"You are perfectly welcome to your construct. But don't use terms that don't make sense. You used the term "private tyranny" when as we showed "tyranny" is a kind of synonym for a certain kind of GOVERNMENT.

The larger issue of course is what eradicates Money Power. You seem to believe, with many others, that government can be a tool to defend people from power elites.

We believe that elites will inevitably dominate government as they have historically via mercantilism and that the best solution is to limit government as much as possible. It is a fairly stark choice and one comes down on one side or the other, it seems to us.

We know where we stand. Every day we try to show that governments - especially in the modern era - are terribly abusive and need to be pruned back. Ideally most (if not all) functions performed by government could be performed better by the private sector.

This would deprive the power elite of what has traditionally been its main tool, certainly in the modern era. "

Oh, it is quite clear Government in most cases was governed by elites, even before the Money Power came on the scene.

But government is NOT the main tool of the Money Power, or Power Elite as you say.

Control of the Money supply is. And this control is used for interest, the boom/bust cycle, to keep money scarce and cause deflation and maintain control over who receives finance and who does not.

You know this as well as I do.

But you have your reasons to hang on to the hate the state message.

We'll leave it to the reader to decide.

"M: Let readers follow the links I posted and judge for themselves whether my points are 'nonsensical' or contain 'outrageous factual errors'."

BM: Fair enough. I judge your posts to be "nonsensical" and to contain "outrageous factual errors".

Join the crowd. The world is full of economic ignoramouses.

Murray Rothbard: 'It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.'


Read the last sentence over and over again while looking in the mirror.

"Mises arbitrarily distributes wealth to the individual... "

You and Gardner can share the prize for economic ignorance, along with Migchels and Lietaer.

Of the three schools, Marx relies solely on dealing with wealth distribution, Keynes believe wealth can be created and then distributed by government fiat.

There is nothing arbitrary in Austrian economics about how wealth is created or distributed. Prices are set subjectively by individual decision based on individual value preferences. Profit and loss, based on these prices and enforced by market mechanism and contract, define ultimately the distribution of wealth.

I will call you memecreator from now on. You are truly carrying the water for a new religion.

Daily Bell articles are a breath of fresh air. They are fresh because they use didactic reasoning. That is to say, they stand aloof from conventional wisdom derived from consensus. But the critical comments rebutting DB articles appear to be dialectic in nature.

For dialectics CONSENSUS determines truth. Also for dialectics, logical fallacies are useful if they move the SYNTHESIS to the desired CONSENSUS.

The Austrian School of Economics, with the DB articles amplifying that school, on the other hand, are didactic. In didactics the use of inductive and deductive reasoning never allows the means to justify the end. And with didactic reasoning - logical fallacies remain invalid.

Consequently, I have no patience with dialectic consensus molding. I don't care what the temporary consensus/synthesis is; I care about the right of the people to trade in hard money. I care that the several States cannot observe the Article I section 10 mandate that "No State shall ... make any Thing but Gold and Silver Coin a tender in Payment of debts[.] ... " (U.S. Constitution)


For my own didactic reasoning please see: Click to view link

Reply from The Daily Bell

Thanks ... logical!

Thanks DB for tackling this non-sense. This was a fun read before going into work this morning...

"You should thank me.."

Wow. God forbid I ever become that shrill and obtusely arrogant in my writing. Sir, how can you repeat the same (wrong) thing over and over again and expect the same results?

You know I used to be a typical right-wing Republican. Helping to promote Bush in my hometown. Staying up all night listening to Iraq being bombed Live on Radio. I spent years on popular right-wing sites like Ace of Spades, Protein wisdom, Pajamasmedia blogs, etc. I WANTED to believe (to almost the to the point of joining) the US military-intelligence complex is a force of good in the world... that the ends justifies the means..that's it all very necessary..

But fortunately REALITY backed me into a corner and I had NO CHOICE but to accept it. Too many ugly truths. Sadly it seems you are not accepting the reality that the connections you are trying so hard to make aren't what you make them out to be.

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if they are all reptilians, but I'm not seeing any solid evidence bro.

"Trying to misrepresent people as statist, when they suggest there is also private tyranny."

What the heck is "private tyranny?"

If someone is trying to impose his will on people in an organized fashion, that person is inevitably trying to build a formal authoritarian environment. He is trying to organize society along the lines he chooses using force. Inevitably what you call private tyranny ends up either in failure or in the establishment of a formal social order: ie, government. There is no in-between.

What's funny about your use of the phrase is that the root of "tyranny" is very clear, as we see from this Wiki stem information: "Tyrant (in the modern understanding meaning one who rules as a despot or dictator, in a negative connotation) comes from Latin tyrannus which means 'leader or master.' The key to understanding it most comes not from Latin but from the Greek tyrranos which in the original connotation referred to someone who assumes the role of a king or master when they did not actually deserve it.

So we can see even your use of the word in conjunction with "private" is a kind of contradiction in terms. The stem of tyrant is "master" - ie, someone who "assumes the role of king."

You are undone by your own choice of words. In fact, you likely want to argue there is "private tyranny" (which we can see is a kind of nonsense phrase) because it suits your larger argument that government can be a force for good, administering money on behalf of "the people." But government, unfortunately, IS force. And there are precious few examples of that force being contained and tamed long-term.

And there are few if any examples in history of "private tyranny" where such tyranny existed, long-term, without some attempt by the actors to formalize their use of violence via a formal social order (government). "

What nonsense is this?
You all know the pyramid with the one all seeing eye!

Look it up again: Government is NOT at the top of the pyramid.

You are doing it again: because I see an even greater problem than Government, you are stating I simply want Government to work for the people.

While I have made it clear many, many times I distrust Government and want power to be decentralized much more than just from the Money Power to Government. That would be only the first step. We've often discussed the free market for currencies idea, even though your approach is not a free market approach but give away to monopolists.

And that's the problem here: you just don't want to admit that private forces will continue to prevail in the not so free market if not kept in check.

The question is: how are we going to organize this and I want to look MUCH further than 'Government' but you immediately succumb to hysterically simplifying the issue, suggesting you are not looking to get at the core of this, but to get the last word and to hear from everybody you got it right.

You got it wrong.

Or better: I like your appreciation of conspiracy, but your economics suck.

Reply from The Daily Bell

You are perfectly welcome to your construct. But don't use terms that don't make sense. You used the term "private tyranny" when as we showed "tyranny" is a kind of synonym for a certain kind of GOVERNMENT.

The larger issue of course is what eradicates Money Power. You seem to believe, with many others, that government can be a tool to defend people from power elites.

We believe that elites will inevitably dominate government as they have historically via mercantilism and that the best solution is to limit government as much as possible. It is a fairly stark choice and one comes down on one side or the other, it seems to us.

We know where we stand. Every day we try to show that governments - especially in the modern era - are terribly abusive and need to be pruned back. Ideally most (if not all) functions performed by government could be performed better by the private sector.

This would deprive the power elite of what has traditionally been its main tool, certainly in the modern era.

DB: We've pointed out numerous factual errors that you've made in this one thread. You've compared Marx to Mises, claimed that the Austrian school was founded in 20th century and that it was a globalist plot.

M: 1. Marx/Mises is part of the dialectic, according to Keith Gardner (not me).
2. It was Mullins who claimed that the Austrian School was an outgrowth of the Pan-Europe movement.

DB: You've don't have the first idea about marginal utility or the history of economic thought, generally.

M: Outside of the "Austrian economics" religion, no salvation, is that it? Yes, I am an ignorant heretic, and proud of it (though I am learning every day).

DB: Almost every day you spend several hours "attacking the fundamentals of free-market economics" of which you know very little about.

M: Collectively, the DB elves have spent years:

1. Failing to realize (or refusing to acknowledge) that, by supporting Austrian economics and assorted political movements, they were part of an Hegelian dialectic.

2. Ignoring the negative effects of compound interest, and even justifying compound interest, even though it is, along with the control of the money supply, the main tool of Money Power.

3. Proposing banksters' scams based on "paper gold" such as "private gold standards" or "private gold-backed currencies".

So, all in all, I think I am actually a quick learner, at least compared to the DB elves, since I'm already outside of this dialectic. You should thank me, for I'm actually helping you get out of it as well (even though the debate is somewhat acrimonious).

Reply from The Daily Bell

Memehunter, part of the problem is that the more you are rebutted, the more you clog the thread. The more mistakes you make the shriller and more verbose you become. So here we will give you the last word, if only to stop your endless reposting of what you have already (mis) stated. As you have pointed out, people can read this thread (and others) for themselves and decide on the relative merits of your "points" and their validity.

DB: There is no "math" that modern Austrian free-market economics can "square up to" because Austrian economics is ANTI mathematical modeling.

M: Must I point out the obvious? The exponential growth curve associated with a compound-interest debt-based currency certainly doesn't care whether Austrian economics is 'ANTI mathematical modeling.' This is an incredible statement by the DB elves.

DB: In this thread, below, we've attempt to rebut just a few of your sillier statements. Over and over, for months, you make the most outrageous factual errors and then, like a kind of literary "superball" you rebound, blithely ignoring the many nonsensical ideas you've already spouted and committed to electronic paper, and coming up with yet new "experts" to attack the fundamentals of free-market economics.

M: Let readers follow the links I posted and judge for themselves whether my points are 'nonsensical' or contain 'outrageous factual errors'. There are probably some mistakes, but then the DB is not in a position to criticize my efforts after repeatedly asserting that 'Power elites REALLY dislike Austrian economics', and refusing to see the Austrian/Keynesian dialectics.

I am not attacking 'the fundamentals of free-market economics', I am identifying a Hegelian dialectic, and pointing out the tools of Money Power, such as compound interest and control of the money supply.

I also note that other people are aware of the Keynesian/Austrian dialectic, both on the Internet and on this thread. So, while the DB can choose to treat my posts as they wish (it's their website), and attempt to present me as a troll or as somehow deranged mentally, I question the efficiency of these strategies. Even if it were true, these ideas won't go away... Google 'Keynesian-Austrian dialectics', or check the posts by RR, cromwellshead, or Migchels on this thread.

Again, it is in our interest to become aware of the Keynesian/Austrian dialectic.

Reply from The Daily Bell

DB: There is no "math" that modern Austrian free-market economics can "square up to" because Austrian economics is ANTI mathematical modeling.

M: Must I point out the obvious? The exponential growth of a compound-interest debt-based currency certainly doesn't care whether Austrian economics is "ANTI mathematical modeling." This is also an incredible statement by the DB elves.

DB: Austrian economics doesn't recognize mathematical modeling. Sorry. That was the point we were making and it was a direct response to the statement that the "math" of Austrian economics doesn't "square up."

-----


M: Let readers follow the links and judge for themselves whether the ideas I presented are nonsensical and whether they contain or not factual errors. I'm sure that there are some mistakes, but then the DB is certainly not a position to criticize my efforts after stating repeatedly that "power elites REALLY dislike Austrian Economics" and refusing to see the Austrian/Keynesian dialectic.

DB: We've pointed out numerous factual errors that you've made in this one thread. You've compared Marx to Mises, claimed that the Austrian school was founded in 20th century and that it was a globalist plot. You've don't have the first idea about marginal utility or the history of economic thought, generally. In response to what is raging ignorance, you assert that we have made a glaring error by stating that the obvious: That the power elite REALLY dislike Austrian economics and that we refuse to see the Austrian/Keynesian dialectic. In fact there WAS some sort of dialectic (informally anyway), but it was one created between HAYEK and Keynes. Hayek, was later given a Nobel prize, no doubt for his co-operation. This is well known within Misesian circles. Mises was left out of the equation because evidently and obviously he was too difficult to deal with and too doctrinaire. But this is not to assert, as you do, that the Austrian School was set up by the "elites" to serve as a foil to Keynes. Or that Mises or Rothbard, exponents of the modern school of free-market economics were part of some sort of bizarre, ritualistic dialectic.

-----

I'm not "attacking the fundamentals of free-market economics", I am identifying a dialectic, and pointing out the tools of Money Power, such as compound interest combined with the control of the money supply.

DB: Almost every day you spend several hours "attacking the fundamentals of free-market economics" of which you know very little.

-----

By the way, have you noticed, both on the Internet and on this thread, that there are several other people mentioning this Hegelian dialectic? Google "Keynesian-Austrian dialectic", or check the posts by RR, cromwellshead, or Migchels on this thread.

DB: Truth is not a popularity contest.

-----

At some point, it will not work to simply pretend that I'm a troll or otherwise deranged. Even if it were true, these ideas won't go away... You may of course continue to treat my posts the way you want (it's your website), but I am simply pointing out the inefficiency of ad hominem arguments or related strategies (i.e., simply stating that my points are nonsensical, silly, etc... , without any deeper argument).

DB: We are only responding to what seems to be the case. Any conclusions we have drawn are based on the factual merits of your observations, or lack thereof.

DB: 1. We were responding to YOUR statement, as follows: "The Georgist school of political economy considers Mises, Marx, and Keynes to be the main schools of neo-classical economics." We pointed out that Marx's theories are NOT considered to be part of neo-classical economics. Since you don't understand even the most basic elements of economic history it is difficult to have a rational conversation with you. Again, you are like some sort of literary superball. You bounce from mis-statement to mis-statement without any regard for the history of what you are maintaining. Perhaps it is some sort of synaptical difficulty: You simply forget from day to day and hour to hour what you have stated previously

M: I never made this statement. You are simply making this up. I did not even discuss the Georgist school. Do not confuse me with Keith Gardner (I actually removed the passages discussing the Georgist school as they were less relevant to our discussion). As for the other ad hominem arguments: N/A. This whole rant is sounding rather desperate...

DB: So you are somehow maintaining or imply that Mises in particular was a closet globalist.

M: Mises was most definitely associated with ultra-elites. Mises was close friends with Coudenhove-Kalergi, was an advisor for Habsburg, and was part of the Mont Pelerin Society. Most of this can be found on Wikipedia.

Are you still intent on calling these "mis-statements"?

Reply from The Daily Bell

Again, almost every post of yours contains at least one fundamental mis-statement.

You cite a statement that Marx was a neo-classical economist, which is absurd.

You approvingly cite Mullins idiocy that the Austrian school was developed in the 20th century as an outgrowth of globalism.

You imply, if not outright suggest, that Mises was a globalist when his entire body of written work rejects the premise (you ought to read some of it).

You continue to claim that Mises was a great supporter of the Mont Pelerin Society when at one point he walked out of a meeting claiming they were "all socialists."

You claim Rothbard was a close supporter of CATO when the feud between CATO and Rothbard/Rockwell is well known "inside" history.

On and on. We repeat: you are like some sort of literary superball. You bounce from mis-statement to mis-statement without any regard for the history of what you are maintaining. Perhaps it is some sort of synaptical difficulty: You simply forget from day to day and hour to hour what you have stated previously

DB: "Marx=models of society and confident predictions of their results
Mises=social and economic models are inevitably flawed because people change their behavior as necessary.

The two world views are diametrically opposed. If indeed, the Georgist School conflates Marx with Mises, that is merely a further indication of why most who understand and promote free-market economics have never taken the school seriously."

M: Isn't Gardner presenting Marx/Keynes and Mises as the two poles of a Hegelian dialetic? It's not exactly a conflation. Nice try...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DB: We have in the past expressed our doubts about some of Eustace Mullins statements that seem merely to be asserted rather than based in any particular factual substance. In this case, the idea that Austrian School of Economics was an outgrowth of the Pan-Europe movement is simply factually inaccurate. The Pan-European movement apparently began with the Count Richard Nikolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi's manifesto Paneuropa in 1923.

M: OK, I agree that Mullins was somewhat innacurate in stating that the Austrian School of Economics was an outgrowth of the Pan-Europe movement. Nevertheless, there were very tight connections between the two, as I showed previously, so Mullins is right on that account.

DB: Just asserting something, Memehunter, as you do over and over again doesn't make it so.

M: This is quoted from the article on Chris Martenson's website by the way. You might want to take that with them.

I must point out that repeatedly asserting that "power elites REALLY dislike Austrian economics" (and ignoring, in the process, the obvious Austrian/Keynesian dialectic), as the DB does, doesn't make it so.

Reply from The Daily Bell

1. We were responding to YOUR statement, as follows: "The Georgist school of political economy considers Mises, Marx, and Keynes to be the main schools of neo-classical economics." We pointed out that Marx's theories are NOT considered to be part of neo-classical economics. Since you don't understand even the most basic elements of economic history it is difficult to have a rational conversation with you. Again, you are like some sort of literary superball. You bounce from mis-statement to mis-statement without any regard for the history of what you are maintaining. Perhaps it is some sort of synaptical difficulty: You simply forget from day to day and hour to hour what you have stated previously ....

-----

2. Now you make the point Eustace Mullins was "somewhat innacurate" (sic) in stating the Austrian School of Economics was an outgrowht of the Pan European movement. Yes, Memehunter, he was "off" by a about half a century.

-----

3. But despite this whopper you still maintain there were "tight connections between the two." So you are somehow maintaining or imply that Mises in particular was a closet globalist. This would mean that Mises actually endorsed the idea of globalism, which is the rule of the entire world by one government facility. Since Mises' entire body of work is devoted to establishing that only the free-market can provide the proper organization for business and commerce, the idea that he would be interested in endorsing an aggressively instituted world government is a contradiction on its face.

You can go on wildly asserting these mis-statements forever - this seems to be an avocation of yours - but the longer you comment the more questionable your motives and perspectives become.

DB: You have NEVER addressed the issue (because you cannot) of the primacy of the act of money printing. Instead you maintain that "compound interest" is the problem.

This is simply untrue, as we've pointed out now on numerous occasions. One needs to have MONEY before one can charge interest. The problem of modern society is monopoly money printing.

M: This is funny, because you write this in reply to the following:
"The problem at root is the combination of the control of the money supply with compound interest." You actually cite this sentence in your reply!

Anyway...

Reply from The Daily Bell

It is hard to follow the permutations of your "arguments" because you seem mostly intent on discrediting free-market economics any way that you can. We've been entirely clear in our position:

Monopoly (fiat) money printing is the main problem of modern Western society (especially) and we are NOT opposed to any practice (including the charging of interest) within a free market environment. Let competition decide on these things, not Memehunter.

You seem incapable of internalizing this simple concept, though why it is so difficult for you to understand, we have no idea.

Totally agree. The world needs to adopt what I term "Icelandic Syndrome". Default en masse then try the whole shebang and throw away the key. Problem solved, but then who will dare start the ball rolling?

From the 'Austrian & Keynesian Theories Vs. Mathematical Facts':

Click to view link

Both Austrian and Keynesian economic theories hold fundamental beliefs that do not square up with math. The exponential growth of debt in our debt based money system is ignored and refuted by both theories. In place of math, we are offered beliefs such as the 'quantity theory of money.'

To deny the exponential growth of debt cuts to the very core and credibility of monetary theories. If the exponential growth can be proven, then equally, Austrian and Keynesian theories are dis-proven. Economic theories hide the fact that a debt based money system is usury by definition and neither Austrian nor Keynesian theories are sustainable. Both systems create bankruptcies and defaults while enriching banks at the expense of the people.

[…]

The specie of money doesn't matter. If our money were backed by gold, the gold would simply be transferred to those who collect the interest. We saw this in 1933 when the gold standard collapsed and we lost most of our gold.

The two prevailing economic theories give us a false sense of choice just like the two party system of Democrats and Republicans.

[…]

Our debt based monetary system is a form of usury that will result in the transfer of all wealth from the many to the few. The intended outcome is debt slavery and tyranny under the cruel boots of oligarchs - a financial aristocracy.'

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Memehunter: Some food for thought for those who prefer to avoid this debate by simply resorting to ad hominem arguments. It is in our interest to become aware of the Keynesian/Austrian dialectic.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Both Austrian and Keynesian economic theories hold fundamental beliefs that do not square up with math.

This is a really incredible statement given that the prime modern exponents of Austrian economics didn't believe in econometrics - math-based economics - and this is a fundamental tenet of modern free-market economics.

There is no "math" that modern Austrian free-market economics can "square up to" because Austrian economics is ANTI mathematical modeling. As people CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOR when confronted by laws and regulations (and cataclysmic events that government is supposedly anticipating), the idea that math can be employed to rationalize and predict such behaviors must be seen as a kind of sad joke.

------

He also writes: "If the exponential growth can be proven, then equally, Austrian and Keynesian theories are dis-proven."

How on earth do you expect your arguments to be taken seriously Memehunter when you quote such verbiage within the context of providing us with "authoritative" alternative views.

------

In this thread, below, we've attempt to rebut just a few of your sillier statements. Over and over, for months, you make the most outrageous factual errors and then, like a kind of literary "superball" you rebound, blithely ignoring the many nonsensical ideas you've already spouted and committed to electronic paper, and coming up with yet new "experts" to attack the fundamentals of free-market economics.

Why you persist is beyond us. And if you have such a yen to support government dispensation of money why don't provide your points of view to other websites such as the Democratic Underground where you no doubt would find a more sympathetic (and credulous) audience.

A comment on the article by Keith Gardner (see previous post) on Chris Martenson's website:

'Drinking the Von Mises Kool-Aid'

Click to view link

'Gutsy call to take on Mises and the Austrians, but I think it needs to be done and Keith Gardner does a fine job of it. The libertarians and many conservatives are spell bound by Austrian beliefs that do not square up with math (see my post Austrian & Keynesian Theories Vs. Mathematical Facts).

Click to view link

Perhaps more importantly, Mises never acknowledges, or takes into account, the fact that sovereign nations hold the power to create their own money free from any banker debt. The assumption is that government cannot be trusted and that we need private banks to handle the nations finances. The great American "experiment" was based on the premise that people are capable of governing themselves. Austrian beliefs violate this most fundamental axiom.

Keith Gardner states that the "Rockefeller foundation funded Ludwig von Mises and the Ludwig von Mises institute." In support of this claim, I offer some substantiating sources:

Click to view link

"Many readers may be surprised to learn the extent to which the Graduate Institute and then Mises himself in the years immediately after he came to United States were kept afloat financially through generous grants from the Rockefeller Foundation. In fact, for the first years of Mises's life in the United States, before his appointment as a visiting professor in the Graduate School of Business Administration at New York University (NYU) in 1945, he was almost totally dependent on annual research grants from the Rockefeller Foundation.

Even after he finally landed the position at NYU, where he remained only a visiting professor until his retirement in 1969, his salary was paid for not by NYU, but from funds contributed by generous private supporters."

- Mises wife, Margit Herzfeld, wrote in her biography of Ludwig Von Mises
"that he participated in Count Coudenhove-Kalergi's Pan Europe movement in 1943. He had been brought to the U.S. in 1940 by a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation of $2500 a year to work at the Natl. Bureau of Economic Research, which grant was renewed in 1943."

- Eustace Mullins wrote in his book "The World Order, A Study in the Hegemony of Parasitism"

Click to view link

"Hence his [Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England] campaign in favour of completely autonomous central banks, dominating their own financial markets and deriving their power from common agreement among themselves. They would succeed in taking out of the political realm those problems which are essential for the development and prosperity of the national financial security, distribution of credit, movement of prices. They would thus prevent internal political struggles from harming the wealth and the economic advancement of nations.

In short, Norman wished to see the imposition of the World Order over the financial affairs of the nations. It was this agreement among the central banks, rather than the front organization, the League of Nations, which became their final instrument of power. Crucial to these arrangements was the monetarist school, the Austrian School of Economics, an outgrowth of the Pan-Europe movement."

This information is relevant to the discussion as the well meaning "Austrian believers" are perhaps the biggest obstacle to true monetary reform. We will have no freedom until we once again exercise our financial sovereignty; without it, government, commerce and the people will remain subservient to international bankers.'

Reply from The Daily Bell

Gutsy call to take on Mises and the Austrians, but I think it needs to be done and Keith Gardner does a fine job of it.

See our previous comment on this thread. In comparing Marx to Mises, Keith Gardner merely reveals he knows little or nothing about economics generally, the history of economic thought and the respective insights of those who have participated in its evolution. This begin to resemble a convocation of blind men, each complimenting one another on their visual acuity.

Comments on the rest of this disingenuous mish-mosh ...

-----

Perhaps more importantly, Mises never acknowledges, or takes into account, the fact that sovereign nations hold the power to create their own money free from any banker debt. The assumption is that government cannot be trusted and that we need private banks to handle the nations finances. The great American "experiment" was based on the premise that people are capable of governing themselves. Austrian beliefs violate this most fundamental axiom.

DB: Where did Mises (or Rothbard) ever write that "banks are necessary to handle the nations finances." This is simply gobbledygook. Also, he claims that modern Austrian economics violates the premise that people "are capable of governing themselves." Actually, what Mises wrote in Human Action is that people change their behavior when confronted with government force. Let Gardener disprove it if he can. He cannot.

-----

Keith Gardner states that the "Rockefeller foundation funded Ludwig von Mises and the Ludwig von Mises institute." In support of this claim, I offer some substantiating sources:

Click to view link

DB; We've already dealt with canard. Apparently Mises himself approached the Rockefeller Foundation for funds. Later on, the Foundation cut him entirely. This is not the behavior of an elite that is determined to fund "their" representative of the other side of a given dialectic.

-----


"Even after he finally landed the position at NYU, where he remained only a visiting professor until his retirement in 1969, his salary was paid for not by NYU, but from funds contributed by generous private supporters."

DB: "Generous private supporters." The implication is that Rockefeller himself paid Mises expenses out of his pocket. What nonsense. Prove it.

-----

In short, Norman wished to see the imposition of the World Order over the financial affairs of the nations. It was this agreement among the central banks, rather than the front organization, the League of Nations, which became their final instrument of power. Crucial to these arrangements was the monetarist school, the Austrian School of Economics, an outgrowth of the Pan-Europe movement."

DB: We have in the past expressed our doubts about some of Eustace Mullins statements that seem merely to be asserted rather than based in any particular factual substance. In this case, the idea that Austrian School of Economics was an outgrowth of the Pan-Europe movement is simply factually inaccurate. The Pan-European movement apparently began with the Count Richard Nikolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi's manifesto Paneuropa in 1923. Austrian economics traces its inception to Carl Menger's publications starting in 1883. Here's Wikipedia:

"In 1883, Menger published Investigations into the Method of the Social Sciences with Special Reference to Economics, which attacked the methods of the Historical school. Gustav von Schmoller, a leader of the Historical school, responded with an unfavorable review, coining the term 'Austrian School'. "

Just asserting something, Memehunter, as you do over and over again doesn't make it so.

More on the Keynesian/Austrian dialectic, viewed from a broader perspective that includes Marx, and also discusses Henry George:

"Economic Conspiracy: The Wealth and Theft of Nations"
Click to view link

An excellent article by Keith Gardner.

Some choice quotes:

"Mises, Marx, and Keynes is the false left/right paradigm of banker fascism. The Georgist school of political economy considers Mises, Marx, and Keynes to be the main schools of neo-classical economics.

Mises arbitrarily distributes wealth to the individual, often in the hands of the corporations and non-productive elite. Keynes arbitrarily distributes wealth to the individual and public equally, and often in the hands of the corporations and non-productive elite. Marx arbitrarily distributes wealth to the public, and often in the hands of the corporations and non-productive elite. All three schools of neo-classical economics are designed to steal from the worker and give to the elite. They are setup to oppose each other as false paradigms, while together, they slowly enslave the people.

[... ]

The Marx conspiracy is probably the most obvious since it is obvious rule by the elite. It is fascism with a pretty ribbon, where the bankers and corporations have an absolute monopoly.

The Keynes conspiracy is the mainstream conspiracy. However, it is starting to become clear to the people that the republican democracy is a myth. It is starting to become clear that our government serves the banking and corporate elite, and not the people and rule of law.

The Mises conspiracy is a little less obvious since it most emulates classical liberalism, though corrupting the understanding. However, the cautious student of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and libertarianism will realize that things aren't adding up.

[... ]

We learn from history that the gold standard was the currency of choice by tyrants throughout history. It was the currency of choice for the Federal Reserve when it was created in 1913 and when we entered the Great Depression. We learn that soft currencies, such as the Tally Stick, was used for hundreds of years, building the wealth of the British empire. We learn that the Roman Empire was built with cheap money, copper and bronze coinage, and fell under expensive money, gold coinage.

[... ]


Ultimately, monetary policy is about who controls the quantity of money. The most transparent method of giving the most control to most people is the use of public paper, with commodities left in the free market as a store of wealth. This gives the most oversight and transparency for the people. It provides them with transparent markets in savings and loans. It provides them the most freedom to choose commodities they want to use to store their wealth. Leaving currency strictly to the free market would make the supply unmanageable, the value of the currency volatile, and place the control of the economy in the hands of large private banks rather than the people who wish to use currency for trade. Adam Smith described the problems of free market currencies in the colonies in Wealth of Nations.

However, short of extensive and broad macroeconomics study, perspective, and understanding, one can realize the Ludwig von Mises Institute is a conspiracy.

'Many readers may be surprised to learn the extent to which the Graduate Institute and then Mises himself in the years immediately after he came to United States were kept afloat financially through generous grants from the Rockefeller Foundation. In fact, for the first years of Mises's life in the United States, before his appointment as a visiting professor in the Graduate School of Business Administration at New York University (NYU) in 1945, he was almost totally dependent on annual research grants from the Rockefeller Foundation.' - Richard M. Ebeling, The Life and Works of Ludwig von Mises

More information can be found direct from the source from Murray Rothbard's biography of Ludwig von Mises and an article published at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

The William Volker Fund and Rockefeller Foundation funded people like Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, and Murray Rothbard to promote a gold standard so that the bankers could manipulate the supply of currency and easily cause cycles of inflation and deflation to bankrupt the people. Ron Paul and Rand Paul receive donations from Bilderberger, Peter Thiel, and partnered with PNAC board member, Lewis Lehrman, to write a book, The Case for Gold, promoting the gold standard fraud using the same lie that gold is 'sound' and 'honest' money, which the bankers used over a 100 years ago when they first setup the gold standard during the Crime of 1873 by demonetizing silver and the Greenback."

Reply from The Daily Bell

"Mises, Marx, and Keynes is the false left/right paradigm of banker fascism. The Georgist school of political economy considers Mises, Marx, and Keynes to be the main schools of neo-classical economics.

----

You need to stop right there. Marx was a classical (static) economist. He DID NOT recognize either marginal utility or human action. And marginal utility is basically the DIVIDING LINE between classical and (modern) neo-classical economics.

Like Malthus before him, Marx created models of human behavior and expected that his models would unfold as predicted and that human beings would robotically conform to his expectations.

Mises, on the other hand, was a prime exponent of "Human Action" and even wrote a modern authoritative exposition on that concept that is among the most important modern works of its kind. Mises point was that economic modeling DOES NOT WORK.

Marx=models of society and confident predictions of their results
Mises=social and economic models are inevitably flawed because people change their behavior as necessary.

The two world views are diametrically opposed. If indeed, the Georgist School conflates Marx with Mises, that is merely a further indication of why most who understand and promote free-market economics have never taken the school seriously.

Given this "whopper" it is difficult for us to agree with your characterization of Keith Gardner's (whoever he is) article as "excellent."

"Unpayable interest is a problem even with commodity-based currencies."

Look, memehunter, this is the only comment I will make to you in this thread, for you are looking more and more like a troll.

Unpayable interest is not paid back. It leads to a default. Get that through your your thick skull and into you brain.

OK, have a good day. Bye.

"Most people in this world are apparently damaged in childhood and grow up wanting to control other people. Going into politics and writing laws is a good way to do this.

Austrian economics confronts these damaged people - who compensate for the lacunae in their own souls by attempting to control others - with the truth about their behavior. It is hard to tolerate exposure and powerbrokers often react petulantly to economic truths by attacking the messenger."

Love this. So true. I often wonder how people who know the truth, like Friedman and Greenspan, live with themselves after helping spread lies and disinformation.

Unfortunately in todays world, currency is created/printed by a cartel out of thin air, when actually in fairness currency should be created by and for the people. This cartel has printed trillions of paper money out of thin air. Whole countries are in debt because of this paper loaned out by the cartel. Countries could potentially also pay off this debt by printing the same paper currency and taking matters in their own hands so to speak. Countries could print public currency and start public banking. Obviously the cartel now wants a gold standard and real money. They want these trillions in debt to be paid back in gold. No paper for them. Understand the Keynesian vs Austrian hegelian dialectic in this framework and everything falls in place.

"If the Austrian economics is in fact supported by the PE, then I am happy for the hope it holds for humaity. It would be nice to think that some faction of the elite is on our side."

Ha, funny. Do you really believe that the power elites that supported Austrian economics were "on our side"? Don't you think that, maybe, they had their own reasons for endorsing Austrian economics?

"Interest in an honest money / free market environment is of no cause for concern. When you have been confronted with this, you reply that interest on funny money created from nothing is the issue - charging interest on air, if you will."

Wrong. Unpayable interest is a problem even with commodity-based currencies. The effects of interest are not dependent on the nature of the currency (paper versus gold, for instance).

"On this, we agree - but the problem at root is funny money, not interest."

The problem at root is the combination of the control of the money supply with compound interest. This is clearest with fiat money - or "funny money" as you call it, but would also likely be the case with gold given the fact that the most powerful banking families control a significant share of the gold reserves.

Regarding your comment about "honest money", I must add (again) that I make a distinction between physical gold as a store of value and banksters' scams involving "paper gold" such as a "private gold standard" or "gold-backed currency". I do not consider this to be truly "honest money".

I refer you to FOFOA, who has covered precisely this issue in the following article (see especially the table resuming his article at the end):

"The Return to Honest Money"
Click to view link

I note that some Austrians have been ardent promoters of a return to a gold standard.

"You seem incapable of comprehending this, and / or not mentioning this because it doesn't fit your religion."

I understand this very well, thank you, and am not intimidated by your "ad hominem" arguments.

Reply from The Daily Bell

"The problem at root is the combination of the control of the money supply with compound interest."

Again, your idea of creating "truth" is simply to state the same fallacies over and over.

You have NEVER addressed the issue (because you cannot) of the primacy of the act of money printing. Instead you maintain that "compound interest" is the problem.

This is simply untrue, as we've pointed out now on numerous occasions. One needs to have MONEY before one can charge interest. The problem of modern society is monopoly money printing. In a free-market environment the charging of interest would soon be rationalized as no business practice can long-succeed by denuding its customers. In fact, in normal money environment, there probably would be no need for most people to borrow formally from institutional lenders as money scarcity itself might subside.

The root problem is evidently and obviously one of monopoly fiat money printing. But you don't want to acknowledge that because then you have to acknowledge that GOVERNMENT is part of the problem, and the actuating force providing the mercantilist monopoly.