Debate and taboos in the USA: Unorthodox statements by two well-known US economists on the Trump/Harris debate

During a recent one-and-a-half-hour TV debate “Dialogue Works,” moderator Nima R. Alkohordshid asked his two guests, Professor Michael Hudson (85 years old) and Professor Richard D. Wolff (82 years old), for their assessment of the candidates’ debate between Trump and Harris on foreign and economic policy. Hudson is Distinguished Research Professor at the University of Missouri–Kansas City, as well as a financial analyst and consultant on Wall Street and President of the “Institute for the Study of Long-term Economic Trends” (ISLET). Politically, he had supported the 2007/8 the presidential campaign of Democrat Dennis Kucinich, as his chief economic adviser. Richard D. Wolff conducted research at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst on economic methodology and the class structure of the United States. He is professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and visiting professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs at New School University in New York. He has taught among other universities at Yale University, City University of New York, and University of Paris (Sorbonne). Wolff supported the presidential campaign of Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party in 2015.

At the beginning, Wolff said something, which according to my judgment seems to be symptomatic of the discussion, not only in the USA: “The real sadness lies in what was n o t addressed (in the debate), Wolff stated. ”I would like to give you an example that impressed me very much. We are currently experiencing a massive restructuring of the world economy. The near-monopoly of the United States, which lasted for most of the last century, is over. Now there is another player, namely China, which has caught up with or overtaken the US in high technology and other areas. The BRICS group is already a larger economic bloc than the G7. The global position of the US is shifting radically, and the direction is now clear.”

Earlier, when being asked about the foreign policy consequences for the U.S. if it came to an economic war between the U.S. and China, Michael Hudson pointed out that the ABC journalists were trying to get Trump to talk about the war in Ukraine. They asked him whether he wanted Ukraine to lose against Putin (in the same way that well-known German journalists, for example, try to “frame” unwelcome political statements): Trump simply said, “I want peace. There must be a peace agreement.” That was what they could get out of him at the beginning. “Trump didn’t talk about the costs of the military-industrial complex or the money that Biden and his son have received from Ukraine. So there wasn’t really a foreign policy debate, just flag-waving nationalism,” said Hudson, who is not at a loss for pointed answers. Incidentally, during the 1980 election campaign, I had the opportunity to be present at a meeting between  Professor Hudson and the then Democratic Party presidential candidate, Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr.; the occasion was a conversation about music, in which Michael Hudson has always been very interested.

“Hysterical refusal to ask questions about the economic system” (Professor Wolff)

In the long conversation between the two economists the burning issues were discussed: the war between Russia and Ukraine, the various aspects of the economic ‘decline of the USA’ from the point of view of these two economists, who are not close to the Trump movement.

It is striking that both discussants, who are knowledgeable commentators on contemporary America, have pointed out something that is contrary to the European view of our media. It was pointed out for example that the Harris camp, the Democrats, and the Republicans don’t have fundamentally different policies on the question of how to deal with China, military interventions, and the like. That is why it would have been clear from the outset which topics they did not want to discuss.

Wolff put it succinctly: „The question is, what will the U.S. do? Will it continue imposing tariffs and provocations around Taiwan, trying to hold back China? Or will it sit down and work out a way to share the planet, respecting each other’s frameworks while addressing ecological concerns? This would open up questions about the Monroe Doctrine and other long-standing policies. But we didn’t hear anything about that (…)

“Is the U.S. going to accommodate the decline of its empire, or fight tooth and nail? What do the Republicans propose, and what do the Democrats propose? These are the dominant questions, within which issues like Taiwan, Israel, or Ukraine are “symptoms”, specifics within a larger framework. But we didn’t get anything of that. This is what some of my friends call a “nothing burger”—you open it up, and there’s nothing inside.“

Hudson made an important point about the consequences of deindustrialization policy:
“Well, Richard points out that the American decline and what to do about it should have been discussed. But that can’t be, because the decline is a direct result of the policies pursued by both Democrats and Republicans. How can you discuss these policies without facing the fact that they are leading to deindustrialization and the shift of global power to East Asia?”

In the course of the conversation, more fundamental global problems became apparent. Hudson focused on the economic system, the growing tension between “financial capitalism” and “industrial capitalism.” Wolff emphasized that there is a hysterical refusal on the side of the opponents to address these issues: “There is no critique or discussion on the economic system itself. Do you know what that is? It is the hysterical refusal to even ask questions, to admit that there could be something in the capitalist system—be it the rule of maximizing profits on investment or the structure in which a tiny group at each workplace makes all the decisions about production and profits. This hysteria does not express itself in the form of shouting or screaming, although we are moving closer and closer to that. Instead, it manifests itself in an unspoken agreement to treat certain topics as “taboo” – whether it’s sex, religion or capitalism – and to never discuss them.”

Criticism of deindustrialization policies – also in Europe (Professor Hudson)

A long debate about Trump’s claim to make the “others” pay with a tariff policy, followed, by explaining the nonsense of using „tariffs“ as a “weapon”, for example, using the example of Chinese-made electric vehicles. The question of raw material imports and the role of industrial processes was discussed in detail. Europe, including the various party shifts in the recent elections in France and Germany, came into focus.

Michael Hudson commented: “Yes, it is not only the European population that is talking about “deindustrialization”, but also the leadership. Mario Draghi, former president of the European Central Bank, recently published a report for the EU Commission recommending 800 billion euros for investments in industrial projects, in the hope of positioning Europe as a rival to the US and China. … The bigger question is, where will these 800 billion euros go? Even if Europe were to build new chemical plants or steel mills, who would operate them? Europe pays four to five times more for gas than the US or China, and oil and other raw materials, for which the US has imposed sanctions on Russia and China, are also more expensive, Hudson stated.

„Europe simply cannot deal with the situation it has brought upon itself. That is why, as Richard mentioned, in the recent elections in Thuringia and Saxony, the parties opposed to the anti-Russian war and the Cold War policy are leading.” Hudson provocatively stated: „Germany’s reaction, of course, was to label the leading party in Thuringia, Alternative for Germany, as a ‚terrorist‘ [the authorities of the three federal states actually classify the AFD as ’secured right-wing extremist’ – AH] party. Well, who are they ‘terrorizing’? They are ‘terrorizing’ Jake Sullivan, Antony Blinken, the US military and the neocons. The rest of the Europeans who have listened to your program and to what Richard and I have said; realize that as long as they have to go along with US sanctions, they cannot even be a rival or a third wheel in this Cold War. NATO has even gone so far as to say, ‘We are now an Asian power; we belong in the North China Sea defending Europe.'”

Financial and Industrial Capitalism

After a long discussion by Professor Hudson about the different types of capitalism, the role of tariff policy in the 19th century, the retrospective view of Russia in the 1990s (the privatization wave, which was popularly called “grab”-itisation – from “to grab” – in the vernacular: “predatory capitalism”), Hudson underlined: “That’s the difference between long-term capitalism and short-term capitalism. Long-term capitalism developed into socialism – and at that time socialism was not yet a dirty word. Everyone was talking about it. The debate was about what kind of socialism the world would develop. Today, financial capitalism is leading to a new Cold War, in which other countries are forced to cede their economic surpluses to the US, which uses them, in order to finance massive military spending, bases, submarines, warships and non-governmental organizations to surround them. This is not the capitalism that was imagined in the 19th century. Therefore the question arises: what has capitalism done wrong? Is this really the kind of capitalism that people expected?

„We are dealing with something systemic and evolutionary, but it is going in two different directions. Short-term financial capitalism is going under because it is short-term, negative and punitive. Long-term industrial capitalism was about expanding markets and building diplomatic relationships – what President Xi refers to as ‚win-win‘ – while today’s financial capitalism, driven by neoliberalism and the neocons, is all about ‚lose-lose‘.“