Interview with Faux Capitalist’s Jason Erb
Tonight I had an interesting chat with Faux Capitalist’s Jason Erb. We discussed the backgrounds of Austrian Economics and Libertarianism and what to do about it.
The interview can be found here. Go to about 30 minutes for the interview.
Great interview. Both of you are very knowledgeable. My only criticism has to do with Jason Erb’s reliance on Dr. Stan Monteith as a reliable critic of the alternative media. Dr. monteith is a member of the Council for national policy, a right wing version of the council on foreign relations. It’s essentially a false opposition group meant to derail the conservative movement against any true oposition. I found this to be true when i called Dr. Monteith on his show to ask him about Ron Paul’s economic policy favoring the 1%, via gold and austerity of the poor. He immediately muted me and restated the usual boilerplate about Paul’s devotion to the constitutiion and charity being the best way to handle poverty.
You did great Job. I look forward to more interviews.
Great Rex, thanks a lot!
Thanks for your comment, Rex.
I agree with your view of the CNP.
I haven’t come across any evidence that Dr. Stan Monteith is still a member of the CNP. There is a list showing two years that he was associated with them long ago. A friend, who was a regular listener to Dr. Stan’s morning hour, said he heard Dr. Stan criticize the CNP in explaining why he was no longer a member.
I still feel that credit is due to Dr. Stan for the good things he does, and I have taken exception with certain positions of his, whether directly or indirectly, on my show and other shows, and on my blog.
I called into his show before to raise contrary points about the monetary system, like in this case.
http://fauxcapitalist.com/2011/01/12/the-coming-battle-with-the-banksters/
Yeah, but you know how the disinfo game is played in the truther alt media: give your audience alot of truthful information to build up your credibility, so that at a crucial moment you can steer them into false, dead end solutions. Dr. Stan has been like all of the other pied pipers in the alt media by selling Ron Paul for President, in spite of knowing all of the reasons that make him a globalist shill. I’m sorry i just can’t cut a man a break that has knowingly misled so many people by wasting their time, money and hopes on a false ops canidate.
To his credit, he was a voice in the wilderness in outing Ron Paul’s campaign as being infiltrated by the establishment, while some moderator(s) on RonPaulForums.com saw fit to move my article from the busiest forum to an obscure one.
http://fauxcapitalist.com/2012/05/16/dr-stan-monteith-im-sure-that-theyve-infiltrated-and-neutralized-ron-pauls-political-candidacy/
His support for a gold and silver standard is also frustrating to me, but I think he’s sincere, and with more callers calling in to make the points you did, he will be forced to address the question of interest and gold being tools of the international bankers.
But you know that Ron Paul campaign wasn’t infiltrated by the establisment. Ron Paul is part of the establishment. His role was just to give Romney right wing cover and then fade away. http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/27/study-over-20-debates-paul-attacked-romneys-rivals-39-times-but-never-once-attacked-romney/ Did Dr. Stan say anything about Paul’s acceptance of 2.7 million from Bilderburger steering commit chairman, Peter Thiel? I was a daily listener until he muted my call to his show and i never heard him mention it once. His remarks about Paul make him an apologist, not an objective critic.
He does provide alot of good info, but at crunch time he wasn’t on our side. I’ll take your word for it that he was just mistaken and not an intentional agent of deception like most out there.
Anyway, Jason, you got a great blog and radio show. I’m on board for both.
Establishment? Does that word still exist? I thought that was a 1969 word. Are you hippies?
I posted a summary here. http://fauxcapitalist.com/2012/07/23/exposing-faux-capitalism-with-jason-erb-episode-5-interview-with-anthony-migchels-of-realcurrencies-wordpress-com/
You got your original impetus from the charlatan, Bill Still; then you upgraded yourself to Ellen Brown, the goddes worshipper, whose book demonstrates that she knows nothing about banking and money in the United States, even less about Lincoln and the greenbacks; and finally, Jeff Rense’s protege, Henry Makov, took you under his wings.?! With pick-pockets like these, as your mentors, and cheer-leaders of your alternative (bowel)movement, your future might be very bright.
http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/f11/makows-new-book-5301-4.html
“We are the rich, we own America” –and there is a good reason why
__________________
“there is another bloody and terrible page in this account — a page in account with death. It is estimated there have perished in battle, by disease, exposure, or other cause incident to the war, at least three hundred thousand able-bodied men of the South. I take no account of the unutterable anguish of millions of crushed and bleeding hearts. No language can express, no figures measure that. For that rebellion the white men of the South have been most terribly punished ! Nine thousand millions of values, are gone — lost forever ! Three hundred thousand able-bodied white men of the flower and strength of the South now lie in their bloody or premature graves ! Great God ! Is not this punishment enough ? Must we go further ? Must we now punish the white men of the South by placing them under the domination of half-civilized Africans ? And in order to do that shall we punish ourselves by giving over to stolid and brutish ignorance the political control of one-fourth of the States, and, it may be, under the control of the Army the balance of power in the United States ? Shall we Africanize the South and Mexicanize the whole Republic ?“
well, currently Jeff and Henry are not really the friends they used to be…………
http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/f11/makows-new-book-5301-4.html
I found nothing exciting at the link, could you tell me what you wanted me to see?
How is Bill Still a charlatan? I don’t have any doubts that he’s genuinely committed to true monetary reform, which is something I can’t say about every prominent figure in the movement.
What doesn’t Ellen Brown know about Greenbacks? She knows that they were originally issued interest-free and made legal-tender for all debts public and private, for instance.
You didn’t mention any of the Austrian School personalities in your criticisms, so what about them?
(hopefully this will end up in the right place and not on top)
>>>>Rense-Makov
The whole thing looked very much like public breakup of two homosexual lovers. It was Rense who made Makov, and Makov liked it muchly. 10 years ago Rense was just as much a scumbag as as he is today, but back then Makov did not care (money must have been good); 5 years ago Rense was no better than he is today, but Makov did not care, in fact Makov rushed to Rense’s defence when some uncharitable person had the audacity to tell some truth about Rense; then, suddenly, Rense is pond scum…… so much for Mr. Makow’s caracter
>>>>>William Still
In one of his post “Republicae” made a really good assesment of Bill, the lizzard of Oz. Anyhow: his “The World Order” shows that he did not study or research the subject, he simply copied and pasted and compiled a book for sale; at the very least he is a plagiarist –no different than Griffin fron Jackyl Island, his personal friend– and his only interest is selling books, and that is what he really is committed to. On his forum he advertises goldline, he wiggled himself onto Radio Liberty’s booklist (so much for Stan Monteith’s principles, also).
>>>>Bookseller Brown
Gary Y2K deal with her workmanship. Instead turning from the conwoman in disgust, her groupies closed rank and were very indignant that someone dared to tell the truth about her. Your remark indicates that you yourself know nothing about greenbacks, so please work up the courage and read the real story of greenback, and who issued them and why:–
http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/spaulding/green_index.html
they were issued to finance a war, to facilitate the purchase of bonds, many of those who advocated and voted for the legal-tender clause later voted for reduction of currency and credit strenghtening
my criticism would be that Bill Still, Ed Griffin, Jim Mars, Ellen Brown, Alex Jones, Henry Makow and a very long list of peddlers are from the same cloth; they are all just there to sell you books and dvds; the number one problem with Ed Griffin is not that he is pro gold-standard, but that he is a plagiarist who took someone else’s work (Eustace Mullins) and makes money off it. He knows nothing about money and banking, he is a plagiarist, how could he. Bill Still is also an in-it-for-the-money-only plagiarist and knows just as much about the subject as his friend Griffin, what sort of reform ideas could come out of him? –i would like to hear you talk about the whole conspiracy industry
_____________________
>>>>>>Mises school of thought
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/globalisation/2004/08/26/special-on-stalin-evaluation-of-red-symphony.php
I don’t have anything to criticise regarding what ye said about them; it is a religious dogma based on classroom computer model. And to add insult they themselves do NOT believe in it; when asked and cornered on the subject of gold/silver money they reveal that they do not want gold and silver coins alone, what they advocate is bank paper (falsely) promising to pay coin that they do not have
when cornered they also reveal that there is not enough silver for a 25-cent coin for each resident of the planet
>>>>>>as for Radio Liberty and Ron Paul
Paul has always been a free-trader and a goldite; some people did not pay attention and now they are disappointed
Mr. Monteith missed his call, he is really good at reciting poems –not so much debating a point; he has always been for gold and protection of industry; before he joined GCN he used to have better showsbut since then content-quality went down; it is –like other radios– for entertainment purposes, only, from which occasionally may learn something
I heard the interview. I found it a bit disappointed, because there was nothing concrete in it. No description of problems and proposed solutions. Nothing that could be tested against reality.
For me it was basically a waste of time.
Sorry to hear that, Ruud. We did mention the problem of interest, and a solution was mentioned in the last segment, of issuing interest-free currencies, such as Anthony’s Gelre.
The interview was intended to mostly expose the Austrian School of Economics and some of its top personalities, and from what I’ve seen from the comments here and in private, I think we adequately covered that.
If you have a suggestion of what you’d particularly like to here on a future interview, let me know.
I’m not a fan of Austrian School of Economics myself either, because if I understand it correctly, they too advocate full reserve banking. I don’t, I think fractional reserve banking is OK and not a problem at all.
I just finished my 7th article in a series about that subject:
http://rudhar.com/economi/monydebt/en/007saltd.htm
There’s one about interest too (not a problem either, in my view):
http://rudhar.com/economi/monydebt/en/004intrs.htm
Here’s a list of all seven articles:
http://rudhar.com/economi/monydebt/en/index.htm
“However, the bank doesn’t create that money out of thin air. The money it hands over to the borrower, is actually money somebody else has put in the bank. It’s real money.”
If it were true the bank would a mortgage-broker, simply facilitating a transaction between vilager A and B. This is not what a bank does (and you know it); banks are required to have government bonds as capital before they go into operation –so, whatever notes they issue are based on national debt, and these notes circulate as the nation’s currency
Please somebody post the text of the Federal Reserve Act and the text of the act regulating Euro banks.
So, what the bank in your example actually does is: it gives its own note, based on its capital (government bonds) and on its good reputation (credit) to villager B which is bad enough; but based on this same capital and good name gives its notes to villager C,D and W and the whole chinese alphabet; and does that until the boom cycle is over, then comes bust, when the bank shakes down the borrower some more
“Money creation, and total money supply, do not get out of hand. Money supply is relatively stable over long periods.”
Why should a private corporation create money? Show me a period in the past 200 years when bank paper did not lead to bust –it always does, it is the nature bank paper to lead to bust
===
So, what the bank in your example actually does is: it gives its own note, based on its capital (government bonds) and on its good reputation (credit) to villager B which is bad enough; but based on this same capital and good name gives its notes to villager C,D and W and the whole chinese alphabet; and does that until the boom cycle is over, then comes bust, when the bank shakes down the borrower some more
/===
Incorrect. Please read my articles, especially #s 1, 2 and 3.
> Why should a private corporation create money?
Because that’s the very nature of credit granting. If you don’t want money creation by non-central banks, the consequence is you must forbid all credit granting.
Even credits in a full reserve banking system causes money creation, depending on the definition of ‘money’. I explained that in http://rudhar.com/economi/monydebt/en/006fulrs.htm .
Even money lending between friends, with no bank involved at all, in a sense causes money creation: after it, one person has a claim on the other (a claim is money), and the other one has cash. 100 + 100 = 200.
“If it were true the bank would a mortgage-broker, simply facilitating a transaction between vilager A and B. ”
That’s right. It’s a transaction between A and the bank, and another one between the bank and B. The bank is a intermediary, not a broker. And it has to be, in order to fullfil its useful transformation tasks: http://rudhar.com/economi/monydebt/en/005bnkfn.htm
But how does this affect the phomenon of money creation through credit granting, in your view? In my view: not al all.
Money creation takes place because cash is split into a claim and cash. Whether with or without a broker or an intermediary, that makes no difference.
Money creation is in the very nature of credit: making money available without losing ownership. That essentially duplicates it. Hence a larger money stock, ergo money creation. It’s inevitable, unless you want to abolish the notion of credit altogether.
“and a solution was mentioned in the last segment, of issuing interest-free currencies, such as Anthony’s Gelre.”
What does that mean, interest-free currencies? The cash euros I have in my wallet and the cash dollars you have in yours, are interest-free as well.
This idea that normal money is necessarily tied to interest relies on a basic misunderstanding of what money creation by credit granting really is.
That isn’t surprising, because indeed it isn’t easy to understand. It involves a paradox: money creation actually exists and is done by private banks, yet all the money they use for credit granting, was first deposited by someone, and NOT made out of nothing.
The majority of the “money” supply is interest-bearing bank credit. The Federal Reserve is able to make interest-bearing loans by securing assets, and that’s what they did in giving loans to European banks.
Do you see any flaw with more and more local, interest-free currencies?
> Do you see any flaw with more and more local, interest-free currencies?
Yes, I do: they’re unusable, because they are local. Anthony Migchels is Dutch like me. He invented the Gerle currency for the province of Gelderland (Gelre is an historic name for what I now called Gelderland). I like only 80 km away from him, but in a different province: Utrecht.
So I were to do business with him, I couldn’t pay him because he has different money than me. How is that practical? What problem does it solve other than creating problems that existed in the first place?
With the existing euro and banking system, I can pay within seconds if he has an account with the same bank as me, or within 1 day if it is another bank. Likewise I can do money transfers to the whole of the euro zone within about three days.
These are practical advantages that have taken many years to be built up and perfected. Why would we suddenly take a step back and do away with it all?
See also http://rudhar.com/economi/monydebt/en/005bnkfn.htm about why banks are useful and why we need them.
This is clearly not the case: intra regional trade we can simply use euro.
But local businesses can get interest free credit from regional currencies (when mutual credit based). Clearly there is nothing against that.
Also: with every other product we would applaud consumer choice, but not with currency? Clearly there is something inconsistent there.
Third: in all your articles you only proved banks DO create all the credit Ruud.
> This is clearly not the case: intra regional trade we can simply use euro.
Then why not use it for local transactions as well?
> But local businesses can get interest free credit from regional
> currencies (when mutual credit based).
If people prefer to lend each other monet at zero interest rate, they can already do that now. Why would that require a special currency?
And why would people ask no interest if they _can_ get some interest from banks?
> Clearly there is nothing against that.
True. But that’s not enough. To be viable, it needs to solve some problem. So far, I don’t see any problem and I don’t see how the Gelre can solve any problem.
you’re in the privileged position to be one of the very few who still don’t see a problem with our banking system and I congratulate you with it!
I do see some problems with banks, but money creation and interest are not among them.
I order to understand problems and look for solutions, it is crucial to understand what is the true nature of the problems and to know which issues are NOT problems. Creating solutions for non-exisent problem, only due to misunderstandings, is a waste of energy.
“What does that mean, interest-free currencies? The cash euros I have in my wallet and the cash dollars you have in yours, are interest-free as well.”
you’re just being argumentative. To you your euros are interest free, but out there, somebody is paying 5% per year on each and every euro in circulation, including the one you own.
What interest free means, is that they are lent into circulation without interest.
> To you your euros are interest free, but out there, somebody
> is paying 5% per year on each and every euro in circulation,
> including the one you own.
That is simply untrue. That you think so is because you don’t understand how money creation by credit granting works. (Although I gave you the link to the explanation; but do take your time.)
Are you sure you want to deny every euro in circulation is created as a debt to a bank?
Of course I deny that. Of cash money, especially coins, that is certainly untrue.
Are you sure you fully understand how money creation bu non-central banks works?
ok, that’s a fair point: paper and coins are interest free. They are only a negligable part of the money supply though. All the rest is credit. With interest
> All the rest is credit.
No, all the rest is claims. That’s on the credit side (Dutch: credit) of the bank’s balance sheet.
Credit (Dutch: krediet), strange though it may seem, is on the debit side of the bank’s balance sheet.
M1 money = cash plus on demand claims to banks.
> you’re just being argumentative.
Just to be certain, I looked that word up. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argumentative . So it means controversial.
Yes, I am controversial. But only because I really, honestly think you guys (and thousand with you, across the internet) are actually wrong about the whole subject. As said, it is a paradox:
– Money creation does happen when credit it granted.
– But it does NOT mean money is made out of nothing.
– It also does not means all money is connected to debt or interest. That is also a hoax, built upon that other, more basic misunderstanding.
By the way, it certainly helps to know a little about accounting. I have an introductory explanation about that too: http://rudhar.com/economi/boekhoud/prcacten.htm
See also the video on Youtube, made by Khan Academy. Their explanations are good.
“issuing interest-free currencies, such as Anthony’s Gelre.”
I thought the Gelre was sold into circulation not issued as Anthony mentioned as follows:
“My foundation simply always sells Gelre for 95 cents…”,
it’s a hybrid. Both ways are available in the system.
So some pay for the currency and some don’t?
yes. Some get credit (companies), others buy at (max) 0,95 per Gelre while in transactions 1 Gelre= 1 euro.
So you mean some borrow the currency (companies) and some buy the currency… so hybrid meaning no interest but because some is borrowed it is partially interest free “debt based” and also euro based (backed) for everyone else. But the euro, which is used to purchase some of the currency, is interest based. Plus a “…percentage that is taken by the issuing organization for costs, number of participants, etc, etc.” This would be like a user fee or price depending on the size of the issuing organization (central bank for that currency) and the number of users. When you calculate all the costs (hidden within the euro and otherwise) the currency does seem to come at a price.
Isn’t that another way to introduce a 5% interest through a backdoor?
And what does “get credit” mean? From what source?
No, the ones buying gelre get a 5% bonus from the ones selling the unit. It’s a wealth transfer to those willing to spend Gelre. Nothing to do with interest.
from the printing press Ruud. From the printing press. You understand my friend?
Credit from the money printing press? You must be a wizard. You can do what no non-central bank can. Congratulations!
creating credit is the easiest thing in the world. That’s why it’s so insane to rape everybody with interest on it.
Yes, it’s easy, especially for those who misunderstand the process. That is why I researched and described how it really works: http://rudhar.com/economi/monydebt/en/001creat.htm .
And interest is a normal compensation for a useful service (that people and business can, but need not, make use of): See my fourth article from the menu.
In full reserve banking, money creation would still take place, but admittedly on a smaller scale. It would limit the available funding for credits, so credit would become more expensive. That means higher interest rates. Banks could no longer use lots of money, that is perfectly suitable and available for granting short-term credits from. See my 7th article from the series for a convincing illustration.
And yes, credits granting always requires funding. Without funding, no credit is possible, contrary to popular belief. What goes out, must have come in. Always.
you continue working for banks and explaining it’s all great, I’ll continue creating interest free credit and compete with your outfit in the marketplace.
I worked for a bank from January 1980 to October 1982, and briefly twice in 1996. Always in software. But not now. See my curriculum. And none of that was the reason for writing what I write. My only motivation is to understand things as they really are, and then to help others understand that too.
I don’t have an outfit in the marketplace. It is not my intention to compete with you in any way.
What services do the banks actually perform? They are like mafia gangsters that skim money as middlemen to transactions for which they are not needed. The money can be created without them and issued without their costly services — interest.
Issuance of money is largely a mechanical process that could be carried out with machines programed by data from govt and the treasury. A national bank or locally issued currency like the gelre would certainly not need all of the extraneous banking bureaocracy that you seem to be so fond of — and at zero interest costs.
“you continue working for banks and explaining it’s all great, I’ll continue creating interest free credit and compete with your outfit in the marketplace.”
You’re creating worthless pieces of private paper and selling it for globally accepted legal tender or lending it out in exchange for .95 of local euro purchasing power but then you consider a private investor who lends from his existing capital (his own personal savings) at interest “usury.”
You print ink on worthless private paper and sell it for globally accepted continental backed euros and you say this is good. But those who toiled over time for to save those same euros and decide to lend it out at interest you say is bad.
“The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is the one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it.”
You quoting John Kenneth Galbraith
You are silly Tammuz. A bad and sloppy, lazy reader. A foulmouth, not interested in truth, only in trolling.
I take the euro to be able to exchange gelre back. It’s all there. do your homework or take your selfrighteous bloated little ego and its silly stuff out of here, ok?
“No, the ones buying gelre get a 5% bonus from the ones selling the unit. It’s a wealth transfer to those willing to spend Gelre.”
Is it not the “issuing organization” that’s selling the Gelre? And if the “issuing organization” is selling worthless private paper that cost them nothing how can that be a “wealth transfer to those” who receive it?
tammuz, I’m willing to discuss these matter, although you can read them in the interest free economics section in articles on the gelre.
But not when you insist on this silly tone of voice. It’s condescending, untrusting, not open minded, assuming it’s all wrong. In short: it’s the kind of attitude that keeps you small.
That “silly tone of voice” is simply a voice coming from someone who doesn’t agree with you on a particular subject and this is the place where you deal with those disagreements.
> It’s condescending, untrusting, not open minded, assuming it’s all wrong.
Assuming it’s all wrong, that’s generally considered the only healthy attitude in both science and in legal matters. “Guilty until proven”, working with falsifiable hypotheses in science.
Conspiracy theorists work differently: decide who are enemies (here: banks) and who are idols (everyone who believes money creation and interest is evil), and then judge everything from there.
“It’s all there. do your homework or take your selfrighteous bloated little ego and its silly stuff out of here, ok?”
I did my homework. I know “it’s all there.” The euros you get in exchange for the private paper goes into a “stabilization fund”. So people give you euros that they toiled for in exchange for paper and ink that cost you nothing. And the euros you collect go into a “stabilization fund.” So now bank accounts are called “stabilization funds” and a printer is now called an “issuing organization”.
In your own words regarding your acquisition of euros:
“We could simply pocket them {euros}, but then we would be ripping off the system. It would be a goldmine. Nobody would even notice, people are gullible, but the idea is to help, not to steal.”
So based on the above statement people are supposed to trust you otherwise they are a “lazy reader’, “foulmouth”, self righteous, silly not interested in truth, only in trolling.”
You’re nothing more than a snake oil salesman in the tradition of the Rockefeller origins.
Get Mike Montagne on but in a panel discussion (or moderated so he stops talking once in a while). Particularly to get straight once and for all the “spend into circulation” – without resultant monetary inflation – thing.
what’s on your mind, please share!
Contrarian Rex (@ContrarianRex) wrote:
===
What services do the banks actually perform? They are like mafia gangsters that skim money as middlemen to transactions for which they are not needed. The money can be created without them and issued without their costly services — interest.
Issuance of money is largely a mechanical process that could be carried out with machines programed by data from govt and the treasury. A national bank or locally issued currency like the gelre would certainly not need all of the extraneous banking bureaocracy that you seem to be so fond of — and at zero interest costs.
/===
You are overlooking the banks’ transformation functions. That is their reason to exist. It’s also why a bankless system like one with a local currency is not practically viable: to much hassle for people trying to use it.
I described the transformation functions here:
http://rudhar.com/economi/monydebt/en/005bnkfn.htm
the morals and financial logic of Nicholas Biddle, Paul Warburg, Henry Paulson……
H.R. 7837
To provide for the establishment of Federal reserve banks, for furnishing an elastic currency, affording means of re-discounting commercial paper, and to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States, and for other purposes
Fed Res Act, Section 4, clause 8th
“Upon deposit with the Treasurer of the United States of any bonds of the United States in the manner provided by existing law relating to national banks, to receive from the Comptroller of the Currency circulating notes in blank, registered and countersigned as provided by law, equal amount to the par value of the bonds so deposited, such notes to be issued under the same conditions and provisions of law as relate to the issue of circulating notes of national banks secured by bonds of the United States bearing the circulating privilege, except that the issue of such notes shall not be limited to the capital stock of such Federal reserve bank.”
Federal Reserve Bank Note, May 18, 1914:–
“Secured by United States Certificates of Indebtedness or United States one-year Gold Notes, Deposited with the Treasurer of the United States of America”
Before a bank may commence operation it has to deposite bonds of the United States, so the whole system and the currency issued by these banks is based on national debt; if there were no national debt these banks would go out of existence along with the currency they circulate.
And, by law, they issue a lot more of their notes than bonds they deposited to “secure” these notes (promise to pay 20-times the 1 bond that is on deposit)