Austrian Economics still is ‘Jewish’ Economics

1. 
   Kenneth Hulsberg permalink

   I’m not sure about it being all Jewish economics, but you’re correct on the issue of government borrowing debt at interest. I thought I’d share my perspective too, which may be of interest, or not.

   The “Keynes-Austrian Dialectic” as you called, is no a myth. You can trace these economic theories to a group known as the Mont Pelerin Society. A little digging there and one can see how these seemingly opposing sides come together for lunch. To eat mutton, of course.

   In tracing the origin of the Austrian School one can begin with a figure named Carl Menger. This character was the personal tutor of Rudolph Von Habsburg of the fascist Austrian Empire.

   See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Menger
   See: http://american_almanac.tripod.com/vonhayek.htm

   I’m not familiar with Krugman, but I do know Tarpley advocates returning to the Hamiltonian Credit System. This does mean a complete change in the current monetary system, but does not mean private entities making loans are barred from charging interest and fees. Private banks have a risk involved, as well as the need to make profit like everyone else.

   The root of our trouble stems from our national government borrowing at interest from an international monetary system, which making our nation servant to the lender, renders our central government subject, not sovereign. This international system of financial control, lords over other nations by the same means, thus forming an empire. This is the root of our problem.

   Some would question the above statement, but allow me to further qualify how this is so. Article 1, Section 8, of the Federal Constitution, gives Congress the authority to “coin Money, and regulate the Value thereof.” Does the Congress regulate our currency today? The credit of the United States is subject to private credit rating agencies. In other words, rather than Congress regulating the Value of our currency, the “free-market” does. Thus, the Federal Government is not, and has not been for a long time now, sovereign.

   Those of the Austrian School of thought focus primarily on the perceived value of currency, and thus see deflationary measures as increasing the value of each dollar unit. This is not any different in thinking from those running the current monetary system. Although, the ruling economic thought has been inflationary. The core issue here is monetarism itself, that is a belief in money as holding real value.

   The traditional American School of thought represented by figures such as, Alexander Hamilton, Henry C. Carey, Henry Clay, Lincoln, FDR, and many others, does not focus on the believed value of currency. Instead, the focus is turned towards things such as infrastructure, education, scientific discovery and development, protection, etc. The American Way also pays close attention to the fact that all material wealth is a by-product of the human-mind, thus increasing the powers of the human-mind leads towards an increase in material wealth.

   As expressed by Carey:
   “Two systems are before the world;… One looks to increasing the necessity of commerce; the other to increasing the power to maintain it. One looks to underworking the Hindoo, and sinking the rest of the world to his level; the other to raising the standard of man throughout the world to our level. One looks to pauperism, ignorance, depopulation, and barbarism; the other to increasing wealth, comfort, intelligence, combination of action, and civilization. One looks towards universal war; the other towards universal peace. One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating while equalizing the condition of man throughout the world.”

   See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_%28economics%29

   Gold is not an option for solving our currency issues, because the government would have to borrow the gold at interest. This simply keeps us locked in the jaws of the Empire.

   So, we do need a debt-free and interest-free system. In fact, we have it now just waiting to be put into practice. It’s called the American System, and it’s NOT Austrian.

   Now, I’m not suggesting everything Austrian School is evil. I’m merely trying to show it’s not American, and has at its kernel sympathies for monetarism, and a fascist form of imperialism, or global governance.

   I’m happy to see you’ve pointed out RP’s austerity proposals. These kinds of policies are driven by his Austrian School beliefs in the value of money. RP is a monetarist, and that’s the major issue with RP.

   RP believes you must let the patient die in order to save him from the disease.

   Hopefully, this comment makes some sense, and I didn’t overly generalize. I suppose if you can understand my perspective then it’s okay.

   Reply
   • 
     marxbites permalink

     “Now, I’m not suggesting everything Austrian School is evil. I’m merely trying to show it’s not American, and has at its kernel sympathies for monetarism, and a fascist form of imperialism, or global governance.

     I’m happy to see you’ve pointed out RP’s austerity proposals. These kinds of policies are driven by his Austrian School beliefs in the value of money. RP is a monetarist, and that’s the major issue with RP.

     RP believes you must let the patient die in order to save him from the disease.

     Hopefully, this comment makes some sense, and I didn’t overly generalize. I suppose if you can understand my perspective then it’s okay.”

     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

     RP’s “austerity” measures?? Bwaahahahaaaaaa!!!!

     You mean like ending the monopoly cartels of the FED and figleaf industry staffed Depts of Ag, Energy, Education, of mass elite subsidies, etc.?

     Or bringing ALL our troops home and closing all bases in foreign countries throughout the world, so as to maintain the Socialist inSecurity & HC (big Pharma) promises made (which were never intended to be kept by TPTB they could plunder us from behind) until prosperity returns and can be humanitarily phased out by allowing youth to opt out of the now sub 2% return on “contributions” lost if one dies before retiring, such as blacks who bear the worst burden re intergenerational wealth accumulation, unless complicit puppets like Barack or Colon Powell?

     Also the quantity of gold (or other PMs Ag, Platinum etc) is a complete ruse. If the FED/ESF hadn’t been suppressing Au & Ag since 1934, the metals today would clearly reveal to all just how shylock has stolen 96/100 cents on the dollar for themselves and likely would have caused global citizen action way before now in dissent against Int’l shylock, when it may now be already too late to shrog off the burgeoning and quickening police state klepto-thugocracies.

     America had its best decade of growth on gold in the 1880’s. With innovations in mass production lowering the costs of living and raising the boats of even the poorest most in marginal terms, which inflation today hurts the very most of all.

     Austrians are NOT Friedmanesque monetarists and have NEVER been so, EVER. The very term implies central planning the Austrians abhor and fiat enables.

     Voluntary monies are the answer. And No statist “experts” need apply.

     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

     Economic Freedom and Interventionism
     ——————————————————————————–
     Ludwig von Mises

     Reprinted from The Freeman, July 13, 1953.

     17
     Gold versus Paper

     Most people take it for granted that the world will never return to the gold standard. The gold standard, they say, is as obsolete as the horse and buggy. The system of government-issued fiat money provides the treasury with the funds required for an open-handed spending policy that benefits everybody; it forces prices and wages up and the rate of interest down and thereby creates prosperity. It is a system that is here to stay.

     Now whatever virtues one may ascribe?undeservedly?to the modern variety of the greenback standard, there is one thing that it certainly cannot achieve. It can never become a permanent, lasting system of monetary management. It can work only as long as people are not aware of the fact that the government plans to keep it.

     The Alleged Blessings of Inflation

     The alleged advantages that the champions of fiat money expect from the operation of the system they advocate are temporary only. An injection of a definite quantity of new money into the nation’s economy starts a boom as it enhances prices. But once this new money has exhausted all its price-raising potentialities and all prices and wages are adjusted to the increased quantity of money in circulation, the stimulation it provided to business ceases. Thus even if we neglect dealing with the undesired and undesirable consequences and social costs of such inflationary measures and, for the sake of argument, even if we accept all that the harbingers of “expansionism” advance in favor of inflation, we must realize that the alleged blessings of these policies are short-lived. If one wants to perpetuate them, it is necessary to go on and on increasing the quantity of money in circulation and expanding credit at an ever-accelerated pace. But even then the ideal of the expansionists and inflationists, viz., an everlasting boom not upset by any reverse, could not materialize.

     A fiat-money inflation can be carried on only as long as the masses do not become aware of the fact that the government is committed to such a policy. Once the common man finds out that the quantity of circulating money will be increased more and more, and that consequently its purchasing power will continually drop and prices will rise to ever higher peaks, he begins to realize that the money in his pocket is melting away. Then he adopts the conduct previously practiced only by those smeared as profiteers; he “flees into real values.” He buys commodities, not for the sake of enjoying them, but in order to avoid the losses involved in holding cash. The knell of the inflated monetary system sounds. We have only to recall the many historical precedents beginning with the Continental Currency of the War of Independence.

     Why Perpetual Inflation Is Impossible

     The fiat-money system, as it operates today in this country and in some others, could avoid disaster only because a keen critique on the part of a few economists alerted public opinion and forced upon the government cautious restraint in their inflationary ventures. If it had not been for the opposition of these authors, usually labeled orthodox and reactionary, the dollar would long since have gone the way of the German mark of 1923. The catastrophe of the Reich’s currency was brought about precisely because no such opposition was vocal in Weimar Germany.

     Champions of the continuation of the easy money scheme are mistaken when they think that the policies they advocate could prevent altogether the adversities they complain about. It is certainly possible to go on for a while in the expansionist routine of deficit spending by borrowing from the commercial banks and supporting the government bond market. But after some time it will be imperative to stop. Otherwise the public will become alarmed about the future of the dollar’s purchasing power and a panic will follow. As soon as one stops, however, all the unwelcome consequences of the aftermath of inflation will be experienced. The longer the preceding period of expansion has lasted, the more unpleasant those consequences will be.

     The attitude of a great many people with regard to inflation is ambivalent. They are aware, on the one hand, of the dangers inherent in a continuation of the policy of pumping more and more money into the economic system. But as soon as anything substantial is done to stop increasing the amount of money, they begin to cry out about high interest rates and bearish conditions on the stock and commodity exchanges. They are loath to relinquish the cherished illusion which ascribes to government and central banks the magic power to make people happy by endless spending and inflation.

     Full Employment and the Gold Standard

     The main argument advanced today against the return to the gold standard is crystallized in the slogan ” full-employment policy.” It is said that the gold standard paralyzes efforts to make unemployment disappear.

     On a free labor market the tendency prevails to fix wage rates for every kind of work at such a height that all employers ready to pay these wages find all the employees they want to hire, and all job-seekers ready to work for these wages find employment. But if compulsion or coercion on the part of the government or the labor unions is used to keep wage rates above the height of these market rates, unemployment of a part of the potential labor force inevitably results.

     Neither governments nor labor unions have the power to raise wage rates for all those eager to find jobs. All they can achieve is to raise wage rates for the workers employed, while an increasing number of people who would like to work cannot get employment. A rise in the market wage rate?i.e., the rate at which all job-seekers finally find employment?can be brought about only by raising the marginal productivity of labor. Practically, this means by raising the per-capita quota of capital invested. Wage rates and standards of living are much higher today than they were in the past because under capitalism the increase in capital invested by far exceeds the increase in population. Wage rates in the United States are many times higher than in India because the American percapita quota of capital invested is many times higher than the Indian per-capita quota of capital invested.

     There is only one method for a successful “full-employment policy”?let the market determine the height of wage rates. The method that Lord Keynes has baptized “full-employment policy” also aimed at re-establishment of the rate which the free labor market tends to fix. The peculiarity of Keynes’ proposal consisted in the fact that it proposed to eradicate the discrepancy between the decreed and enforced official wage rate and the potential rate of the free labor market by lowering the purchasing power of the monetary unit. It aimed at holding nominal wage rates, i.e., wage rates expressed in terms of the national fiat money, at the height fixed by the government’s decree or by labor union pressure. But as the quantity of money in circulation was increased and consequently a trend toward a drop in the monetary unit’s purchasing power developed, real wage rates, i.e., wage rates expressed in terms of commodities, would fall. Full employment would be reached when the difference between the official rate and the market rate of real wages disappeared.

     There is no need to examine anew the question whether the Keynesian scheme could really work. Even if, for the sake of argument, we were to admit this, there would be no reason to adopt it. Its final effect upon the conditions of the labor market would not differ from that achieved by the operation of the market factors when left alone. But it attains this end only at the cost of a very serious disturbance in the whole price structure and thereby the entire economic system. The Keynesians refuse to call “inflation” any increase in the quantity of money in circulation that is designed to fight unemployment. But this is merely playing with words. For they themselves emphasize that the success of their plan depends on the emergence of a general rise in commodity prices.

     It is, therefore, a fable that the Keynesian full-employment recipe could achieve anything for the benefit of the wage earners that could not be achieved under the gold standard. The full-employment argument is as illusory as all the other arguments advanced in favor of increasing the quantity of money in circulation.

     The Specter of an Unfavorable International Balance

     A popular doctrine maintains that the gold standard cannot be preserved by a country with what is called an “unfavorable balance of payments.” It is obvious that this argument is of no use to the American opponents of the gold standard. The United States [1953] has a very considerable surplus of exports over imports. This is neither an act of God nor an effect of wicked isolationism. It is the consequence of the fact that this country, under various titles and pretexts, gives financial aid to many foreign nations. These grants alone enable the foreign recipients to buy more in this country than they are selling in its markets. In the absence of such subsidies it would be impossible for any country to buy anything abroad that it could not pay for, either by exporting commodities or by rendering some other service such as carrying foreign goods in its ships or entertaining foreign tourists. No artifices of monetary policy, however sophisticated and however ruthlessly enforced by the police, can in any way alter this fact.

     It is not true that the so-called have-not countries have derived any advantage from their abandonment of the gold standard. The virtual repudiation of their foreign debts, and the virtual expropriation of foreign investments that it involved, brought them no more than a momentary respite. The main and lasting effect of abandoning the gold standard, the disintegration of the international capital market, hit these debtor countries much harder than it hit the creditor countries. The falling off of foreign investments is one of the main causes of the calamities they are suffering today.

     The gold standard did not collapse. Governments, anxious to spend, even if this meant spending their countries into bankruptcy, intentionally aimed at destroying it. They are committed to an anti-gold policy, but they have lamentably failed in their endeavors to discredit gold. Although officially banned, gold in the eyes of the people is still money, even the only genuine money. The more prestige the legal-tender notes produced by the various government printing offices enjoy, the more stable their exchange ratio is against gold. But people do not hoard paper; they hoard gold. The citizens of this country, of course, are not free to hold, to buy, or to sell gold.[1] If they were allowed to do so, they certainly would.

     No international agreements, no diplomats, and no supernational bureaucracies are needed in order to restore sound monetary conditions. If a country adopts a non-inflationary policy and clings to it, then the condition required for the return to gold is already present. The return to gold does not depend on the fulfillment of some material condition. It is an ideological problem. It presupposes only one thing: the abandonment of the illusion that increasing the quantity of money creates prosperity.

     The excellence of the gold standard is to be seen in the fact that it makes the monetary unit’s purchasing power independent of the arbitrary and vacillating policies of governments, political parties, and pressure groups. Historical experience, especially in the last decades, has clearly shown the evils inherent in a national currency system that lacks this independence.

     ————-

     [1] This right to own gold was restored to U.S. citizens as of January 1, 1975.

     Table of Contents

     http://mises.org/efandi.asp

     Reply
   • 
     marxbites permalink

     wiki is not the best source for ANYTHING other than general info, they always delete whatever attempts to correct that doesn’t serve their purpose.

     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

     Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution — and What It Means for America Today

     Thomas J. DiLorenzo

     After you read the dedication of Hamilton’s Curse, you know that the book is going to be good: “Dedicated to the memory of Professor Murray N. Rothbard, a brilliant scholar and tireless defender of the free society.” DiLorenzo proves to be an outstanding practitioner of a Rothbardian brand of history, a fact that should come as no surprise to readers of his earlier books, The Real Lincoln, Lincoln Unmasked, and How Capitalism Saved America.[1]

     DiLorenzo’s title, 18th century in its expansiveness, succinctly sums up his main theme. Thomas Jefferson supported the American Revolution in order to promote individual liberty. To secure this end, it was essential that the central government be strictly limited in its powers. America, in the Jeffersonian view, was an alliance of sovereign states, and the adoption of the Constitution, though it increased the power of the national government, did not fundamentally change this arrangement.

     Alexander Hamilton disagreed. He bemoaned the limited powers given to the central government under the Articles of Confederation and continually agitated for a new scheme of authority. At the Constitutional Convention, it became clear how radical were his plans. He favored a permanent president and senate and wanted the federal government to have the power to appoint state governors.

     What was behind this radical plan of centralization, fortunately rejected by the majority of the convention? DiLorenzo follows up the brilliant suggestion of Cecilia Kenyon that Hamilton was the “Rousseau of the Right.” Rousseau thought that society should be guided by the “general will,” but what exactly that concept entailed has perplexed later commentators. It cannot be equated with what the majority of a certain society wishes: it is only when the people’s decisions properly reflect the common good, untrammeled by faction, that the general will operates. But if the general will need not result from straightforward voting, how is it to be determined? One answer, for which there is some textual support in Rousseau, is that a wise legislator will guide the people toward what they really want. Those who dissent will “be forced to be free.”

     This was precisely Hamilton’s view. Government, directed by the wise such as himself, would guide the people toward what was good for them. Clinton Rossiter, a Cornell political scientist,

     catalogued how some version of “the general will” appears hundreds of times in Hamilton’s speeches, letters, and writings… Hamilton more pointedly than any other political thinker of his time, introduced the concept of the “public good” into American thought. (p. 23, quoting Rossiter)[2]

     Hamilton did not secure what he wanted at the Convention, and in his contributions to the Federalist Papers, he sometimes for purposes of propaganda defended the limited government that he really rejected. But with the onset of the new government in 1789, he by no means abandoned his goal of centralized power. He had been, during the American Revolution, George Washington’s military aide; and the new president appointed him secretary of the Treasury. In that capacity, he bombarded Washington with advice on interpreting the Constitution.

     The powers of the central government in his view were not confined to those expressly delegated to it — far from it. The national government had also various powers “implied” by its express grants, though the logic of these implications escaped those not enamored of big government. “‘Implied powers’ are powers that are not actually in the Constitution but that statists like Hamilton wish were there” (p. 26). The government also had “resulting” powers: these were not even present in the Constitution by implication but “resulted” from new situations. If, e.g., the government conquered new territory, it acquired sovereign power over it. “‘This would be rather the result from the whole mass of the government … than a consequence of … powers specially enumerated'” (p. 28, quoting Hamilton).

     As if this were not enough, Hamilton did not scruple to interpret the words of the Constitution against their plain sense. Congress was granted the power to pass laws “necessary and proper” for its enumerated powers. To Hamilton, “necessary” meant “convenient”; what was the small matter of the dictionary to stand in the way of the public interest?

     In other words, such powers should be made up, even fabricated, on the whims of politicians posing as guardians of the “public good.” He [Hamilton] went on to say that any act of government is to be permitted if it is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution, something he forgot to mention in The Federalist Papers. (p. 61)

     Thus, in his report to Washington on the constitutionality of a national bank, Hamilton held that, since Congress had the power to coin money, and in his opinion a national bank would be helpful for a monetary system, the bank passed the constitutional test. Jefferson disagreed. Regardless of whether Hamilton was right about the desirability of a bank — and Jefferson of course rejected Hamilton’s view of the matter — a bank was not “necessary” and hence had no constitutional warrant.

     As his opinion on the bank suggests, much of Hamilton’s centralizing plans aimed at economic goals. Once more in contrast to Jefferson, he believed that the government should guide the economy. He returned to the mercantilist system famously condemned by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations. (Murray Rothbard has noted that Smith failed completely to repudiate mercantilism; nevertheless, he strongly criticized the main planks of that system.)

     For Hamilton, economics and politics were inextricably mixed. Here DiLorenzo follows Douglass Adair, perhaps the foremost 20th-century student of the Federalist Papers. By tying members of the business elite of the states to the new central government, in large part through their involvement in government debt, the power of the national government would be secured.

     “With devious brilliance, Hamilton set out, by a program of class legislation, to unite the propertied interests of the eastern seaboard into a cohesive administration party, while at the same time he attempted to make the executive dominant over the Congress by a lavish use of the spoils system.” (pp. 45–46, quoting Adair)

     We have already alluded to two of the components of Hamilton’s economic system, a public debt and a national bank. Protective tariffs in his view were also vital. By tariffs, as well as “bounties,” the industrial power of the nation could be built up. But why does the growth of industry require the government’s help? In Hamilton’s famous argument, “infant industries” needed time to establish themselves before they were fit to face the rigors of international competition. DiLorenzo responds that in practice, the infants never reach maturity. The subsidies remain in perpetuity.

     Unfortunately, Hamilton was not an aberration. He had many influential followers and successors; and DiLorenzo finds that efforts to centralize economic and political power run through our history, like the proverbial red thread in the ropes of the British navy. One of the foremost of DiLorenzo’s long list of villains is John Marshall, the third chief justice and, incidentally, Jefferson’s cousin. Marshall was avid to interpret the Constitution in accord with Hamilton’s passion for national power. In McCulloch v. Maryland, (1819) he upheld the constitutionality of the first Bank of the United States, agreeing with Hamilton on the lax interpretation of “necessary and proper.”

     As the legal scholar Edwin S. Corwin pointed out, it is “well known” that for his written opinion in this case, Marshall depended on Alexander Hamilton’s earlier argument about the constitutionality of the BUS [Bank of the United States], which he had written on February 23, 1791. (p. 87)

     In Fletcher v Peck (1810), Marshall set aside state legislation as a violation of a valid contract, even though the “contract” in question was fraudulent. He did so in order to enhance federal supremacy.[3]

     Readers of our author’s earlier books will not be surprised to find Henry Clay on the list of miscreants. All the basic elements of Clay’s famous American System came from Hamilton: high tariffs, government promotion of industry, and investment in “internal improvements” such as canals and turnpikes. “Henry Clay, leader of the Whig Party … would adopt Hamilton’s agenda as his own under the rubric of ‘The American System,’ a slogan that Hamilton himself coined” (p. 116). DiLorenzo points out that these programs exacerbated regional strife, since they advanced the interests of the more industrialized Northern states at the expense of the South.

     Of course Clay had a follower of his own — Abraham Lincoln, who viewed himself as Clay’s disciple. He too favored high tariffs, and his insistence on collecting the “duties and imposts,” as he put it in his First Inaugural, made inevitable the War Between the States. Once the war began, Lincoln proceeded to enact as much of the American System as he could, e.g., massive subsidies to railroads and continued high tariffs. To pay for the war and his nationalist economic program, a federal income tax was imposed in 1862.

     DiLorenzo carries forward his theme to the “Hamiltonian Revolution of 1913.” In that year, the 16th Amendment, making a federal income tax was ratified; and the Federal Reserve System was established. The details of these efforts at monetary nationalism will be familiar to many readers of The Mises Review. What many will find surprising, though, is the importance of other great constitutional change of that fateful year, the 17th Amendment. This called for the direct election of senators. At first, one might wonder what this has to do with the Hamiltonian program. Was this not simply an effort to make politicians more directly responsible to the people?

     DiLorenzo shows the fallacy of this common opinion. Under the old system, senators acted as virtual ambassadors of the states. Sometimes, the state legislature instructed senators how to vote; and if the senators did not feel able to obey these instructions, they resigned. This was an important check on federal power, which the new system ended.

     Our author, nothing if not consistent, sees the 20th-century usurpations of power, both in domestic and foreign affairs, by the federal government as Hamiltonian in character. America’s entry into World War I, e.g., came about through Woodrow Wilson’s desire to have America play a dominant role in shaping the world. Limited government and states’ rights, in the style of Thomas Jefferson, was not to his liking. His insistence on a powerful nation, led of course by a strong chief executive, was quintessentially Hamiltonian. In this stress on Hamilton’s continuing influence, he has support from some who view matters with decidedly different value judgments. Michael Lind, an ardent economic nationalist, sees Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson as followers of Hamilton. To DiLorenzo, but decidedly not to Lind, we suffer from the “poisoned fruits” of Hamilton’s program.

     Hamilton’s Curse fits in very well with DiLorenzo’s earlier books. He here identifies the inception of a basic and malign influence, economic nationalism, on American history. In his two books on Lincoln, he describes the main 19th-century exponent of that policy; and in How Capitalism Saved America, he discusses the system of economic freedom that economic nationalism endeavors to restrict and replace.

     Notes
     [1] See my reviews of these books in The Mises Review, in the order of the books given, for the issues of Summer 2002, Summer 2007, and Fall 2004, respectively.

     [2] Adopting Rousseau’s view need not result in opposition to states’ rights. Someone might think that small states, rather than large nations, give the best chance for the general will to be discerned properly.

     [3] The author, following Judge Andrew Napolitano, takes a very expansive view of Marshall’s claims in Marbury v. Madison (1803). I am inclined to think that Marshall did not here argue for judicial supremacy over the other branches of government.

     Reply
   • 
     marxbites permalink

     BTW;

     Robert Rubin runs the newish “Hamiltonian Project”.

     Look it up, a veritable Rogues Gallery.

     These are STATISTS of the VERY worst kind.

     Greenslime, Rubin & Summers are the three bastards who torpedoed CFTC Chair Brooksley Born’s attempt to blow the derivatives whistle during the WJC puppet regime – if ONLY she had been able to, the world may not be in its present mess, or at at least this not this severely.

     Like Romney, or Obama, WJC was just another Rockefeller via GHWB bitch.

     Reply
2. 
   Anthony Migchels permalink

   Interesting, thanks. Particularly the backgrounds on the Austrian-Keynes dialectic.

   About the Jewish connection:
   In the sixties and seventies in international circles people spoke of the ‘Dutch Maffia’: the dutch were overrepresented in high positions internationally.
   I choose not to take offense from that observation.
   I’m also quite confident you won’t feel insulted if I denounce America invading the Middle East.

   Every nation has it’s shadows to come to terms with. It seems the Jewish nation is not an exception.

   Reply
3. 
   Kenneth Hulsberg permalink

   I didn’t take offense to any of it, but I do think the terms ‘Satanic economics’ work well. Yes, I absolutely oppose the U.S invasion of the Middle East, or any where else, on behalf of this oligarchy, and their dream of becoming our gods.

   Thanks for your work, keep it up! 🙂

   Reply
4. 
   a_reader permalink

   Is Ron Paul actually serving the elite?
   http://essential-intelligence-network.blogspot.com/2011/12/is-ron-paul-actually-serving-elite.html

   Reply
   • 
     marxbites permalink

     PURE BS!

     Austrians have NEVER been seen as friends by banksters and RP wants to blow their evil charades WIDE OPEN with audits and indictments.

     Reply
5. 
   Wolfgang permalink

   Anthony,

   when you write “people like Obama and Paul will continue to fool us with their Voodoo- and ‘Jewish’ Economics.”, it appears that you associate Obama with Voodoo economics in the way you phrased the sentence. I do not agree with that statement, as supply-side economics, as it was marketed by Republicans (starting with Reagan) was called Voodoo economics (reportedly by H.W.Bush, yet another Republican). However, some key-elements of Voodoo economics include deregulating the market, reducing capital gains tax and reduction of taxation for the upper tax bracket (promoted largely by Reagan’s economic adviser Robert Mundell). So really I would not associate Voodoo economics with a Democrat like Obama.

   Reply
   • 
     Anthony Migchels permalink

     I understand. I realize Voodoo economics was used in a certain historical context.

     But I like it, it’s an apt description of the current ‘science’ and ‘methodology’ that has been built up to facilitate such a massive heist.

     Reply
   • 
     marxbites permalink

     W;

     GHWB’s “voodoo” comment was so they could go Nixon Keynesian again with abandon. As they did.

     Remember, RWR, possibly unwitting, and puppet he surely was either way, initiated the Gold Commission, but was totally shelved like the Grace Commission findings. Once “brought back in line” they (Cap, Baker, Schultz) went after Marcos hidden Japanese gold hoardes AFTER his Bush pal Hinckleying.

     See the reviews of the Seagrave’s “Gold Warriors” at Amazon, and their interviews at spitfire.com search for Seagraves Gold Warriors, there are two.

     The see Eric DeCarbeonnell’s shocking expose’ (Vanderlips grandson) on you tube, a search for cia esf will bring to the top.

     The PMs have been manipulated by shylock central banksters since 1934 in earnest.

     Reply
6. 
   Coral Snake permalink

   I think the three of you (the debt free Demmurage / Inflation) crowd, the Gold Standard / Libertarian / Austrian Economics crowd and the Fed Debt / Usury / Inflation crowd)

   Money historically has to have TWO functions to get people to accept it as such.

   1. A medium of exghange.
   2. A store of VALUE!!!!

   Without the BOTH of these functions (medium of excgange AND store of VALUE) the majority of the people will eventually lose confidence in the money leading to a hyperinflationary crash of it (pre Hitler Germany and Zimbabwe are examples here) or a crash where they no longer accept the national currency as money even with “legal tender laws” demanding it (The Confederate States of America in the last two years of the Civil War, the French Assignat money, and the Republic of Texas money from when Texas was an independent republic are examples of this).

   What I see with the gold people like Ron Paul and Judge Nepalitano is impossibility. While gold is both a good medium of exchange and a great store of value there is simply not ENOUGH of it to carry on cash economy with the world population at the levels it is today even if the banks did not control it.

   What is wrong with the other two ideas (Fed Debt Currency and debt free infinitely inflatable currency or debt free demmuraged currency) is the seeming hatred for the store of VALUE function of money which is as equally important as the medium of exchange function in mantaining a healthy currency that people keep confidence in on the part of the advocates of both systems.

   What is really needed is a fiat money based two currency system like we had in the 19th century. (yes we did have a fiat money system in the 19th century despite all the propaganda about the gold standard being king then.) The first fiat currency under this proposed system would be FIXED in the amount that could be printed and put into circulation. (Abraham Lincoln did this with his fixed amount debt free United States notes) The circulation limit on this currency would mantain its store of value function. The Second currency would be a flexable one designed to be issued in a DE CENTRALIZED manner, (Lincoln did this through the National Banking Act but since we would not want private banks being able to charge interest on ANY national currency I would propose local Social Credit boards staffed by local volunteers be the issuer of this currency much like private local currencies such as Ithica Hours and Birk Shares are being issued.) I would call the first fixed currency by the name of the original Fixed fiat currency UNITED STATES NOTES but would give them a different denomination unit (Perhapse EAGLE for the original EAGLE gold coins it is designed to substitute for). The flexable decentralized issue currency would keep the name DOLLAR and it would be called National Currency like the old National Bank Notes of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were. While this second currency would be flexible and theoretically infinitely printable I believe that the existance of the Fixed EAGLE currency (The EAGLE would be fixed at a very large ammount equally to the ammount of actual tangible Federal Reserve Notes currently in circulation BUT NO MORE so that everybody holding national currency Dollars could buy into it easily which cannot happen with gold and silver) which it could be traded for at the first signs of catastrophic inflation would lead to discipline in in its issuance and reasonable mantainance of its store of value function.

   Reply
   • 
     Anthony Migchels permalink

     Hi Coral,

     Yes, that’s an important distinction: means of exchange and store of value.

     The first is much more important.

     Your approach is sensible in many ways! Thanks for the input!

     Reply
   • 
     marxbites permalink

     Gold or silver or blends with Cu are absolutely 100% achievable.

     The quantity of “gold” problem is a complete ruse.

     Divide the worlds total “gold” by the fraudulent fiat issued (or digitized) and we have the fiat’ value expressed in weight and fineness of any number of metals incl platinum/paladium etc.

     Voluntary is the total key to repudiating shylock, who’s illegal debts they can cram up their evil arses. Try them, jail them and recoup humanity’s stolen PMs.

     What is of paramount optimism to me, is that we ALL agree just who it is who’s hands are the the perpetually bloodiest ones.

     Fiat is the father of all wars.

     Reply
     • 
       Anthony Migchels permalink

       The quantity of “gold” problem is a complete ruse.

       No it’s not. P + I > P

       Because we can’t print more gold, the money supply MUST be deflationary with gold to finance ever mounting interest costs.

       Just one of those nice little things of interest-free economics.

       Furthermore, because the economy grows, while the gold supply does not, a growing amount of trade must be financed with the same amount of gold.

       This is deflation, including handicapped economic growth.

       this, people like Ed Griffin etc have been told so many times the only explanation that they keep ignoring it is that they are liars.

       Reply
       • 
         marxbites permalink

         And just WHERE was ANY interest on REAL money created from mining in either the Jacksonian or late 1800’s gold standard?

         Interest was ONLY during the 1st and 2nd BanksUS, and then the FED’s fiats from thin air fractional reserves by the blood money loan mongerers, NOT when we didn’t HAVE fiat.

         It never existed!!!

         On gold the ONLY interest was on borrowings, and NEVER the money itself which IS NOW debt PLUS interest on money from nothing fiat.

         Reply
         • 
           Anthony Migchels permalink

           you miss the point marxbites. The minute gold is dug up it is of course debt free. When you buy it and it is in your pocked, it is also debt free.

           But when we get a gold based banking system, by far the most of the gold will circulate as goldbased credit.

           And you know what?
           It matters not whether it is a fractional reserve banking or full reserve banking system.
         • 
           marxbites permalink

           Good-ay Anthony,

           Do you really think the people will trust partially backed paper after the pending global fall and/or vast depreciations of world fiats?

           Did you know only about 20% of we dumb Americans actually tendered their gold to shylock’s bitch FDR?

           One can deposit ones gold and then have a debit card with which to use as we use debit cards today and NO interest is involved.

           Asia already uses this for gold AND silver.

           What could be MORE moral & honest than that?

           And this way even with $50K+/Oz. gold , where it Would be once the banksters stop their naked shorting and market queering of the PMs, the “coinage” issue disappears and so does the massive depreciation of the fiats a move to a global SDR paper “Bancor” will guarantee, whilst satan remains in charge.
         • 
           Anthony Migchels permalink

           marxbites, the key sentence is: One can deposit ones gold and then have a debit card with which to use as we use debit cards today and NO interest is involved.

           the key words are: One can deposit ones gold

           The key point is:

           99% of gold is in the hands of teh bankers.

           99% of the people don’t have gold.

           Get your brain out of your ass and start thinking in terms of what works for the vast majority instead of yourself (you think) because you have a few ounces of your own whcih you hope will soon be trading at $40k dollars.
         • 
           marxbites permalink

           As I have maintained all along, it will take the FED getting audited, criminals tried and our gold returned.

           Nothing ELSE is real money which organically was ALWAYS some form of commodity.
         • 
           Anthony Migchels permalink

           how does that react in any way to what I said?
         • 
           marxbites permalink

           You must READ.

           I said we get all our gold BACK from those criminals.
7. 
   Wolfgang permalink

   Anthony,
   while you spend a lot of time exposing the evils of Austrian Economics (and I agree with you on may points) I am interested on your view of Keynesian Economics. I remember you mentioned that a couple of times but I didn’t see it receive too much attention by you.

   Just curious, as I was recently labeled a Keynesian :)) for writing this:
   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=67677.msg788531#msg788531

   Cheers,
   Wolfgang

   Reply
   • 
     Anthony Migchels permalink

     Hi Wolfgang,

     in the ‘faux economics’ page under the Austrian Economics section I have a little on Keynesianism.

     I don’t waste too much time on it, as it is basically mainstream economics. It ignores interest on the money supply, as does austrianism.

     But it promotes inflation as a way to combat depression, in that respect it is superior to Austrianism. Except that at this point the level of debt service in the whole system is so high it can’t take anymore, so spending more won’t help.

     Reply
8. 
   overwatch404 permalink

   It is quite obvious to me that Mr Migchels (or the rest of the “monopoly money” crowd) has never read the works of Rothbard or he wouldn’t forever be charging him with advocating for a gold *standard*. A gold *standard* implies governmental price fixing of commodity/currency values, which was specifically argued against. Rothbard did state that gold and silver *would most likely* be chosen by a free market as currency, but that it would be for the market to decide. Not government fiat.

   Turning now to the question of monopoly money and fiat (“by decree”). I see flippant mentions of all the wonderful occasions in history where debt free monopoly money was printed and life was peaches and cream for all those involved, until the evil Money Masters came in and shut it down. While the money masters did indeed dislike someone else honing in on their game, it had nothing to do with debt free monopoly money being superior. I encourage anyone interested in using monopoly money as a foundation of exchange to look into the rampantly inflationary history of Greenbacks, Colonial Scrip, etc., and how it is inevitably used to allow government to steal real wealth and labor from it’s subjects in exchange for nothing, as the pieces of paper rapidly turn worthless, and are only accepted at gunpoint.

   Yes, (government) fiat is stealing. Whether it’s a gold standard, or a monopoly money standard. Whether there is interest to be paid on the issuance or not. Who benefits most from the theft merely shifts. The individual, the common man, is always on the losing end.

   Migchels and the other social credit pushers are merely another side of the dialect intent on subjugation and theft, either intentionally or unintentionally (I assume intentionally, as they constantly misrepresent positions of the opposition). Fiat is fiat, paper is paper. Wanting the labor of those around you for free is theft, no matter how you slice it. This is the reality of “social credit”, just like all the other forms of fiat currency. It is violence and it is theft. This is what social credit pushers will never mention, and for obvious reasons.

   Reply
   • 
     Anthony Migchels permalink

     You seem to ignore the basic issue, as discussed in this article: interest on the money supply.

     The inflation scare is just a hoax. If you fear debasement, don’t hoard the means the exchange.

     Interest is the real issue: we pay 300k interest on 200k mortgage over 30 years and 45% of prices we pay are related to cost for capital. The problem is that interest is being payed by those who don’t have money to those that do. Check the articles in ‘Interest Free Economics’ if you are interested. Or you can check my discussions with Gary North and the Daily Bell. where the interest issues was discussed extensively, as was the nonsense of Gold in the free currency market.

     By the way: I propose not just Social Credit, but also a free currency market, where I expect interest free Mutual credit based units to prevail, most certainly not Gold.

     The ‘fiat money is bad ‘ is just the silly clincher that Austrianism is famous for. The cost of money (or better: credit) is the crucial issue.

     Reply
     • 
       overwatch404 permalink

       Ok, we potentially have a platform for meaningful, rational discourse. I thank you for publishing, unedited, my rather harsh intial comment. This shows a willingness for honest discussion. I will quickly run through the points addressed and where we have similar interests and where we have differences:

       1. The Austrian position: It is varied. While some writers and supporters under the “Austrian” banner may support a gold *standard*, Rothbard himself does not. Since you did not address this, I will accept this as a concession as to either not having read his books, or correction. Strawmen are a very important arguing tactic to avoid for honest discussion. A secondary tack-on to this would be the “guilt by association” argument. Although Mises, Rothbard, and others were directly or indirectly funded or in contact by Rockefeller or Rothschild institutions, their marginalization and/or ousting shows they were not “toe-ing the line”. Particularly Rothbard. For instance, he was one of the founding members of the Cato institute. He quickly began to be at odds with the aims of the Koch’s, who, while they may be able to claim a portion of the umbrella of “libertarianism”, it is only when it is directly beneficial, as they are a decidedly neo-conservative platform when necessary. Rothbard and Rockwell’s personal evolution is evident in their writings through the years, as they came to the realization that limited coercive government is somewhat of an oxymoron. The Money Power certainly knows this, to include families like the Koch’s, and only push “libertarianism” in areas of regulation pertinent to them, not in the removal of monopoly/rentseeking.
       In Rothbard’s “The Mystery of Banking”, he breaks down the exact mechanisms that the Money Power uses to fleece society, and how it only works over time when it has the power of the State, that is, a monopoly of legal violence, to give it legitimacy.

       2. Fiat. Fiat, or “by decree”, is force. Force takes something they may have been good in it’s own right and makes it bad. Just like force turns sex into rape, and a gift or sale into theft, fiat money turns exchanges into a negative for one or more parties. The fiat argument is not a silly clincher, otherwise a rapist may just defend his actions as “love-making”. Coercive government cannot exist without fiat currency, whether directly (legal tender laws/monopoly of issuance) and/or indirectly (tax collection limited to one or more currency, commodity, or service). Even if a government does not issue currency, if it taxes (forced transfer of wealth), whatever means by which the tax is collected will become a de facto “fiat” currency. This is theft, no matter how you want to slice it, and cannot be handwaved.

       *Somewhat a sidenote to this, but bears mentioning: To my knowledge, every case of a government pursuing interest free non-commodity fiat, it has been to finance a war, and the holders of the currency were either left holding worthless pieces of paper, or the buyers lobbied eventually for payment in specie at a cost to the rest of the taxpayers. Either way, goods and services were extracted from the population at gun point, to finance murder in the process of further power acquisition. This is the legacy of interest free, non-commodity fiat.

       3. Free market in currencies. You stated that you support this. This is certainly a positive, and if we had this, disagreements over what currencies would be most successful would be able to be settled (I would certainly agree that gold would not be the most commonly used form of payment by the average person on a day to day basis, but not due to a lack of the substance). In a free market in currencies (one free of both legal tender laws and taxes), people would be free to accept gold, nickel, bitcoins, rewards points, “social credit bucks”, etc., as they saw fit to meet their needs at the time. I see no problem with this, and that in that reality, arguments over what currency is superior to be rather trivial. Use what you like.

       4. Interest. Interest, when forced, is theft. Such as, interest on the national currency. We could not be more in agreement. The charge is then levied, by the social credit side, that the Money Power Elite (MPE), want to shift to a gold *standard*, so that they may then restrict access to the means of exchange, and also charge interest on it, thus dealing a double blow to society. There are two problems with this argument, as it relates to Austrian economics. First: Everything government gets in non-gift form, is theft. So if it buys or rents gold (legitimate transaction), but pays for it with taxes, then the result is that the population is stolen from to benefit the previous owners of the gold (rentseeking). This is in direct opposition to the “Austrian” arguments put forth by Rothbard (and others), and certainly something to be fought. The same argument against gold in this case, would be equally valid against ANY other form of currency. Currently the same scenario exists, except the government doesn’t even get something with any other value in exchange for the tax-burden. It just gets pieces of paper. While forcing a gold standard (or a silver standard, or a wheat standard, or an oil standard, etc) is rentseeking and theft, it is nowhere near the scale of the current system.

       Conversely, interest-bearing loans in a free market system from savers to borrowers, are not theft. It is the cost of the difference in time-preference. There is inherent risk to a loan (that it may not be repaid), and this risk must be mitigated, by the borrower, in some mutually agreed fashion (important). Usually, that fashion is interest. Unfortunately, we do not have a system where this is the reality. Due to the neo-fuedal western system of land titles, we are already in debt, with interest, upon birth, unless we are of the neo-nobility. Then we must usually get into more debt to put ourselves to work to even begin to pay this debt off. This is certainly a problem, and one that even Rothbard overlooks in his treatment (which as generally to ignore/handwave) of what I refer to as “the land problem”. This is why I, and many other “Voluntarists”, promote “land use/occupancy” as the only sustainable, non-governmental model of land ownership.

       5. Inflation. First of all, we must dispense with the word/term/idea of “hoarding” in any discussion of this nature, as the word is *entirely* subjective, and therefore useless. Inflation is the increase in the supply (generally used to describe money) of something, therefore decreasing (or deflating it’s value) it’s value. Only in terms of exchange, is inflation theft, but it is theft. I will use the example of a good, versus what is commonly considered “money” ( A Federal Reserve Note, which is divorced from value, or work/capital) to demonstrate the difference in how increasing the supply of something (inflating the supply is theft in relation to exchange.

       1. I have the only washing machine. The exchange value on the washing machine is high, and the benefit to society as a whole . Now another washing machine is created. My exchange value has now been diminished, as one less person needs a vacuum. However the vacuum itself has not lost any of it’s value in other capacities, and society as a whole has benefited as now one more person has a washing machine.

       2. I have a Federal Reserve Note. The exchange value on this is high, as the government demands it for tax payment (on threat of violence), and that it’s subjects accept it for payment for goods and services (also on threat of violence). A second FRN is created. Now the exchange value of the FRN has diminished (just like the washing machine), as now there is a lower external need of it. As long as I can be reasonably sure that many more will be created in the future, it has no other useful property than a means of exchange, since it will be a poor store of value. If I cannot store value with it, but am *forced* to hold/use it, whoever gets first use of new FRNs benefits on the value pre-disbursement, while other users are subjected to lower valuations than when they first received them. This is incremental theft, and on when done on a grand scale takes much more wealth from the system than mere interest payments, thus leaving society worse off than before. (This would be the case to some degree in any forced monetary system.) However, again, anything other than paper(or unbacked digital digits) at least leaves you with some value if it is not accepted for exchange.

       I think the discussion amongst those of us who recognize that the MPE are stealing from *us* should focus on removing the Fiat money system, no matter what is made *fiat*. This is the common ground. Handwaving the inflation problem is just as bad as handwaving the gold standard (or land title system) problem (as some libertarians, not voluntarists, like to do).

       In a free market system, the MPE have no power, no matter what the popularity of gold, etc. is, since if they restrict it’s use, people have the option to simply abandon it.

       Thank you for your time.

       Reply
       • 
         overwatch404 permalink

         Correction to Inflation point #1: Vacuum = washing machine*. Had to step away and come back and switched to a different user good. Sorry for any confusion.

         Reply
       • 
         marxbites permalink

         Thank YOU OW404,

         Had I READ the posts first, I’d have seen you beat me to it!!!!

         BTW, and for others here, I’ve listened to hundreds of hours of Mises.org audiobooks. Rothbard, Hoppe, Raico, Higgs, Selgin, eg, and NEVER ONCE have the Austrians held anything but shear contempt for the likes of the Rothschilds, Rockefellers and their evil ilk in the global monopoly banking cartel.

         For as free enterprisers, the very word Cartel as used by the Austrian critics of monopoly money is one of pure epithet.

         The Austrians, just because Mises & Rothbard were subsidized by evil people, may in FACT mean the evildoers were looking to marginalize them as opposed to their well documented actual actions of fascist and socialist authoritarianism that Austrians are foresquare AGAINST!!!

         Reply
9. 
   marxbites permalink

   Austrian economists DO NOT advocate for ANY monopoly of money creation OR issue, nor ANY interest upon money from nothing. During our gold std era our currency did NOT involve ANY interest whatsoever.

   Interest on debt fiat from thin air was the SOLE domain of the 1st & 2nd Banks US and Fed’l Reserve.

   The ONLY reason the North prevailed against the South was that the South inflated away its currency’s buying power more drastically than did the North.

   I think YOU BOZO’s are the controlled opposition. Or you NEVER EVER studied Rothbards work.

   You people are DENSE!!!!!

   Reply
10. 
    marxbites permalink

    I recommend all readers here watch Dr Pauls hearings on sound money.

    The hearing, entitled “Road Map to Sound Money: A Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1098 and Restoring the Dollar,” was held on Tuesday, September 13, at 2:00 p.m. in Room 2128 of the Rayburn House Office Building.

    Witnesses:

    Dr. Lawrence M. Parks, Executive Director, Foundation for the Advancement of Monetary Education

    Dr. Lawrence H. White, Professor of Economics, George Mason University

    H.R. 1098, the Free Competition in Currency Act of 2011, would allow competitive free market forces to provide sound money through choice in currency. The bill repeals federal legal tender laws, repeals restrictions on private mints, and repeals taxes on gold and silver which prevent them from circulating as forms of payment. The hearing will discuss the need for and efficacy of sound money, the means by which sound money can be achieved through measures such as H.R. 1098, and the constitutional role of government in money.

    “For too long the Federal Reserve has exercised a monopoly on currency issuance,” Chairman Paul stated. “The result, predictably, has been an increasingly devalued dollar. We have been experimenting with a pure fiat currency system nationally and internationally for 40 years, and it has been proven unsound and unsustainable. Our fiat system helped create the massive debt crisis we find ourselves in, and has eroded the purchasing power of every American. The American people deserve to have a choice of currencies to protect themselves and their families from the poor decisions of government. Serious monetary reform is needed, and this hearing is the first step towards addressing this crucial issue. I am pleased that the subcommittee will be examining ways to return to sound money,” Paul continued.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ChBR0mSWhI

    Reply
11. 
    usurykills permalink

    Google PFMPE.

    Stop arguing and get to work on the only real solution. Interest is the problem and you can’t print good money without good collateral.

    Reply
12. 
    minglingmike permalink

    http://youtu.be/m3HmqPgNwMM?t=23m9s
    Voice-over, not verbatim, but accurate enough “amongst themselves, the orthodox Jews help each other out. You can borrow things for free, but special items like wedding dresses cost a fee. Money is available at zero interest. You just have to give two guarantors, and say when you intend to pay it back, that’s enough.” Any community of any faith can do this.

    Reply
13. 
    minglingmike permalink

    “During modern history the financiers behind the throne clearly subjugated Governments.” …such as the great Wörgl demurrage system, which was halted by the Austrian central bank. Surely one of the top unexamined crimes in history. Why was it stopped? By whom? If I remember correctly, you once wrote about WIR-Bank. It survives to this day, but stopped using demurrage. I don’t know enough to discuss Austrian econ intelligently, but can say it saddens me as a human being that the Wörgl system isn’t mentioned more often in this ongoing crisis. Irving Fisher was enthusiastic about it. It’s Austrian, it’s beautiful. How come the crooks seem to OCCUPY all the good words?

    Reply
    • 
      Anthony Migchels permalink

      It’s quite clear why it was stopped: Unterguggenberger’s experiment was so successful that neighboring towns were planning to implement it and Vienna panicked. They threatened with military invasion should the certificates continue to circulate.

      Just for the record, I have an article on the Worgl experiment, you can find it in the interest-free economics page.

      Reply
14. 
    dgaubatz313 permalink

    Reblogged this on My Own Truth – What I Believe To Be The Truth In This World.

    Reply

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

1. The Ron Paul Challenge: 10 reasons why the Alternative Media is failing this test « Real Currencies
2. Who is Ed Griffin? « Real Currencies
3. Phoenix Rising, the Return of the Gold Standard « Real Currencies
4. Hate the State, Buy Gold and all will be well: an Alternative Media in crisis « Real Currencies
5. How the Money Power created Libertarianism and Austrian Economics « Real Currencies
6. Libertarianism is an Illuminati Ploy Run By Jews « …………….THE LIBERTARIAN – El Libertario – Le Libertaire……. Ongoing SMILE News, Tools & Humor
7. Old Rothschild- and Rockefeller hands controlled the Libertarian-Communist dialectic « Real Currencies
8. The Ron and Rand Paul betrayal « Real Currencies
9. What happened to Brother Nathanael and his U-Turn on Ron Paul and Monetary Reform? | Real Currencies
10. Let’s forget about Ron Paul. It’s time to move on. | Real Currencies
11. Bitcoin, Maxcoin & The Real Solution | Real Jew News
12. Bitcoin, Maxcoin & The Real Solution
13. Dallas Clarke's Australian Jewish News » Bitcoin, Maxcoin & The Real Solution
14. National Money Or International Jew? | Real Jew News
15. Dallas Clarke's Australian Jewish News » National Money Or International Jew?
16. National Money Or International Jew?
17. Austrian Economics still is ‘Jewish’ Economics | News for the Blind
18. JEWS PROMOTE MENTAL ILLNESS OF LIBERTARIANISM TO GOYIM | Smoloko