Lau Kin Chi: Both the U.S. and Iran said they have won the war, and so what do you think about these two proclamations? Who do you think won the war?

Today’s U.S. foreign policy has spent the past eighty years since 1945 putting in place a body of neoliberal anti-government doctrine and its anti-socialist rhetoric rejecting all ideas of diplomatic and domestic economic reform.

Michael Hudson: My view is probably in agreement with what the military is said to have discussed with Donald Trump last night and for the last few days. They’ve all told him that the invasion cannot work without an enormous sacrifice, and the United States ever since the Vietnam War, that led to the ending of the draft, no longer has a landed army.

Michael Hudson: “Well, I’d originally planned when you suggested talking about US foreign policy. I was going to go through my usual approach, which we’ve discussed, starting in the Bronze Age for, debt and debt financial policy and say, well, here’s how American foreign policy has evolved.”

Weaponizing the World’s Oil Trade is the Bedrock of the U.S. Rules-Based Order.

Donald Trump’s tariff policy has thrown markets into turmoil among his allies and enemies alike.

The 1940s saw a series of movies with Bing Crosby and Bob Hope, starting with the Road to Singapore in 1940.

Trump has promoted a number of plans to make America strong—at other countries’ expense.

As in a Greek tragedy whose protagonist brings about precisely the fate that he has sought to avoid, the U.S./NATO confrontation with Russia in Ukraine is achieving just the opposite of America’s aim of preventing China, Russia and their allies from acting independently of U.S. control over their trade and investment policy.

The greatest challenge facing societies has always been how to conduct trade and credit without letting merchants and creditors make money by exploiting their customers and debtors.

It may seem strange to invite an economist to give a keynote speech to a conference of the social sciences. Economists have been characterized as autistic and anti-social in the popular press for good reason.

The question to ask is what today’s New Cold War is trying to change or “solve.” To answer this question, it helps to ask who initiates the war. There always are two sides—the attacker and the attacked. The attacker intends certain consequences, and the attacked looks for unintended consequences of which they can take advantage. In this case, both sides have their dueling sets of intended consequences and special interests.

Keynote Paper delivered at the 14th Forum of the World Association for Political Economy, July 21, 2019. Today’s world is at war on many fronts. The rules of international law and order put in place toward the end of World War II are being broken by U.S. foreign policy escalating its confrontation with countries that […]