃——各國(guó)應(yīng)該讓美國(guó)公司進(jìn)入，購(gòu)買他們的原材料、資源、石油和天然氣的控制權(quán)、采礦權(quán)、森林和種植園的控制權(quán)，基本上是讓其他國(guó)家把他們的全部經(jīng)濟(jì)盈余送到美國(guó)，在那里，這些盈余將被適當(dāng)?shù)厝谫Y來購(gòu)買其他國(guó)家的原材料和租用產(chǎn)生收益的資源。

BENJAMIN NORTON: Yeah, and in your book, you have a very funny passage that I think really encapsulates this ideology that you’re talking about here.
You referred to Charles Wilson, who was the secretary of defense under Eisenhower in the U.S., and he was also the former CEO of General Motors.
And he famously said, “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country.” And that idea has morphed into the idea that, “What’s good for Wall Street is good for America.”
And then you note that “this merged with evangelistic U.S. foreign policy that says ‘What’s good for America is good for the world.’ And therefore the logical syllogism is clear: ‘What’s good for Wall Street is good for the world.’”
And you describe this, you lix it to the new cold war, this idea that what’s good for the U.S. is good for the world and what’s good for Wall Street is good for the U.S., therefore, what’s good for Wall Street is good for the world.
You argue, “We must recognize how finance capitalism has gained power over industrial economies, above all in the United States, from which it seeks to project itself globally, led by the financialized U.S. economy. Today’s new Cold War is a fight to impose rentier-based finance capitalism on the entire world.”

本杰明·諾頓:
是的，在你的書中，你有一段非常有趣的段落，我認(rèn)為它概括了你在這里談?wù)摰囊庾R(shí)形態(tài)。你提到了查爾斯·威爾遜，他是美國(guó)艾森豪威爾時(shí)期的國(guó)防部長(zhǎng)，他也是通用汽車公司的前首席執(zhí)行官。
他有句名言:“對(duì)通用汽車有利的事，就是對(duì)國(guó)家有利?！边@個(gè)想法已經(jīng)演變成“對(duì)華爾街有利的就是對(duì)美國(guó)有利?！?然后你會(huì)注意到，“這與福音派的美國(guó)外交政策相結(jié)合，該政策認(rèn)為“對(duì)美國(guó)有利的事情就是對(duì)世界有利。”
因此，邏輯上的三段論很清楚:“對(duì)華爾街有利的事，就是對(duì)世界有利。”
你描述了這一點(diǎn)，你把它與新冷戰(zhàn)聯(lián)系起來，這種觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為對(duì)美國(guó)有利的事情對(duì)世界有利，對(duì)華爾街有利的事情對(duì)美國(guó)有利，因此，對(duì)華爾街有利的事情就是對(duì)世界有利。
你認(rèn)為，“我們必須認(rèn)識(shí)到金融資本主義是如何在工業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)中獲得力量的，尤其是在美國(guó)，它試圖從美國(guó)在金融化的美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下，在全球范圍內(nèi)投射自己（的力量）。今天的新冷戰(zhàn)是一場(chǎng)將以食利者為基礎(chǔ)的金融資本主義強(qiáng)加給整個(gè)世界的戰(zhàn)斗。”
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處


And this is such an important analysis. Because among those very few people of us who talk about this idea of the new cold war and how dangerous it is, there are very few people who frx it in economic terms.
Usually we frx it in political terms, right, the geopolitical interests between the US and the EU on one side, and China and Russia on the other.
And going back to Brzezinski and The Grand Chessboard, his 1997 book, where he talks about the importance of preventing near strategic competitors from emerging in Eurasia. That’s of course a geopolitical discussion and economics is part of it, but it’s often not at the forefront.
But your analysis I think is even more important, and more accurate, because your argument is not only is it geopolitical, but the geopolitical struggle is rooted in economics. And this is an economic struggle between systems.
So talk talk more about the new cold war and how you see it.

這是一個(gè)非常重要的分析。因?yàn)樵谖覀儺?dāng)中很少有人談?wù)撔吕鋺?zhàn)的概念以及它有多危險(xiǎn)，很少有人從經(jīng)濟(jì)角度來框定它。通常我們用政治術(shù)語來描述它，對(duì)吧，一邊是美國(guó)和歐盟，另一邊是中國(guó)和俄羅斯之間的地緣政治利益。
回到布熱津斯基和他1997年的著作《大棋局》(The Grand Chessboard)，他在書中談到了防止戰(zhàn)略競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手在歐亞大陸崛起的重要性。這當(dāng)然是事關(guān)地緣政治的討論，但經(jīng)濟(jì)也是其中的一部分，盡管通常不是最重要的。
我認(rèn)為你的分析更重要，更準(zhǔn)確，因?yàn)槟愕恼擖c(diǎn)不僅是地緣政治，而且地緣政治斗爭(zhēng)植根于經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)。這是制度之間的經(jīng)濟(jì)斗爭(zhēng)。
所以，這里談?wù)摳嗟氖顷P(guān)于新冷戰(zhàn)的話題以及你如何看待它。

MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, as we’re seeing now, the world is dividing into two parts. We can see that in the fight against Russia, which is also a fight against China, and against India, as you noted. And it seems Indonesia and other countries as well.
The United States is pushing a world that can be controlled by American investors. The ideal of the American neoliberal plan is to do to other countries what it did to Russia after 1991: take all of your public domain, your oil companies, your nickel mines, your electric utilities, give them all to the wealthy oligarchy, that can only make money once it’s taken control of these companies, by selling the stocks to the West.
The West will buy out oil, just like Mikhail Khodorkovsky tried to sell Yukos oil to Standard Oil in the West. And we’ve got to put an oligarchy that will sell all of the national domain, all of the patrimony and natural resources, and all the companies, to American investors on the cheap.
The Russian stock market led all the stock markets in the world from 1994 up to about 1998. This was a huge rip off. The United States wants to be able to do that to the rest of the world.

邁克爾·哈德森:
正如我們現(xiàn)在看到的，世界正被分成兩部分。我們可以從與俄羅斯的斗爭(zhēng)中看到這一點(diǎn)，正如你提到的，這也是與中國(guó)和印度的斗爭(zhēng)。印度尼西亞和其他國(guó)家也是如此。
美國(guó)正在推動(dòng)一個(gè)由美國(guó)投資者控制的世界。美國(guó)新自由主義計(jì)劃的理想是對(duì)其他國(guó)家做它在1991年后對(duì)俄羅斯做過的事情: 把你所有的公有領(lǐng)域，你的石油公司，你的鎳礦，你的電力設(shè)施，都交給富裕的寡頭政治，他們只有控制了這些公司，才能賺錢，才能通過賣股票給西方。
西方會(huì)買下所有的石油，就像霍多爾科夫斯基試圖把尤科斯的石油賣給西方的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)石油一樣。我們必須建立一個(gè)寡頭政治，將所有的國(guó)家領(lǐng)土，所有的遺產(chǎn)和自然資源，以及所有的公司，廉價(jià)地賣給美國(guó)投資者。
從1994年到1998年，俄羅斯股市在全球股市中遙遙領(lǐng)先。但這是一場(chǎng)巨大的騙局。美國(guó)希望對(duì)世界其他國(guó)家也能這樣做。

And it was furious when Russia said, we’ve lost more population as a result of neoliberalism than we did in all of World War Two fighting against Nazism. We’ve got to stop.
And Russia began to say, we’ve got to use Russia’s population, and industry, and natural resources for Russia’s benefit, not for the United States’ benefit.
Well, the United States was absolutely furious with this. And the fury has erupted in the NATO war against Russia in the last few months, and what’s ongoing now.
And the United States says, U.S. State Department officials have said, what we want to do is carve up Russia into maybe four different countries: Siberia, western Russia, southern Russia or Central Asia, maybe northern Russia.

當(dāng)俄羅斯說，我們因?yàn)樾伦杂芍髁x失去的人口比我們?cè)诙?zhàn)中與納粹主義作戰(zhàn)時(shí)失去的人口還要多時(shí)，這令人非常憤怒。我們必須停下來。
俄羅斯開始說，我們必須利用俄羅斯的人口、工業(yè)和自然資源來為俄羅斯造福，而不是為美國(guó)造福。美國(guó)對(duì)此當(dāng)然非常憤怒。過去幾個(gè)月里，北約對(duì)俄羅斯的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)爆發(fā)了憤怒情緒，現(xiàn)在還在繼續(xù)。
美國(guó)說、美國(guó)國(guó)務(wù)院官員說，我們想要做的是把俄羅斯分成四個(gè)不同的國(guó)家：西伯利亞，俄羅斯西部，俄羅斯南部或中亞，也許還有俄羅斯北部。

And once we’ve done that, we cut Russia off from China, then we go into China. We finance, we send ISIS and al-Qaeda into the ...... areas, the Muslim areas, and we start a color revolution there. And then we break up China, into a northern part, a southern part, a central part.
And once we break them up, we can more or less control them. And we can then come in, buy up their resources, and take over their industry, their labor, and their government, and get richer to obtain from China, Russia, India, Indonesia, and Iran the wealth that we’re no longer producing in the United States, now that we de-industrialized.
So the world is dividing into two parts. And it’s not simply the United States and its European satellites on the one hand versus the non-white population on the other hand; it’s finance capitalism versus the rest of the world, which is protecting itself by socialism, which in many ways fulfills what was the ideal of industrial capitalism during the 19th century, when industrial capitalism was actually progressive.
And it was progressive. That’s part of the whole theme of my book. It was revolutionary. It tried to free economies from the legacy of feudalism, from the legacy of hereditary landlords.

一旦我們成功，我們就切斷了俄羅斯和中國(guó)的聯(lián)系，然后我們會(huì)對(duì)準(zhǔn)中國(guó)。我們會(huì)提供資金……一旦我們成功，我們就能或多或少地控制他們。然后我們就可以進(jìn)入、買下他們的資源、接管他們的產(chǎn)業(yè)、他們的勞動(dòng)力、他們的政府，
從中國(guó)、俄羅斯、印度、印度尼西亞和伊朗獲得財(cái)富，這些財(cái)富是我們?cè)诿绹?guó)不再生產(chǎn)的，因?yàn)槲覀內(nèi)スI(yè)化了。
所以世界分成了兩部分。這不僅僅是美國(guó)和它的歐洲衛(wèi)星國(guó)與非白人人口的對(duì)抗。這是金融資本主義與世界其他國(guó)家的對(duì)抗，后者通過社會(huì)主義來保護(hù)自己，后者在很多方面實(shí)現(xiàn)了19世紀(jì)工業(yè)資本主義的理想，當(dāng)時(shí)工業(yè)資本主義實(shí)際上是進(jìn)步的。
進(jìn)步，是我這本書的主題之一，它是革命性的。它試圖將經(jīng)濟(jì)從封建主義和世襲地主的遺產(chǎn)中解放出來。

And now the financial class is no longer the landlord class, but the landlord class pays most of its rent to the financial class in the form of mortgage interest, as it borrows money to buy property and housing and commercial sites on credit.
And you have the kind of financialization that has increased housing prices in the United States to over 40% of income, that is officially guaranteed for mortgages. That has priced American labor out of the market.
Privatized health care, 18% of GDP, that is pricing America out of the world market. Debt, auto debt, student debt, which in other countries education is free; that’s pricing America out of the market.
So you have a basically un-competitive economy that’s committing financial suicide, following the same dynamic that destroyed the Roman empire, where a predatory oligarchy took over and maintained power by an assassination policy of its critics, just very similar to what America has been doing in Latin America and other countries.
So you’re having history repeat itself with this same kind of world split. And this split couldn’t have occurred back in the 1970s, with the Bandung Conference in Indonesia. There were other attempts by the Non-Aligned nations to break free of American imperialism, but they didn’t have a critical mass.

現(xiàn)在金融階層不再是地主階級(jí)，但地主階級(jí)以抵押貸款利息的形式向金融階層支付大部分租金，因?yàn)樗麄冑J款購(gòu)買房產(chǎn)、住房和商業(yè)用地。這種金融化將美國(guó)的房?jī)r(jià)提高到收入的40%以上，這是官方擔(dān)保的抵押貸款。這導(dǎo)致美國(guó)勞動(dòng)力因價(jià)格過高而被擠出市場(chǎng)。
私有化的醫(yī)療保健，占GDP的18%，正把美國(guó)擠出世界市場(chǎng)。債務(wù)，汽車債務(wù)，學(xué)生債務(wù)，正將美國(guó)擠出市場(chǎng)。而在其他國(guó)家教育是免費(fèi)的。
這是一個(gè)基本上沒有競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力的經(jīng)濟(jì)，這是在自尋死路，與摧毀羅馬帝國(guó)如出一轍。當(dāng)時(shí)，掠奪性的寡頭政治通過對(duì)其批評(píng)者的暗殺，來接管并維持權(quán)力，這與美國(guó)在拉丁美洲和其他國(guó)家所做的非常相似。
所以歷史在重演同樣的世界分裂。這種分裂在20世紀(jì)70年代印度尼西亞萬隆會(huì)議時(shí)是不可能發(fā)生的。不結(jié)盟國(guó)家也曾試圖擺脫美帝國(guó)主義，但他們沒有達(dá)到臨界質(zhì)量。

So right now, for the first time, you have a critical mass. And you have the ability of China, Iran, Russia, India, other countries together to be self-sufficient. They don’t need relations with the United States.
They can handle their own; they can create their own monetary system outside of the International Monetary Fund, which is basically an arm of the Defense Department. They can give loans to build up the infrastructure of countries outside of the World Bank, which is basically an arm of the Defense Department, the deep state.
So you have the American economy – essentially a merger between the military-industrial complex and the Wall Street FIRE sector, finance, insurance, and real estate – really cannot develop any more than the Roman Empire could develop, by trying to obtain militarily what it could not produce at home anymore.

現(xiàn)在，第一次，你達(dá)到了臨界質(zhì)量。中國(guó)，伊朗，俄羅斯，印度，還有其他國(guó)家都有能力自給自足。他們不需要與美國(guó)建立關(guān)系。他們能處理好自己的事情。他們可以在國(guó)際貨幣基金組織之外建立自己的貨幣體系，國(guó)際貨幣基金組織基本上是國(guó)防部的一個(gè)部門。他們可以向世界銀行以外的國(guó)家提供貸款來建設(shè)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，世界銀行基本上也是國(guó)防部的一個(gè)部門，深層國(guó)家。

So you have the American economy – essentially a merger between the military-industrial complex and the Wall Street FIRE sector, finance, insurance, and real estate – really cannot develop any more than the Roman Empire could develop, by trying to obtain militarily what it could not produce at home anymore.
Well, China and other countries, now that they have their industrial base, the raw materials, the food, the ability to feed themselves, the agriculture, and the technology, they can go their own way.
And so we’re seeing in the last few months the beginning of a war that is going to go on for, I think, 20 years, maybe 30 or 40 years. The world is splitting away.
And it won’t be a pretty sight, because the United States and its European satellites are trying to fight to prevent an inevitable break away they cannot prevent, any more than Europe’s landlord class could prevent industrial capitalism from developing in the 19th century.

這就是美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)——本質(zhì)上是軍工復(fù)合體和華爾街FIRE部門，即金融、保險(xiǎn)和房地產(chǎn)的結(jié)合，與羅馬帝國(guó)一樣，它無法獲得更多的發(fā)展，因?yàn)樗麄冊(cè)噲D通過軍事獲取國(guó)內(nèi)無法生產(chǎn)的東西。
中國(guó)和其他國(guó)家，現(xiàn)在他們有了自己的工業(yè)基礎(chǔ)，原材料，食物，養(yǎng)活自己的能力，農(nóng)業(yè)和技術(shù)，他們可以走自己的路。所以我們看到在過去的幾個(gè)月里，一場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)開始了，我認(rèn)為這場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)將持續(xù)20年，可能30年或40年。世界正在分裂。
這將不會(huì)是一幅美好的景象，因?yàn)槊绹?guó)及其歐洲的衛(wèi)星國(guó)正試圖阻止一場(chǎng)他們無法阻止的、不可避免的分裂，就像歐洲的地主階級(jí)在19世紀(jì)阻止工業(yè)資本主義的發(fā)展一樣。
（未完待續(xù)）