She does not understand why was there the bias even before the Ukrainian issue, toward am anti Russia posture in the US in particular. She is right, NATO and the US were picking a fight. blood issues prevailed in Russia due to the abuse of DLR,LPR for 8 years but back to the original question, why a war, cold or hot with Russia, Without understanding this, Victorian Newland and Maidan and the Orange revolultion by the USA makes no sense. Here is the underlying basis for the antagonism.
Russia supports Iran and Syria which Supports Hezbollah which is the principal force constraining Israel from being a regional hegemon, giving them a free hand in the middle east. And the Press in the US and most political forces dem and republican, and deep state, dance to that tune. It even trumps the maintaining the petro-dollar arrangement which makes the world buy dollars and serves for insurance against run away inflation in the US due to MMT policy. This has been the basis of US not being crushed by not making stuff, –terrible balance of trade, AND quantitative easing ( massive deficit spending). So this attack against Russia was undertaken in full knowledge of the terrible cost to the US in terms of inflation. Fealty to Israel trumps the US consumer not being hungry. Just the way it is. Elections can fix it (e.g. 2020).
Agreed!!!! was just about to post that she is the most frustrating host for interviewing a giant like Pepe. Annoys the heck out of listeners, and Pepe, too. Can somebody tell her to let folks like Pepe just talk freely, listen and learn!
Perhaps she’s suffering of “host before guest” syndrome.
I switched off after 20 minutes, I can not deal with this air head interrupting Pepe constantly & not allowing him to finish his line of thought, people like this should stick to discussing pop music & TV shows, celebrities & the like.
Is that you don’t know Leonardo Attuch of Brasil 247, ahahahah. But yet, after dozens interviews with Pepe, he is learning enough sufficient to silence more than talks bullshits. Particularly, I’d prefer when Romulus Maya, the very intelligent Brazilian guy who lives in Swiss, talks with Pepe.
She’s driving me crazy. I had to advance to 8 minutes in to get beyond her opening background for kindergartners, and add to that her interruptions, her louder than Pepe’s audio volume, and its attendant echoes, it’s been a real grind.
But as always, it’s good to hear Pepe’s disquisitions.
I think that she has intervewed Pepe for the common, brainwashed US people… Her audience, maybe?! Those who know very little about him will watch this and LEARN something…
Methinks Rachel Marsden is not blessed with a very pleasant voice, which is something she cannot help, but it seems she would do herself a favour trying to acquire some basic interviewing and discussion skills.
I love watching and reading Pepe but this woman made me shut the enitire video. I could not bear to hear her caustic, irritating voice and constant interruptions. This is a total disrespect to a well known personality like Pepe and I do not know who arranged this debacle !!
please, dear saker, do pepe a favour & a great many of us…please, contact pepe & let him simply tell us what he was trying to tell us, sans interruption…this was without a doubt the most frustrating interview ever (imagine large caps violent red). as well, i would love to hear what he’s doing in instanbul. thank you.
After listening to you once again, Pepe Escobar, this time I am literally speechless, considering how masterfully you put those matters into context, with your unequalled perspective on recent history. There is so much to learn from your analysis. Most importantly, it gives one the feeling that one is not that far off the mark after all…
I confirm that here in the West, on those issues, the mainstream media remain hopelessly, as you know, below contempt. For us, those human victims do not even exist!
After 10 minutes of this rude and arrogant woman it was clear that the next hour would be an ordeal of aggravating frustration. She’s actually a good example of what the Eurasian leadership is up against. Pure ego.
I give up. I tried listening to the interview. I would listen for a bit then stop for awhile to recover. I did that five or six times but I cannot finish listening to even half the interview. Listening to her is like allowing someone to drive a spike through my head.
Here is something else which will annoy many people……
19 years ago today the US bombed Bagdad. 1 million Iraqis dead. A war started with lies. No sanctions. No war crimes tribunal. Bush was laying flowers today in a Church for the victims in Ukraine demanding war criminals to be punished. How insane is that?
~ Kim Dotcom
Being an American is actually a mental health problem. The only way to survive the totally schizoid media morality over there is to occupy a mental state totally dissociated from cognitive reality. Assume you don’t have the common sense to just switch off all the MSM and live a life totally disconnected from State Propaganda.
Listen to your interview and try and spot the following problems with suggested solutions:
You need to fix your wifi and/or internet connection. Your audio keeps dropping out while Pepe experienced zero drop outs.
The room acoustics are terrible with the result that it sounds like your voice is bouncing off bare walls. Try and sit further away from the walls. You can also add more soft things to absorb sound reflections, e.g., curtains, carpets (rugs).
You are not in the same room as Pepe. You must not talk while he is talking as there is a network transmission delay between you are him due to the distance. This results in you interrupting him as you are talking when he is talking. This delay makes it impossible to have a back and forth interview where you chip in and add something so don’t unless you are in the same studio.
Don’t repeat yourself. You only interrupt your guest when you rehash something as he (and we) have already heard what you just said and are not expecting you to say it again.
If someone could cut out and paste your constructive comment to Rachel Marsden at the email address she gave at the end, unredacted (something)@gmail.com, then great.
OK it was a tad annoying at times, but it’s her gig; just needs to pro/tighten up.
She shares the same Christian name as another Rachel . . . . . . yes Maddow, and so in the greater context here she is hosting Pepe and not telling us how many incubators and hospitals Russia have blown up using cruise missiles on CNN.
Love Pepe! I found her painful in the beginning but she improved and viewer questions were good. Great overall!
Pepe is a passionate fellow and animated. I really love him.
The marginal holder of ANY ruble bank deposit, at any Russian bank, had a choice of 4 options before the close of business each day.
(I will assume all rubles are in the banking system. Actual cash is unnecessary for the point I am making in this example.)
The 4 choices were:
1. Hold rubles in a clearing account at the Central Bank
2. Exchange ruble clearing balances for something else at the CB.
3. Buy a Russian GKO (tsy sec), which is an interest bearing account at the CB
4. Exchange rubles for $ at the official rate at the CB
For all practical purposes, 3 and 4 competed with each other. Russia had to offer high enough rates on its GKOs to compete with option 4. In that sense interest rates were endogenous. Any attempt by the Russian Central Bank to lower rates, such as open market operations, would result in an outflow of $US reserves.
The conditions for a stable ruble could not coexist. The net desire to save rubles was probably negative, the failure to enforce tax liabilities resulted in deficit spending even as the government tried to reduce spending, and the higher interest rate on GKO’s increased government spending even more.
At the time GKO rates were around 150% annually, and the interest payments themselves constituted at least the entire ruble budget deficit. Higher rates of interest were the driving factor behind the excess ruble spending which led to the loss of $US reserves.
With the $ in high demand due to a variety of factors, such as domestic taxed advantaged $US savings plans, insurance reserves, pension funds, and the like, and, exacerbating the situation, what could be called overly tight US fiscal policy, there was, for all practical purposes, no GKO interest rate that could stem the outflow of $US reserves.
The main source of $ reserves was, of course, $ loans from both the international private sector and international agencies such as the IMF. The ruble was overvalued as evidenced by the fact that $ reserves went out nearly as fast as they became available.
The Russian Treasury responded by offering higher and higher rates on its GKO securities to compete with option 4 without success. This inability to compete with option 4 is what finally leads to devaluation under a fixed exchange rate regime.
Floating the ruble……..
On August 17th it was announced that option 4 for all practical purposes, was no longer available. This meant the ruble was now a floating currency. Option 4 now competed only with option 1, so the interest rate was suddenly exogenous.
It would be and could only be whatever the government determined to pay when it offered its GKO’s for sale. It could, for an extreme example, decide to pay 0%, and the excess clearing balances would have no choice but to remain as excess balances and earn no interest. That would make the interbank rate 0 bid between credit worthy counterparties.
Previously, with option 4 open, the penalty for excess government spending was higher rates on GKO’s and loss of $US reserves. With a floating exchange rate the penalty for excess spending is the exchange rate of the ruble.
The government can now automatically issue GKO securities at any rate it chooses.
Those crying out to defend the ruble like a fixed exchange rate clearly have no idea what they are talking about. Or studied Weimar and recent Russian history. Fail to understand the assets and liabilities of sovereign monetary system.
It is imperative they are ignored.
When A complete understanding of history is needed. Understanding of the assets and liabilities involved. Like below.
What if this was a trap. A Chinese trap. It would accomplish a number of objectives. Russia would neutralize Ukraine, Get back the Sea of Azov, the Donbass territories, consolidate Crimea. That would provoke a retaliation, in this case, the SWIFT system punishment. As a bonus to China, the West overreacted and caused irreparable damage to the dollar as a Reserve currency. No Country with those reserves do now feel secure. India, Russia, Iran and now the Saudis trade in Renminbi. What a boost to the CIPS -Cross-Border Interbank Payment System. The US walked right into the trap. What a disaster for them.
Why did Pepe Escobar agree to interview this woman? She’s as ignorant as the average American citizen.
She has no background in understanding Ukraine & its reliance on the US/Nato. She is totally clueless about Russian leadership, its policies, nor does she appear to have any knowledge of Russia and its history.
We feel very badly that Escobar was trapped in an interview with somebody whi has a 12 year old mentality.
The narrative favoured by central banks and academics is that of the central bank adjusting the quantity of reserves supplied in order to keep market rates in line with their target rate.
This implies that, in the US case, for example, the Fed varies the quantity of reserves in order to achieve its interest rate target.
However, rather than adjusting the supply of reserves to meet its policy rate, as the monopoly issuer of reserves in a floating exchange rate regime. Which is a mistake and The carpet bombing approach.
The Russian central bank, in practice, should act as the price-setter for the level of reserves demanded by the banking system.
With floating exchange rate policies, the Russian central bank targets policy interest rates – prices – rather than any monetary aggregate.
Completely ignore what the FED does to easily win this economic war.
Jeez that interviewer was so annoying it was impossible to listen to this. The guy wasnt given the chance to develop a point before she interrupted before he had even made it.
If you analyse the supply side constraints of the pandemic.
When prices go up because goods and services can’t hit the markets.
More money is needed to buy The goods and services that are available as prices rise.
What happened in 1998 in Russia because of the actions of the Russian central bank defending a fixed exchange rate.
The price rises in this case means more money needs to be created. More more met is needed to pay the higher prices.
Not the other way round ( The lazy thinking ) that the money creation caused the inflation.
Which is a seriously flawed analysis in most cases anyway. Why is it flawed in most cases ?
Because of the assumptions they use that don’t reflect the world we live in.
“money growth ==> inflation” view. This is based on the equation of exchange:
MV = Py
Where M is equal to the supply of money,
V the velocity of money (or the average number of times each dollar bill is spent),
P the average price of goods and services,
y the total quantity of all goods and services sold during the time period in question.
Thus, if there were 100 goods and services that sold for $10 each (on average), then that means a total of $1000-worth of transactions took place. Were there 200 one-dollar bills in this economy, then it must be that each was used 5 times (hence the “velocity” of money, or how fast they were spent again).
MV = Py
200 x 5 = 10 x 100
It is important to note here that the above is not the least bit controversial. No economist disagrees with the basic equation MV=Py. The arguments arise when additional assumptions are made regarding the nature of the individual variables.
For example, this is what is assumed in the “money growth==>inflation” view:
M: That which is money is easily defined and identified and only the central bank can affect its supply, which it can do with autonomy and precision.
V: The velocity of money is related to people’s habits and the structure of the financial system. It is, therefore, relatively constant.
P: The economy is so competitive that neither firms nor workers are free to change what they charge for their goods and services without there having been a change in the underlying forces driving supply and demand in their market.
y: The economy automatically tends towards full employment and thus y (the existing volume of goods and services) is as large as it can be at any given moment (although it grows over time).
Consider the assumptions made regarding each of the variables.
P can’t change on it’s own,
y is already as large as it can possibly be given current technology and resources,
V is constant.
Only M can change in the short run and it must therefore logically be the starting point of any fluctuation we introduce. Furthermore, according to our assumptions, the central bank has the power to (for example) double the money supply at will. In Milton Friedman’s example from “The Optimum Quantity of Money,” a helicopter is used to accomplish this.
MV = Py
400 x 5 > 10 x 100
There is clearly a problem here which could be solved in one of three ways (assuming we don’t just lower M back to 200):
1) y could rise to 200, but of course it can’t because it’s already at its maximum;
2) V could fall to 2.5, but it is constant (something Friedman takes pains to emphasize in the original article); or
3) P could rise to 20.
It is of course the third that proponents of the “money growth ==> inflation” view say will occur.
MV = Py
400 x 5 = 20 x 100
Let me reemphasize why this is the only logical outcome. We have assumed that y and V are constant. Friedman says that y is constant at the level associated with the natural rate of unemployment, while V is indirectly related to agents’ demand for cash.
When people want to hold more cash, V, the rate at which they spend cash, naturally falls, and vice versa. But, Friedman further specifies that V is relatively constant and so, therefore, is the demand for cash.
Thus, when the central bank raised the supply of cash from 200 to 400, this meant that people were holding more cash than they wished to have in their portfolios. The Fed had created a situation in which the supply of money (newly raised) exceeded the demand (still at the original level). The result was that people, in the language of the “money growth==>inflation” view, rid themselves of excess money balances by spending that cash.
They hoped to buy more goods and services but since, in aggregate, more did not exist, they only bid up their prices: money growth led to inflation
People only remember this:
increase M ==> increase P
What they don’t recollect are all the assumptions we made to get there!
And not only are some questionable, they are downright inconsistent. Take for example y. One need only look out the window to see that it is not currently at the full-employment and therefore maximum level. Hence, given this scenario:
MV = Py
400 x 5 > 10 x 100
There is no reason that this could not lead to the rise in y shown below as those spending their “excess money balances” actually cause entrepreneurs to raise output to meet the new demand:
MV = Py
400 x 5 = 10 x 200
This is, of course, the goal of the government deficit spending that so many economically-ignorant people are trying to stop right now.
In addition, there is a great deal of evidence that the velocity of money IS NOT constant. As one would expect, it tends to decline in recessions when people do, in fact, want to hold more cash. Hence, if we assume that the central bank undertakes the above policy during such a period (as we see today), the final result might be this:
MV = Py
400 x 2.5 = 10 x 100
Or it could be some combination of a rise in y and a fall in V–this would make perfect economic sense. Notice how the process of making the initial assumptions of this approach more realistic is making it far from certain that a rise in M leads to a rise in P, particularly during an economic downturn.
But that’s not the worst of it. There is actually a much more fundamental problem with the “money growth ==> inflation” approach. Recall the original assumptions for M:
M: That which is money is easily defined and identified and only the central bank can affect its supply, which it can do with autonomy and precision.
What is “money” in a modern, credit-based financial system? Is it that stuff you carry in your pocket, the 1’s and 0’s of the electronic entries in your bank account, the available balance on your credit card, your checking account, your savings account? In practice, this question is so difficult to answer that economists actually offer several possible definitions, just in case! Suffice it to say that for present purposes, the idea that we can precisely identify the current “supply of money” in our economy is suspect. This by itself causes problems for operationalizing the above equation.
To make matters worse, the financial sector can create and destroy money without direct action by the central bank. Every time a loan is made, the supply of money increases. The bank is creating money out of thin air, with only a fraction of the total necessary to have already been in the vault as reserves. And when loans are repaid or there are defaults, the supply of money contracts. Hence, the private sector has a great deal of control over M.
But perhaps the real nail in the coffin of the “money growth==>inflation” view is this: the phenomenon that Milton Friedman identifies as key to the whole process, i.e., the excess of the money supply over money demand, cannot happen in real life.
The irony here is How is it that the Federal Reserve increases the money supply? Remember that Friedman used a helicopter–indeed, he had to, for there was no other way to make the example work.
This wasn’t just a simplifying device, it was critical, for it allowed the central bank to raise the money supply despite the wishes of the public. However, that can’t happen in the real world because the actual mechanisms available are Fed purchases of government debt from the public, Fed loans to banks through the discount window, or Fed adjustment of reserve requirements so that the banks can make more loans from the same volume of deposits.
All of these can raise M, but, not a single solitary one of them can occur without the conscious and voluntary cooperation of a private sector agent. You cannot force anyone to sell a Treasury Bill in exchange for new cash; you cannot force a private bank to accept a loan from the Fed; and private banks cannot force their customers to accept loans. Supplying money is like supplying haircuts: you can’t do it unless a corresponding demand exists.
The bottom line is that the “money growth==>inflation” view makes perfect sense in some alternate universe where all those assumptions regarding the variables DO hold, but not here, not today in 2022.
That’s not how it works. It’s a damn shame, I know, because it’s so simple and intuitively appealing and it would make controlling inflation really simple. But, if we are to develop useful policies then we need a model better suited to the way the modern financial system works.
We need new assumptions with respect to M, V, P, and y:
M: A precise definition and identification of money is elusive in a modern, credit-money economy, and its volume can change either with or without direct central bank intervention. In addition, the monetary authority cannot raise the supply of money without the cooperation of the private sector. Because central banks almost always target interest rates (the price of holding cash) rather than the quantity of money, they tend to simply accommodate demands from banks. When private banks communicate that they need more reserves for loans and offer government debt to the Fed, the Fed buys it. It’s the private sector that is in the driver’s seat in this respect, not the central bank. The central bank’s impact is indirect and heavily dependent on what the rest of the economy is willing to do (which is, incidentally, why all the QE and QE II money is just sitting in bank vaults).A
V: The velocity of money is, indeed, related to people’s behavior and the structure of the financial system, but there are discernable patterns. It is not constant even over the short run.
P: While it is true that factors like production bottlenecks can be a source of price movements, the economy is not so competitive that there are not firms or workers who find themselves able to manipulate the prices and wages they charge. The most important inflationary episode in recent history was the direct result of a cartel, i.e., OPEC, flexing its muscle. Asset price bubbles can also cause price increases (as they are now). The key here, however, is that P CAN be the initiating factor– in fact, it has to be, since M can’t.
y: The economy can and does come to rest at less than full employment. Hence, while it is possible for y to be at its maximum, it most certainly does not have to be.
The most important inflationary episode in post- WWII history was that during the 1970s and early 1980s. From 1968 through 1972, consumer price inflation averaged 4.6%. Over the next ten years it was 7.5%.
What happened? What caused this sudden and dramatic acceleration in prices? Did the Fed accidentally print too much money? As already explained, that can’t happen–you simply can’t raise the money supply above the demand. M did rise, however, and largely proportionally to the increase in P. This is a much more realistic story of those events.
As the price of oil skyrocketed, so costs of production rose for many, many US businesses. Because there is a lag between purchasing inputs and selling output, most firms have to borrow money (working capital) to bridge the gap.
As the ripple effect of the OPEC price increases moved throughout the economy, the demand for cash by these businesses rose. Quite reasonably, private banks and the Fed did what they could to accommodate. These were fair requests on the part of US entrepreneurs. Loans were extended and government debt sold by the private sector to the central bank. This raised the supply of money.
Therefore, the rising prices led to an increase in the supply of money and not the other way around.
And this is how it really works, at least until the Fed starts using helicopters for monetary policy.
How Friedman got away with his nonsense is by pure propaganda not based on the facts. Austrians are even worse.
I was thinking one thing about the Russians right now:
They came out from a very heavy empire (and so many wars before),
They went through 1st World War and Bolshevik revolution,
They went through communism including the 2ndWW that killed 25 million Russians,
They went through the 1990s, betrayed by the West, who only exploited and transformed in a country “of drunks, mobsters and whores” (this in Western reductionism, in negative and demonizing propaganda),
They have gone through Nato’s constant advance and always demonization.
And now, that only in the last 10 years have had an improvement in living conditions, a certain recovery of national pride, and prospects of great trade agreements in Asia, now comes the United States, NATO and other minions spoil everything, and with a racist campaign never seen in the history of mankind.
I tell you what – THE RUSSIANS NOW HAVE BLOOD IN THEIR EYES AND WILL NOT RETREAT AND WILL, AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, RETURN ALL NEW OFFENSES.
What They Don’t Teach You In Political/Geopolitical School is an apt title for Pepe’s lectures.
If only senior European politicians/military/civil servants had to pass an exam covering Pepe’s material. Mind you as we’ve heard from Pepe and Mr Martyanov, the clowns running the show in most western capitals are lawyers, with many others holding a masters in humanities.
Humanities, hmm, well you’d think at least they’d have some empathy for other human life and not living in their own little cocoons/bubbles, totally detached from the electorate (except for one day every 4/5 years ).
That was absolutely another American media (albeit alternate) interview DISASTER! Their respective awareness of of the circumstances in our universe was 180º out of phase. Pepe might as well have interviewed by a Mennonite housewife.
Fifty percent of the problem here is a horrible lag on their connection. Rachel talks over Pepe, because her connection lags. After about 50 minutes, it improves. The other part of the problem is her naivete.
Now, why did Pepe agree to this interview? He is not a stupid man. Perhaps he is talking to a demographic that otherwise, he would not reach.
I’ll put up a piece tomorrow on the results of this interview, and the pogrom declared. Pepe reached the demographic.
I got to 51 minutes, then turned it off.
Poor production, sound and interviewer, who’s lack of simple knowledge, made this interview feel like it was being directed to children.
She kept interrupting with quotes from CNN, or statements attributed to Russian officials reported by the MSM, does she not realise people listen to the likes of Escobar BECAUSE he talks straight, with sensible, rational, and logical descriptions of political events, and that his audience just groan when someone uses the MSM for reference.
This “interview” by Rachel was unbearable to experience and technically a disaster. I doubt Saker visitors needed a critique of Western media interspersed with a personal history for the first 15 minutes before Pepe was allowed to speak.
She kept interrupting and spoiling the flow of information from Pepe.
So many comments here are critical of her interviewing style, for good reason.
It was like listening to a dominant teenager converse with her boyfriend on a bad telephone line. Is there any possibility we can have Pepe back being interviewed by someone with more experience in both skillful interviewing techniques, and technical ability?
Ahhhhhhhhahahahahaha. Or should I say “lol” like the trash commenting on Yahoo or AOL?
Look at you lot! Here you have a western woman trying to do her best-her best-not yours-to shed some light on the truth and you pick and complain and condescend with your stupid pompous nonsense. Hahahahahaha.
Trying to overcome the technical challenges of talking with video from Paris to Turkey and doing pretty good! But YOU can all do it better! Hahahahaha
Think of all the people in English speaking world who will see this and learn something? How many would listen to you even IF Escobar would bother with you? Hahahahahaha
Beautiful interview! Wonderful news for Russia all around!
But besides the hateful condescing clique here the next biggest is the armchair engineer click busy worrying about the smallest details of the weapons being used! Can you imagine looking at a smaller piece of the picture? Hahahahaha
Look at the western criminal cabal using Ukraine to beat its own people and their former sovereign nations the rest of the way to death! Hahahaha And to kill fossil fuels and bring in the Green Deal scam to return all but themselves to feudalism! Hahahahaha. No we will debate the physics of the Russian missile instead! Ahhhhhahahahaha.
Sorry I can’t help it I’m Russian. Ahhhhhahahaha!
Poor Saker! No wonder he suffers chronic stress and fatigue! Its YOU! Ahhhhhahahahaha!
There have been any number of very informative interviews with Pepe Escobar, guided by intelligent interviewers.
I think this habit of the interviewer taking over and forgetting his/her role kind of started with the egomaniac Charlie Rose.
Del Bigtree, of The Highwire, has a similar problem of talking too much, focusing on his own ignorance and his own confusions, instead of preparing in advance so that his questions are focused and short and then letting the interviewee take it from there and talk until finished with that question.
Many interviewers don’t seem to grasp that answering a question coherently is kind of like putting together a paragraph of coherent text on the fly. It takes a lot of concentration, and is derailed by constant interruptions.
But Bigtree has improved quite a lot.
James Corbett, a very good researcher, also evidences this distracting loquaciousness.
IMO, Ben Norton of the Grayzone, strikes a good balance of framing intelligent questions, informed by his own background knowledge.
I had to turn the interview off due to the interruptions from the host. Too bad. Pepe has a wealth of knowledge and I was excited to have a chance to hear him explain some things that we all would benefit from hearing. I’m a very patient guy too. But I just couldn’t take anymore of the host. Absolutely brutal ….was shaking my head when I shut it off 😂😂
This kind of host behavior is actually quite common and actually started 25-30 years ago. I can even claim that rise of social media 2007/2008 decimated landslide decent behavior on MSM and even outside it. Last 15 years have been free downfall.
The lesson: be careful when ever choosing your talk host.
If you want to get some idea of what might happen, try https://t.me/s/medvedev_telegram, of course, in Russian.
Also, when you are out of Russia and live in the US and EU, you are actually out of Russia…
Years ago I would sometimes get irritated by Alex Jones when he showed a tendency to interrupt too much. But that was nothing compared to this. Rachel Marsden has to be the world champion of irritating interviewers. I’d never seen anything like that. Unsufferable. She probably thinks that what she has to say is irresistibly interesting, and the guest should just be part of her audience.
She should just interview herself in front of a mirror or something.
Hey, come on, I started to listen to the beginning of the interview, and Rachel tries to focus on these questions “What´s missing in the debate” in the west …….Sometimes It was difficult to hear what they said because of technical problems…
You who are complaining: Don´t do like many audiences do, when a woman gives a lecture, just a few listen, and then afterwards if a man say almost the same thing, he gots big applaudes.
Remember, if you point on somebody with one finger, three fingers are pointing back to yourself! And ask:”Why am I so irritated?”
I think Rachel made a god job!
I would love to have the opportunity to interview Pepe. I would go into the interview knowing that this man has probably forgotten all I will ever know about Geopolitics. I would ask a question and then shut up until he’s done talking.
Why?
Because when a guy with Pepe’s intimate knowledge of all of this begins to speak….. Class is in session. And I believe he should command that kind of respect from whomever is interviewing him.
It was a complete lack of respect for Pepe and for Pepe’s time….and most importantly….Pepe’s credentials.
Pepe did great in that he tried to explain how what is happening in Ukraine is complicated. And that how we arrived where we are today is tied in with what has happened over there historically….and especially the last 15-20 years.
He then attempted to give us a synopsis of that exact history to bring us up to speed. I was excited to hear about it. The host should have been as well.
Did she allow Pepe to shed some light on all of this that most of us are unfamiliar with?
Nooooooo….
Of course she didn’t.
Why? Only the host can answer to that.
Women are fully capable of giving speeches and/or conducting interviews and being CEO’s and even ruling countries! 100%!!!! To me this isn’t a gender issue. Or that “whatever a man says is good ….and whatever a woman says is to be ignored”
I would think that we are all reasonable enough here to drop our egos at the door. If we were unreasonable and biased ….we never would have found this blog. We are all pretty much open-minded enough to listen to something other than the western media …that’s how we all arrived here. And to Saker….this is a treasured resource for myself and many others. Thanks Saker!
I don’t wish to browbeat. But I think the interview was at the very least ….cringeworthy.
Pepe took the time to make himself available to shed some light on things. I wish I could have heard all he wanted to say. I truly do.
I was actually starting to ask myself which team the interviewer was playing for 😂
When I first commented on this here last night I had not read any of the other observations about the interview from other commenters here. When I went though the comments this morning I had to laugh when I discovered I certainly was not alone in my conclusions.
😂😂
We have all have expressed our regret here about the western media.
So when a guy like Pepe has an opportunity to speak….someone who will not regurgitate western media talking points….someone we know will help us to sort things out and help us find the truth …why would anyone cut him off? Or sidetrack him? Or redirect his line of thought?
😂
I shut it off about twenty minutes into the interview …
Plus I would like to factor in about ten minutes of confusion from the host before Pepe appeared on the screen.
I hereby respectfully request from the host that the half hour I lost from my life to be returned to me…. 😂😂😂
I feel as though I must ask in writing ….because if I were to ask in person….I would probably get cut off before finishing my sentence
Great Pepe! What difference between Rachel Marsden and the guy of Brasil/247 the head egg Leonardo Attuch!!!!
She does not understand why was there the bias even before the Ukrainian issue, toward am anti Russia posture in the US in particular. She is right, NATO and the US were picking a fight. blood issues prevailed in Russia due to the abuse of DLR,LPR for 8 years but back to the original question, why a war, cold or hot with Russia, Without understanding this, Victorian Newland and Maidan and the Orange revolultion by the USA makes no sense. Here is the underlying basis for the antagonism.
Russia supports Iran and Syria which Supports Hezbollah which is the principal force constraining Israel from being a regional hegemon, giving them a free hand in the middle east. And the Press in the US and most political forces dem and republican, and deep state, dance to that tune. It even trumps the maintaining the petro-dollar arrangement which makes the world buy dollars and serves for insurance against run away inflation in the US due to MMT policy. This has been the basis of US not being crushed by not making stuff, –terrible balance of trade, AND quantitative easing ( massive deficit spending). So this attack against Russia was undertaken in full knowledge of the terrible cost to the US in terms of inflation. Fealty to Israel trumps the US consumer not being hungry. Just the way it is. Elections can fix it (e.g. 2020).
“Let me interrupt you!”
My god, this woman is without a clue. Pepe is trying to perform a symphony and this dingbat woman wants to pound on her bongo set.
The art of interviewing is listening.
Agreed!!!! was just about to post that she is the most frustrating host for interviewing a giant like Pepe. Annoys the heck out of listeners, and Pepe, too. Can somebody tell her to let folks like Pepe just talk freely, listen and learn!
Perhaps she’s suffering of “host before guest” syndrome.
I couldn’t even make it through the interview, as much as I wanted to hear what Pepe had to say. WTF
Agreed . . . I couldn’t even get to Pepe lol.
Suggestion: the Saker should interview Pepe!
Yes same here I couldn’t listen trough she is just too annoying
Please Pepe don’t do this again with her.
I switched off after 20 minutes, I can not deal with this air head interrupting Pepe constantly & not allowing him to finish his line of thought, people like this should stick to discussing pop music & TV shows, celebrities & the like.
That’s exactly what I wanted to post.
So rude, keeps interrupting him.
I searched her credentials and didn’t even bother wasting time.
Lol! Well said, Larchmonter.
Rachel needs to expand her horizon. I hope after this encounter with Pepe she finally ‘gets it.’
I agree completely; this Marsden woman is clueless – please keep her away.
Talk about spitting the fly out of your mouth! copyright VVP
“copyright VVP”
Nice one Gianni
Is that you don’t know Leonardo Attuch of Brasil 247, ahahahah. But yet, after dozens interviews with Pepe, he is learning enough sufficient to silence more than talks bullshits. Particularly, I’d prefer when Romulus Maya, the very intelligent Brazilian guy who lives in Swiss, talks with Pepe.
She’s driving me crazy. I had to advance to 8 minutes in to get beyond her opening background for kindergartners, and add to that her interruptions, her louder than Pepe’s audio volume, and its attendant echoes, it’s been a real grind.
But as always, it’s good to hear Pepe’s disquisitions.
Fuck, I laughed too hard at this..
Totally agree. I enjoyed the Q&A though, wish more interviews with Pepe had Q&A.
I agree 100%, it was frustrating.
Please, let Pepe speak.
It is like inviting a person to dinner, and then eating his food.
I think that she has intervewed Pepe for the common, brainwashed US people… Her audience, maybe?! Those who know very little about him will watch this and LEARN something…
What a host, my god! So unprepared, so cocky & insolent. With her strident & rude interventions, she made me quit in the middle.
Methinks Rachel Marsden is not blessed with a very pleasant voice, which is something she cannot help, but it seems she would do herself a favour trying to acquire some basic interviewing and discussion skills.
It didn’t help that her volume was higher than his, and the connection was wonky. But learning to STFU would help in both cases.
I love watching and reading Pepe but this woman made me shut the enitire video. I could not bear to hear her caustic, irritating voice and constant interruptions. This is a total disrespect to a well known personality like Pepe and I do not know who arranged this debacle !!
“Rachel” Marsden bears an uncanny resemblance to Caitlyn “Don’t Call Me Bruce” Jenner.
Rania Khalek would be a perfect interviewer for Pepe and for the listeners.
please, dear saker, do pepe a favour & a great many of us…please, contact pepe & let him simply tell us what he was trying to tell us, sans interruption…this was without a doubt the most frustrating interview ever (imagine large caps violent red). as well, i would love to hear what he’s doing in instanbul. thank you.
Just a suggestion for the name of the Russian-Indian common currency: Rubi.
Combine with Chinese and South African currency and make it R4 (Ruble, Rupee, Rand and Renminbi)
Lol. Love it.
Plus the Brazilian Real and make it R5.
After listening to you once again, Pepe Escobar, this time I am literally speechless, considering how masterfully you put those matters into context, with your unequalled perspective on recent history. There is so much to learn from your analysis. Most importantly, it gives one the feeling that one is not that far off the mark after all…
I confirm that here in the West, on those issues, the mainstream media remain hopelessly, as you know, below contempt. For us, those human victims do not even exist!
Thank you ever so much.
Regards always,
LR
Pepe: rapaz, não sei como você aguentou essa caipira!
Não consegui ouvir mais essa picareta falante.Deixe-se de más companhias.
Cumprimentos, Pepe.
Maria Zakharova responded to Psaki’s statement that “the US government did not ask companies to leave Russia, they themselves chose this decision”:
“Just like Nord Stream 2, the pipeline itself decided not to let gas through it.” Maria Zakharova
After 10 minutes of this rude and arrogant woman it was clear that the next hour would be an ordeal of aggravating frustration. She’s actually a good example of what the Eurasian leadership is up against. Pure ego.
I give up. I tried listening to the interview. I would listen for a bit then stop for awhile to recover. I did that five or six times but I cannot finish listening to even half the interview. Listening to her is like allowing someone to drive a spike through my head.
Here is something else which will annoy many people……
19 years ago today the US bombed Bagdad. 1 million Iraqis dead. A war started with lies. No sanctions. No war crimes tribunal. Bush was laying flowers today in a Church for the victims in Ukraine demanding war criminals to be punished. How insane is that?
~ Kim Dotcom
It was worth it. Maddie Albright, the grandmother of the chain gang.
Being an American is actually a mental health problem. The only way to survive the totally schizoid media morality over there is to occupy a mental state totally dissociated from cognitive reality. Assume you don’t have the common sense to just switch off all the MSM and live a life totally disconnected from State Propaganda.
Granpa Bush, Prescott, was the moneybags for the Hitler election, from Brown Brothers Harriman Bank.
https://larouchepub.com/other/2000/2733_prescott_bush_hitler.html
Looks like fascism runs in the family?
Hi Rachel
Listen to your interview and try and spot the following problems with suggested solutions:
You need to fix your wifi and/or internet connection. Your audio keeps dropping out while Pepe experienced zero drop outs.
The room acoustics are terrible with the result that it sounds like your voice is bouncing off bare walls. Try and sit further away from the walls. You can also add more soft things to absorb sound reflections, e.g., curtains, carpets (rugs).
You are not in the same room as Pepe. You must not talk while he is talking as there is a network transmission delay between you are him due to the distance. This results in you interrupting him as you are talking when he is talking. This delay makes it impossible to have a back and forth interview where you chip in and add something so don’t unless you are in the same studio.
Don’t repeat yourself. You only interrupt your guest when you rehash something as he (and we) have already heard what you just said and are not expecting you to say it again.
Good luck on your future interviews.
SG
If someone could cut out and paste your constructive comment to Rachel Marsden at the email address she gave at the end, unredacted (something)@gmail.com, then great.
OK it was a tad annoying at times, but it’s her gig; just needs to pro/tighten up.
She shares the same Christian name as another Rachel . . . . . . yes Maddow, and so in the greater context here she is hosting Pepe and not telling us how many incubators and hospitals Russia have blown up using cruise missiles on CNN.
a Christian name? 🤔
Origin: Rachel is a Hebrew name meaning “ewe.”
You are being too nice to Rachel,she should have learned all this in media school where she learned her interviewing skills
Love Pepe! I found her painful in the beginning but she improved and viewer questions were good. Great overall!
Pepe is a passionate fellow and animated. I really love him.
The taliing over each other and the sound cutting in and out made it very painful. But the info was so important I stuck with it.
August 17, 1998 Russian ruble
The marginal holder of ANY ruble bank deposit, at any Russian bank, had a choice of 4 options before the close of business each day.
(I will assume all rubles are in the banking system. Actual cash is unnecessary for the point I am making in this example.)
The 4 choices were:
1. Hold rubles in a clearing account at the Central Bank
2. Exchange ruble clearing balances for something else at the CB.
3. Buy a Russian GKO (tsy sec), which is an interest bearing account at the CB
4. Exchange rubles for $ at the official rate at the CB
For all practical purposes, 3 and 4 competed with each other. Russia had to offer high enough rates on its GKOs to compete with option 4. In that sense interest rates were endogenous. Any attempt by the Russian Central Bank to lower rates, such as open market operations, would result in an outflow of $US reserves.
The conditions for a stable ruble could not coexist. The net desire to save rubles was probably negative, the failure to enforce tax liabilities resulted in deficit spending even as the government tried to reduce spending, and the higher interest rate on GKO’s increased government spending even more.
At the time GKO rates were around 150% annually, and the interest payments themselves constituted at least the entire ruble budget deficit. Higher rates of interest were the driving factor behind the excess ruble spending which led to the loss of $US reserves.
With the $ in high demand due to a variety of factors, such as domestic taxed advantaged $US savings plans, insurance reserves, pension funds, and the like, and, exacerbating the situation, what could be called overly tight US fiscal policy, there was, for all practical purposes, no GKO interest rate that could stem the outflow of $US reserves.
The main source of $ reserves was, of course, $ loans from both the international private sector and international agencies such as the IMF. The ruble was overvalued as evidenced by the fact that $ reserves went out nearly as fast as they became available.
The Russian Treasury responded by offering higher and higher rates on its GKO securities to compete with option 4 without success. This inability to compete with option 4 is what finally leads to devaluation under a fixed exchange rate regime.
Floating the ruble……..
On August 17th it was announced that option 4 for all practical purposes, was no longer available. This meant the ruble was now a floating currency. Option 4 now competed only with option 1, so the interest rate was suddenly exogenous.
It would be and could only be whatever the government determined to pay when it offered its GKO’s for sale. It could, for an extreme example, decide to pay 0%, and the excess clearing balances would have no choice but to remain as excess balances and earn no interest. That would make the interbank rate 0 bid between credit worthy counterparties.
Previously, with option 4 open, the penalty for excess government spending was higher rates on GKO’s and loss of $US reserves. With a floating exchange rate the penalty for excess spending is the exchange rate of the ruble.
The government can now automatically issue GKO securities at any rate it chooses.
Those crying out to defend the ruble like a fixed exchange rate clearly have no idea what they are talking about. Or studied Weimar and recent Russian history. Fail to understand the assets and liabilities of sovereign monetary system.
It is imperative they are ignored.
When A complete understanding of history is needed. Understanding of the assets and liabilities involved. Like below.
https://gimms.org.uk/2020/11/14/weimar-republic-hyperinflation-through-a-modern-monetary-theory-lens/
What if this was a trap. A Chinese trap. It would accomplish a number of objectives. Russia would neutralize Ukraine, Get back the Sea of Azov, the Donbass territories, consolidate Crimea. That would provoke a retaliation, in this case, the SWIFT system punishment. As a bonus to China, the West overreacted and caused irreparable damage to the dollar as a Reserve currency. No Country with those reserves do now feel secure. India, Russia, Iran and now the Saudis trade in Renminbi. What a boost to the CIPS -Cross-Border Interbank Payment System. The US walked right into the trap. What a disaster for them.
Why did Pepe Escobar agree to interview this woman? She’s as ignorant as the average American citizen.
She has no background in understanding Ukraine & its reliance on the US/Nato. She is totally clueless about Russian leadership, its policies, nor does she appear to have any knowledge of Russia and its history.
We feel very badly that Escobar was trapped in an interview with somebody whi has a 12 year old mentality.
The narrative favoured by central banks and academics is that of the central bank adjusting the quantity of reserves supplied in order to keep market rates in line with their target rate.
This implies that, in the US case, for example, the Fed varies the quantity of reserves in order to achieve its interest rate target.
However, rather than adjusting the supply of reserves to meet its policy rate, as the monopoly issuer of reserves in a floating exchange rate regime. Which is a mistake and The carpet bombing approach.
The Russian central bank, in practice, should act as the price-setter for the level of reserves demanded by the banking system.
With floating exchange rate policies, the Russian central bank targets policy interest rates – prices – rather than any monetary aggregate.
Completely ignore what the FED does to easily win this economic war.
ffs..this woman encapsulates american dumbness and why their country is done!
gave up after 10 mins…soo annoying
PE throwing pearls before swine
Jeez that interviewer was so annoying it was impossible to listen to this. The guy wasnt given the chance to develop a point before she interrupted before he had even made it.
If you analyse the supply side constraints of the pandemic.
When prices go up because goods and services can’t hit the markets.
More money is needed to buy The goods and services that are available as prices rise.
What happened in 1998 in Russia because of the actions of the Russian central bank defending a fixed exchange rate.
The price rises in this case means more money needs to be created. More more met is needed to pay the higher prices.
Not the other way round ( The lazy thinking ) that the money creation caused the inflation.
Which is a seriously flawed analysis in most cases anyway. Why is it flawed in most cases ?
Because of the assumptions they use that don’t reflect the world we live in.
“money growth ==> inflation” view. This is based on the equation of exchange:
MV = Py
Where M is equal to the supply of money,
V the velocity of money (or the average number of times each dollar bill is spent),
P the average price of goods and services,
y the total quantity of all goods and services sold during the time period in question.
Thus, if there were 100 goods and services that sold for $10 each (on average), then that means a total of $1000-worth of transactions took place. Were there 200 one-dollar bills in this economy, then it must be that each was used 5 times (hence the “velocity” of money, or how fast they were spent again).
MV = Py
200 x 5 = 10 x 100
It is important to note here that the above is not the least bit controversial. No economist disagrees with the basic equation MV=Py. The arguments arise when additional assumptions are made regarding the nature of the individual variables.
For example, this is what is assumed in the “money growth==>inflation” view:
M: That which is money is easily defined and identified and only the central bank can affect its supply, which it can do with autonomy and precision.
V: The velocity of money is related to people’s habits and the structure of the financial system. It is, therefore, relatively constant.
P: The economy is so competitive that neither firms nor workers are free to change what they charge for their goods and services without there having been a change in the underlying forces driving supply and demand in their market.
y: The economy automatically tends towards full employment and thus y (the existing volume of goods and services) is as large as it can be at any given moment (although it grows over time).
Consider the assumptions made regarding each of the variables.
P can’t change on it’s own,
y is already as large as it can possibly be given current technology and resources,
V is constant.
Only M can change in the short run and it must therefore logically be the starting point of any fluctuation we introduce. Furthermore, according to our assumptions, the central bank has the power to (for example) double the money supply at will. In Milton Friedman’s example from “The Optimum Quantity of Money,” a helicopter is used to accomplish this.
MV = Py
400 x 5 > 10 x 100
There is clearly a problem here which could be solved in one of three ways (assuming we don’t just lower M back to 200):
1) y could rise to 200, but of course it can’t because it’s already at its maximum;
2) V could fall to 2.5, but it is constant (something Friedman takes pains to emphasize in the original article); or
3) P could rise to 20.
It is of course the third that proponents of the “money growth ==> inflation” view say will occur.
MV = Py
400 x 5 = 20 x 100
Let me reemphasize why this is the only logical outcome. We have assumed that y and V are constant. Friedman says that y is constant at the level associated with the natural rate of unemployment, while V is indirectly related to agents’ demand for cash.
When people want to hold more cash, V, the rate at which they spend cash, naturally falls, and vice versa. But, Friedman further specifies that V is relatively constant and so, therefore, is the demand for cash.
Thus, when the central bank raised the supply of cash from 200 to 400, this meant that people were holding more cash than they wished to have in their portfolios. The Fed had created a situation in which the supply of money (newly raised) exceeded the demand (still at the original level). The result was that people, in the language of the “money growth==>inflation” view, rid themselves of excess money balances by spending that cash.
They hoped to buy more goods and services but since, in aggregate, more did not exist, they only bid up their prices: money growth led to inflation
People only remember this:
increase M ==> increase P
What they don’t recollect are all the assumptions we made to get there!
And not only are some questionable, they are downright inconsistent. Take for example y. One need only look out the window to see that it is not currently at the full-employment and therefore maximum level. Hence, given this scenario:
MV = Py
400 x 5 > 10 x 100
There is no reason that this could not lead to the rise in y shown below as those spending their “excess money balances” actually cause entrepreneurs to raise output to meet the new demand:
MV = Py
400 x 5 = 10 x 200
This is, of course, the goal of the government deficit spending that so many economically-ignorant people are trying to stop right now.
In addition, there is a great deal of evidence that the velocity of money IS NOT constant. As one would expect, it tends to decline in recessions when people do, in fact, want to hold more cash. Hence, if we assume that the central bank undertakes the above policy during such a period (as we see today), the final result might be this:
MV = Py
400 x 2.5 = 10 x 100
Or it could be some combination of a rise in y and a fall in V–this would make perfect economic sense. Notice how the process of making the initial assumptions of this approach more realistic is making it far from certain that a rise in M leads to a rise in P, particularly during an economic downturn.
But that’s not the worst of it. There is actually a much more fundamental problem with the “money growth ==> inflation” approach. Recall the original assumptions for M:
M: That which is money is easily defined and identified and only the central bank can affect its supply, which it can do with autonomy and precision.
What is “money” in a modern, credit-based financial system? Is it that stuff you carry in your pocket, the 1’s and 0’s of the electronic entries in your bank account, the available balance on your credit card, your checking account, your savings account? In practice, this question is so difficult to answer that economists actually offer several possible definitions, just in case! Suffice it to say that for present purposes, the idea that we can precisely identify the current “supply of money” in our economy is suspect. This by itself causes problems for operationalizing the above equation.
To make matters worse, the financial sector can create and destroy money without direct action by the central bank. Every time a loan is made, the supply of money increases. The bank is creating money out of thin air, with only a fraction of the total necessary to have already been in the vault as reserves. And when loans are repaid or there are defaults, the supply of money contracts. Hence, the private sector has a great deal of control over M.
But perhaps the real nail in the coffin of the “money growth==>inflation” view is this: the phenomenon that Milton Friedman identifies as key to the whole process, i.e., the excess of the money supply over money demand, cannot happen in real life.
The irony here is How is it that the Federal Reserve increases the money supply? Remember that Friedman used a helicopter–indeed, he had to, for there was no other way to make the example work.
This wasn’t just a simplifying device, it was critical, for it allowed the central bank to raise the money supply despite the wishes of the public. However, that can’t happen in the real world because the actual mechanisms available are Fed purchases of government debt from the public, Fed loans to banks through the discount window, or Fed adjustment of reserve requirements so that the banks can make more loans from the same volume of deposits.
All of these can raise M, but, not a single solitary one of them can occur without the conscious and voluntary cooperation of a private sector agent. You cannot force anyone to sell a Treasury Bill in exchange for new cash; you cannot force a private bank to accept a loan from the Fed; and private banks cannot force their customers to accept loans. Supplying money is like supplying haircuts: you can’t do it unless a corresponding demand exists.
The bottom line is that the “money growth==>inflation” view makes perfect sense in some alternate universe where all those assumptions regarding the variables DO hold, but not here, not today in 2022.
That’s not how it works. It’s a damn shame, I know, because it’s so simple and intuitively appealing and it would make controlling inflation really simple. But, if we are to develop useful policies then we need a model better suited to the way the modern financial system works.
We need new assumptions with respect to M, V, P, and y:
M: A precise definition and identification of money is elusive in a modern, credit-money economy, and its volume can change either with or without direct central bank intervention. In addition, the monetary authority cannot raise the supply of money without the cooperation of the private sector. Because central banks almost always target interest rates (the price of holding cash) rather than the quantity of money, they tend to simply accommodate demands from banks. When private banks communicate that they need more reserves for loans and offer government debt to the Fed, the Fed buys it. It’s the private sector that is in the driver’s seat in this respect, not the central bank. The central bank’s impact is indirect and heavily dependent on what the rest of the economy is willing to do (which is, incidentally, why all the QE and QE II money is just sitting in bank vaults).A
V: The velocity of money is, indeed, related to people’s behavior and the structure of the financial system, but there are discernable patterns. It is not constant even over the short run.
P: While it is true that factors like production bottlenecks can be a source of price movements, the economy is not so competitive that there are not firms or workers who find themselves able to manipulate the prices and wages they charge. The most important inflationary episode in recent history was the direct result of a cartel, i.e., OPEC, flexing its muscle. Asset price bubbles can also cause price increases (as they are now). The key here, however, is that P CAN be the initiating factor– in fact, it has to be, since M can’t.
y: The economy can and does come to rest at less than full employment. Hence, while it is possible for y to be at its maximum, it most certainly does not have to be.
The most important inflationary episode in post- WWII history was that during the 1970s and early 1980s. From 1968 through 1972, consumer price inflation averaged 4.6%. Over the next ten years it was 7.5%.
What happened? What caused this sudden and dramatic acceleration in prices? Did the Fed accidentally print too much money? As already explained, that can’t happen–you simply can’t raise the money supply above the demand. M did rise, however, and largely proportionally to the increase in P. This is a much more realistic story of those events.
As the price of oil skyrocketed, so costs of production rose for many, many US businesses. Because there is a lag between purchasing inputs and selling output, most firms have to borrow money (working capital) to bridge the gap.
As the ripple effect of the OPEC price increases moved throughout the economy, the demand for cash by these businesses rose. Quite reasonably, private banks and the Fed did what they could to accommodate. These were fair requests on the part of US entrepreneurs. Loans were extended and government debt sold by the private sector to the central bank. This raised the supply of money.
Therefore, the rising prices led to an increase in the supply of money and not the other way around.
And this is how it really works, at least until the Fed starts using helicopters for monetary policy.
How Friedman got away with his nonsense is by pure propaganda not based on the facts. Austrians are even worse.
I was thinking one thing about the Russians right now:
They came out from a very heavy empire (and so many wars before),
They went through 1st World War and Bolshevik revolution,
They went through communism including the 2ndWW that killed 25 million Russians,
They went through the 1990s, betrayed by the West, who only exploited and transformed in a country “of drunks, mobsters and whores” (this in Western reductionism, in negative and demonizing propaganda),
They have gone through Nato’s constant advance and always demonization.
And now, that only in the last 10 years have had an improvement in living conditions, a certain recovery of national pride, and prospects of great trade agreements in Asia, now comes the United States, NATO and other minions spoil everything, and with a racist campaign never seen in the history of mankind.
I tell you what – THE RUSSIANS NOW HAVE BLOOD IN THEIR EYES AND WILL NOT RETREAT AND WILL, AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, RETURN ALL NEW OFFENSES.
What They Don’t Teach You In Political/Geopolitical School is an apt title for Pepe’s lectures.
If only senior European politicians/military/civil servants had to pass an exam covering Pepe’s material. Mind you as we’ve heard from Pepe and Mr Martyanov, the clowns running the show in most western capitals are lawyers, with many others holding a masters in humanities.
Humanities, hmm, well you’d think at least they’d have some empathy for other human life and not living in their own little cocoons/bubbles, totally detached from the electorate (except for one day every 4/5 years ).
That was absolutely another American media (albeit alternate) interview DISASTER! Their respective awareness of of the circumstances in our universe was 180º out of phase. Pepe might as well have interviewed by a Mennonite housewife.
Fifty percent of the problem here is a horrible lag on their connection. Rachel talks over Pepe, because her connection lags. After about 50 minutes, it improves. The other part of the problem is her naivete.
Now, why did Pepe agree to this interview? He is not a stupid man. Perhaps he is talking to a demographic that otherwise, he would not reach.
I’ll put up a piece tomorrow on the results of this interview, and the pogrom declared. Pepe reached the demographic.
Such rubbish. So sad.
I got to 51 minutes, then turned it off.
Poor production, sound and interviewer, who’s lack of simple knowledge, made this interview feel like it was being directed to children.
She kept interrupting with quotes from CNN, or statements attributed to Russian officials reported by the MSM, does she not realise people listen to the likes of Escobar BECAUSE he talks straight, with sensible, rational, and logical descriptions of political events, and that his audience just groan when someone uses the MSM for reference.
This “interview” by Rachel was unbearable to experience and technically a disaster. I doubt Saker visitors needed a critique of Western media interspersed with a personal history for the first 15 minutes before Pepe was allowed to speak.
She kept interrupting and spoiling the flow of information from Pepe.
So many comments here are critical of her interviewing style, for good reason.
It was like listening to a dominant teenager converse with her boyfriend on a bad telephone line. Is there any possibility we can have Pepe back being interviewed by someone with more experience in both skillful interviewing techniques, and technical ability?
Ahhhhhhhhahahahahaha. Or should I say “lol” like the trash commenting on Yahoo or AOL?
Look at you lot! Here you have a western woman trying to do her best-her best-not yours-to shed some light on the truth and you pick and complain and condescend with your stupid pompous nonsense. Hahahahahaha.
Trying to overcome the technical challenges of talking with video from Paris to Turkey and doing pretty good! But YOU can all do it better! Hahahahaha
Think of all the people in English speaking world who will see this and learn something? How many would listen to you even IF Escobar would bother with you? Hahahahahaha
Beautiful interview! Wonderful news for Russia all around!
But besides the hateful condescing clique here the next biggest is the armchair engineer click busy worrying about the smallest details of the weapons being used! Can you imagine looking at a smaller piece of the picture? Hahahahaha
Look at the western criminal cabal using Ukraine to beat its own people and their former sovereign nations the rest of the way to death! Hahahaha And to kill fossil fuels and bring in the Green Deal scam to return all but themselves to feudalism! Hahahahaha. No we will debate the physics of the Russian missile instead! Ahhhhhahahahaha.
Sorry I can’t help it I’m Russian. Ahhhhhahahaha!
Poor Saker! No wonder he suffers chronic stress and fatigue! Its YOU! Ahhhhhahahahaha!
There have been any number of very informative interviews with Pepe Escobar, guided by intelligent interviewers.
I think this habit of the interviewer taking over and forgetting his/her role kind of started with the egomaniac Charlie Rose.
Del Bigtree, of The Highwire, has a similar problem of talking too much, focusing on his own ignorance and his own confusions, instead of preparing in advance so that his questions are focused and short and then letting the interviewee take it from there and talk until finished with that question.
Many interviewers don’t seem to grasp that answering a question coherently is kind of like putting together a paragraph of coherent text on the fly. It takes a lot of concentration, and is derailed by constant interruptions.
But Bigtree has improved quite a lot.
James Corbett, a very good researcher, also evidences this distracting loquaciousness.
IMO, Ben Norton of the Grayzone, strikes a good balance of framing intelligent questions, informed by his own background knowledge.
I had to turn the interview off due to the interruptions from the host. Too bad. Pepe has a wealth of knowledge and I was excited to have a chance to hear him explain some things that we all would benefit from hearing. I’m a very patient guy too. But I just couldn’t take anymore of the host. Absolutely brutal ….was shaking my head when I shut it off 😂😂
This kind of host behavior is actually quite common and actually started 25-30 years ago. I can even claim that rise of social media 2007/2008 decimated landslide decent behavior on MSM and even outside it. Last 15 years have been free downfall.
The lesson: be careful when ever choosing your talk host.
If you want to get some idea of what might happen, try https://t.me/s/medvedev_telegram, of course, in Russian.
Also, when you are out of Russia and live in the US and EU, you are actually out of Russia…
This vacuous woman is an embarrassment to the world of journalism.
Years ago I would sometimes get irritated by Alex Jones when he showed a tendency to interrupt too much. But that was nothing compared to this. Rachel Marsden has to be the world champion of irritating interviewers. I’d never seen anything like that. Unsufferable. She probably thinks that what she has to say is irresistibly interesting, and the guest should just be part of her audience.
She should just interview herself in front of a mirror or something.
Hey, come on, I started to listen to the beginning of the interview, and Rachel tries to focus on these questions “What´s missing in the debate” in the west …….Sometimes It was difficult to hear what they said because of technical problems…
You who are complaining: Don´t do like many audiences do, when a woman gives a lecture, just a few listen, and then afterwards if a man say almost the same thing, he gots big applaudes.
Remember, if you point on somebody with one finger, three fingers are pointing back to yourself! And ask:”Why am I so irritated?”
I think Rachel made a god job!
it’s obnoxious she keeps interrupting him. she’s not really listening and responding to him but just latching onto tidbits that she can grasp
I would love to have the opportunity to interview Pepe. I would go into the interview knowing that this man has probably forgotten all I will ever know about Geopolitics. I would ask a question and then shut up until he’s done talking.
Why?
Because when a guy with Pepe’s intimate knowledge of all of this begins to speak….. Class is in session. And I believe he should command that kind of respect from whomever is interviewing him.
It was a complete lack of respect for Pepe and for Pepe’s time….and most importantly….Pepe’s credentials.
Pepe did great in that he tried to explain how what is happening in Ukraine is complicated. And that how we arrived where we are today is tied in with what has happened over there historically….and especially the last 15-20 years.
He then attempted to give us a synopsis of that exact history to bring us up to speed. I was excited to hear about it. The host should have been as well.
Did she allow Pepe to shed some light on all of this that most of us are unfamiliar with?
Nooooooo….
Of course she didn’t.
Why? Only the host can answer to that.
Women are fully capable of giving speeches and/or conducting interviews and being CEO’s and even ruling countries! 100%!!!! To me this isn’t a gender issue. Or that “whatever a man says is good ….and whatever a woman says is to be ignored”
I would think that we are all reasonable enough here to drop our egos at the door. If we were unreasonable and biased ….we never would have found this blog. We are all pretty much open-minded enough to listen to something other than the western media …that’s how we all arrived here. And to Saker….this is a treasured resource for myself and many others. Thanks Saker!
I don’t wish to browbeat. But I think the interview was at the very least ….cringeworthy.
Pepe took the time to make himself available to shed some light on things. I wish I could have heard all he wanted to say. I truly do.
I was actually starting to ask myself which team the interviewer was playing for 😂
When I first commented on this here last night I had not read any of the other observations about the interview from other commenters here. When I went though the comments this morning I had to laugh when I discovered I certainly was not alone in my conclusions.
😂😂
We have all have expressed our regret here about the western media.
So when a guy like Pepe has an opportunity to speak….someone who will not regurgitate western media talking points….someone we know will help us to sort things out and help us find the truth …why would anyone cut him off? Or sidetrack him? Or redirect his line of thought?
😂
I shut it off about twenty minutes into the interview …
Plus I would like to factor in about ten minutes of confusion from the host before Pepe appeared on the screen.
I hereby respectfully request from the host that the half hour I lost from my life to be returned to me…. 😂😂😂
I feel as though I must ask in writing ….because if I were to ask in person….I would probably get cut off before finishing my sentence
😂😂
I only wish Rachel had not interrupted so much and let Pepe talk more