Top Ten Lies and Mistakes of Austrian Economics
In the face of Austrian Economics’ ongoing onslaught through Ron Paul, the Mises Institute and Gold Dealers parading as the ‘Alternative Media’, we present the next installment in our series of articles exposing it for what it really is: just another Banker Mind Control Operation.
1. Bankers hate Gold
Nowadays everybody knows that the 19th century was called ‘the Age of Rothschild’. They controlled the Gold Market and became incredibly rich by lending the stuff to Governments.
The Money Power came to power through Gold.
They love it because it is deflationary, they can tax it with interest, they can create the boom/bust cycle with it and they control it completely.
Clearly Bankers don’t hate gold. Europe was on a Gold Standard for the entire 19th century and left it only in the thirties, due to the horrible deflation that was the Great Depression. Populists at the time finally managed to force their Governments to get rid of it. They had been warning about its deflationary tendencies for ever.
Gold is de facto World Currency.
Ron Paul: “Commodity money if voluntarily and universally accepted could give us a single world currency requiring no money managers, no manipulators orchestrating a man-made business cycle with rampant price inflation.” — Ron Paul, Congressional Record, March 13, 2001
In older days Austrian Economists would say Governments hate the Gold Standard. Alan Greenspan, one of the more famous Austrian Gold loving Bankers, wrote in 1966: “An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions.“
Government, of course, is Austrian Economics’s classic enemy, but the adversary du jour in the ‘Truth Movement’ are the Bankers. So to sell something we say Bankers hate it.
They did face the little problem that the American Populists would be very hard to convince of this. Not in the least because of the book ‘Secrets of the Federal Reserve’ by Eustace Mullins, who famously described who owns the FED and how it came about. Mullins of course was quite explicit in his analysis of Gold as the Banker’s favorite currency.
But Ed Griffin solved this for them. He wrote an even more famous book: ‘the Creature from Jekyll Island’. This is basically a rip off of Mullins’s book, with one difference: it proposes a Gold Standard to get rid of the FED.
In this way Griffin obscured the truth for millions of people, who assumed he was basically saying the same thing as Mullins.
2. Government is the main problem
This is the red herring that Austrian Economics is famous for. Just like the mainstream it completely ignores the Money Power.
Austrian Economics is also incredibly ‘naive’ when it comes to private interests controlling markets. Austrian Economics will always explain Governments shouldn’t mess with the economy, while ignoring the monopolistic inclination of Capital.
As a result Austrian Economics is the wet dream of the Trillionaires, as they will resist any Government action against them and their Transnationals.
Austrian Economics will actually blame Government for the fact that markets now are controlled by Transnational Cartels. Why they don’t seem to consider the shareholders and controllers responsible remains an open question.
To be fair, the analysis of Austrian Economics about the negative implications of many regulations is spot on and very enlightening.
However, to ignore the power struggle that is inevitable both in the market in and politics, is so naive and pleasant to the powerful that it is almost impossible to fathom how somebody else could have thought it up than these powerful interests themselves.
The fact is, that Governments all over the world have been subverted by private interests. And these private interests are quite homogenous. This international centralization of power, concentrated around extremely rich banking families, the Money Power, is the problem.
Government is a neutral institution, associated with a Nation. Public Opinion can always force its hand.
But when both Government itself AND Public Opinion are captive to the Money Power, Government will become quite unpleasant.
Soon, it will be obsolete, as it surrenders its sovereignty to World Government and World Currency. Governments and certainly Nations will never voluntarily surrender sovereignty.
These projects clearly belong to the Money Power.
3. Manipulation of the Volume of the Money Supply is the main problem with our money
Another red herring: manipulation of Volume is certainly quite a scourge. But it ignores an even bigger problem: Interest.
The Government currently pays 700 billion per year in debt service for the National Debt.
It matters not whether she pays this for Gold or for paper.
We currently pay $150.000 dollars in interest over thirty years for a $100.000 mortgage. Most of this mortgage was created by simple bookkeeping the moment we borrowed it.
45% of prices we pay for our daily needs are compensation for capital costs incurred by the producer.
We are Interest Slaves.
But if we can have credit by bookkeeping, clearly we should get the money interest free, because it is our credit, not the bank’s.
4. Gold guarantees a steady volume
This another very strange supposition. After all, the Gold Standards of the past saw horrible asset bubbles.
The boom/bust cycle has nothing to do with the currency, but whether the money supply is being manipulated.
The idea that Gold cannot be printed and that that give security about the volume is nonsense. Bankers routinely have withheld vast quantities of specie from circulation, only to inflate at a later stage again.
5. Inflation is bad
It is certainly true that inflation knows problems.
Inflation hurts savers, creditors and people on pinned incomes. But it is pleasant for debtors, of which there are far more than creditors. And, very important, inflation is associated with economic growth. People stop hoarding cash and rather invest and spend.
The one sided focus of Austrianism on inflation, while actually promoting the horror of deflation (see next) makes it look like they’re demonizing inflation in order to make deflation more palatable.
6. Deflation is good
This statement is so incredibly favorable for the ultra rich, who are basically the only ones who benefit from deflation, that it puts Austrian Economics in a very bad light.
Austrians clearly promote the Deflation vs. Inflation dialectic, with all its nefarious implications.
Deflation hurts debtors. It makes their debts and the interest they pay over it worth more.
Deflation is a wealth transfer from those holding assets to those holding cash.
Deflation destroys economic growth because people rather hold cash than invest or spend it.
As a result, Deflation on all fronts makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.
7. We don’t want a Gold Standard, we want a Free Market for Currencies
This is such nonsense.There are two major reasons why it is.
1. In fact, the idea of a Currency Free Market is quite attractive. In the case that all different systems would receive the same funding and propaganda, such a market would undoubtedly see Mutual Credit Facilities providing interest-free credit prevail, see below.
However, only Gold and perhaps Silver, but not if they can avoid it, will receive all the attention and funding. In fact, Mutual Credit will be resisted actively by the Money Power.
This will not be hindered Government, who just by decree created this new ‘Free Market’, because that would be ‘statist interference’
Thus, only Gold will circulate.
2. Would there be a ‘free market’, there is Gresham’s Law. Bad money drives out good money.
It means that the units appreciating in value will be hoarded, while those depreciating will be used to pay.
Everybody will accept the depreciating unit (as long as it is not hyper inflating), because most will want to pay with it and firms will have to accept them to accommodate their customers. They won’t have a problem with that anyway. Firms don’t care what the money will be worth in a year. They want to know where they can spend it tomorrow.
This means nothing will happen if Ron Paul’s proposal to make Gold and Silver also legal tender is accepted. People will continue to pay with the Fed’s notes and hoard Gold.
Also, if you can get a Gold based mortgage costing 5% per year, or a 0% mortgage in Mutual Credit, which would you chose?
Case closed.
8. Austrian Economics is hated by the Main Stream Media
While it is true that Austrian Economics is a fringe, also in terms of Media Attention, it always has maintained a steady niche. It is not for nothing that Peter Schiff and Gerald Celente were predicting the crash in the MSM.
Lately, Ed Griffin was plugged by Glenn Beck on prime time T.V.
Judge Napolitano gets all the airtime he wants on Fox News, spouting his Austrianism. Amazingly, the fact that even Fox News will plug Austrianism does not ring a bell with people.
9. Fiat Currencies are always bad
Another typical device: a dialectic. Trying to frame it as Paper vs. Gold. Both ignoring interest.
But interest-free paper is of course something else entirely. At least it won’t suffer from the forced inflation on interest-bearing money supplies. Because the interest is not spent back into circulation, but lent back, there is never enough to pay off all the debt + interest. During a Gold Standard this is deflationary, because the money supply can’t grow. With paper, this is ‘solved’ by ever more debt. With ever more interest.
Modern Mutual Credit is inflation free. Or better: the market is in control of the money supply. It grows when it must, shrinks when it must.
Social Credit is probably inflationary, but everybody will be fully compensated for it because of the fact that they spend the inflationary cash into circulation themselves. Meanwhile, the inflation will stimulate production.
They are trying to promote the idea that Fiat Currencies are automatically bad ‘because the volume will be manipulated’.
This is the eternal clincher, killing all rational debate about how to manage all the different parameters in the different proposals.
10. The problem is the FED
The FED is a symptom, not the problem. The problem is that the Money Supply is controlled by the Money Power, which uses this control to enslave us with interest, scarce money and the boom/bust cycle.
The FED is their vehicle. We want to get rid of it, because we want to end the control of the Money Supply by the Money Power. It’s not a goal in itself.
Austrians use this to ‘fight the FED’ and gain sympathy and support, meanwhile maintaining the control of the Money Supply with the Plutocracy.
Related:
Recovering Austrians
Who is Ed Griffin?
The Ron Paul Challenge: Ten Reasons why the Alternative Media is Failing this Test
Alex Jones joins Alan Greenspan in Calling for Gold Standard
Recovering Austrians
The ‘Alternative Media’ is dominated by Austrianism and Gold outlets masquerading as ‘independent’. Real criticism of Austrianism is not allowed and ‘avoided as internecine strife’, while Austrianism’s own attack dogs like Gary North and Peter Schiff are given free reign to suppress Interest-Free Economics.
Recovering Austrians syndicates serious criticism of Austrian Economics and gives the classic Populist vision on money a platform.
It will all have to be developed over time, but is is already becoming a good resource for people seeking truth about money.
Please support the effort and spread the word. Tips for content are also much welcome: classics against Gold, Usury, good articles.
Have a look at Recovering Austrians!
Muammar Gaddaffi and the Money Power
Muammar Gadaffi left a mixed legacy. His people were far better off than all the rest of Africa and most of the Arab world. But he was also a highly connected billionaire Freemason and Zionist, promoting a Gold backed all African currency, which clearly was a Money Power project.
Muammar Gadaffi was comparable to Saddam Hussein. For decades he was a useful tool for the Plutocracy. Both as a solid supplier of oil and as a favorite boogeyman some times, good friend at others. And when he had served his purpose they showed no mercy and treacherously stabbed his back.
No doubt Gadaffi realized this was always a possibility. One doesn’t rule for almost half a century without common sense.
He did put up a heroic resistance, backed by a large part of the Libyan people.
Like Saddam, Gadaffi built a fairly modern nation. Of course he was no angel, ruling with an iron fist and making certain he had a little something on the side for a rainy day. But the average Libyan probably felt safe enough and Gadaffi shared the Oil wealth generously with his people: extremely cheap fuel, interest free mortgages. Cash handouts of tens of thousands of dollars to newly weds. To name just a very few.
At the time he came to power, Libya was an impoverished ex Italian colony. When he was murdered, if he was, it was Africa’s most prosperous. It is now devastated.
According to Huffington Post 30.000 are believed to have been killed and 50.000 wounded.
Libya was one of those few countries with a truly National Central Bank, not (directly) under control of the Money Power. When the rebels were still just being built up by Nato in Benghazi, they did find the time, resources and most importantly, the expertise, to draft legislation for an ‘independent’ Central Bank.
As an Islamic Nation Libya is not friendly to usury of course. So the invasion also fits perfectly in the strategy to make Islam safe for Usury.
On the other hand, Gadaffi was promoting an all African Gold Dinar. A blatant Money Power project. Both because of its supranational character and because of its Gold aspect.
Interestingly, the Daily Bell’s Anthony Wile ignores the supranational character of Gadaffi’s Gold Dinar in his analysis of the situation.
The fact that Gadaffi is now a martyr is very welcome in associating him with an African Currency.
We await with trepidation who the next victim will be.
Alex Jones joins Alan Greenspan in calling for Gold Standard
Slowly but surely what was known to the initiated for a long time is becoming more and more mainstream: the return to the Gold Standard. Although it does not seem likely Paul will win the election, it’s far from ruled out either, so the return of the Banker’s favorite currency is very much on the agenda.
It’s an interesting interview, because it exposes so clearly the many problems that the ‘Truth’ Movement is currently facing.
Ted Anderson, interviewed by host Aaron Dykes, is a Gold Trader. Really very special, all these Gold Traders in the ‘Truth’ Movement. Really useful people for some ‘independent’ (harhar!) commentary on the economy and politics.
Also interesting is that Jones has no qualms calling it a Gold Standard. Many Austrian Economists try to downplay this label, explaining it will all be different from the past. They try to circumvent the issue by calling it a ‘free currency market’.
Now, I do support a free market for currencies.
But what is going to happen, if Paul gets his way, is that the FED is going to be closed and a ‘free currency market’ declared. But in this free currency market there will be only Gold backed currencies. You’ll quickly see all sorts of heavily funded Gold and other metal mints. Of course these will be organized in the same way as every Money Power cartel: as nominally competing businesses. They’ll probably believe themselves they’re competing, not realizing they have a common owner, or controller.
Mutual Credit will play only a small part. They, very strangely enough, will NOT find massive funding. They will also lack the full support from Washington, who will be very busy implementing the infrastructure for the ‘free currency market’. Notwithstanding, of course, the nominal resistance against Government interference that Austrian Economics is famous for.
But of course, people sending their man to Washington to end heavy handed Government certainly are prone to all sorts of interesting ‘logic’.
So the ‘free currency market’ will be a de facto Gold Monopoly, or Bi Metal Cartel.
Also funny to see Dykes and Anderson talk about ‘Honest Money’. Or ‘Sound Money’. Exactly the line the bankers used in the late 19th century.
During the 20th century one of the more famous people calling Gold Sound Money was of course Alan Greenspan. His essays from the sixties were all for Gold. The first sentence from the linked essay is really hilarious: “An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions.“.
Quite typical of the Daily Bell and other Austrian Economists. I guess now we know where they get their material from.
And here he is in 2007, promoting the ‘solution’ to the ‘problem’ he created himself, even before the ‘reaction’:
Yes, the Bankers really, really hate Gold.
Nothing much changes.
More:
Alex Jones: Disinformationist
Let’s consider Alex Jones MSM from now on
The Ron Paul Challenge: 10 Reasons the Alternative Media are failing this test
Who is Ed Griffin?
Faux Economics
Who is Ed Griffin?
With the ascent of Ron Paul it has become very clear that the subversion of the Patriot movement through Austrian Economics and its Gold Standard is a far more serious threat than perhaps imagined. How did America’s Patriots lose its connection with their natural heritage from the Populists, calling for plentiful money?
It seems Ed Griffin might have more to do with it than we’d care to know.
It is no use introducing G. Edward Griffin. If you don’t know him, it’s highly unlikely you will be reading this. His influence on the ‘Truth/Patriot’ movement is hard to overestimate. He made a name for himself with his cancer analysis and Laetrile antidote. But his big break was ‘The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994)’, an expose on the Federal Reserve System.
Now, I don’t think I’m the only one that associates this book with Eustace Mullins’ ‘The Secrets of the Federal Reserve’. Mullins himself certainly did. And Mullins of course, was inspired and basically educated by the great Ezra Pound himself, who was then incarcerated in a mental asylum in Washington D.C.
So in this way by association I basically assumed Griffin would understand the basics of money and the Money Power’s control over it. At least the suggestion is created that Griffin is part of a tradition that has a very specific and concrete analysis of these matters.
It was only the last few years that I started to realize that Griffin, however, plugs a Gold Standard as the solution to what he considers the problem: the Federal Reserve Bank and its ‘fiat’ money.
And this is simply astonishing.
Ezra Pound was probably the greatest political commentator of the 20th century. He profoundly studied and explained the Money Power’s origins, ‘ethics’, methods, economics, sociological effects and of course its control over money.
And he didn’t call the Money Power ‘Fiat’, nor ‘Inflator’. He called her Usura.
Pound was very astute in his observations of money as a means of exchange and not a store of value. He proposed Social Credit. He also supported Gesell’s work.
And Gold? “The present war dates at least from the founding of the Bank of England at the end of the 17th century, 1694-8. Half a century later, the London usurocracy shut down on the issue of paper money by the Pennsylvania colony, A.D. 1750. This is not usually given prominence in the U.S. school histories. The 13 colonies rebelled, quite successfully, 26 years later, A.D. 1776.” According to Pound, it was the money issue (above all) that united the Allies during the second 20th-century war against Germany: “Gold. Nothing else uniting the three governments, England, Russia, United States of America. That is the interest–gold, usury, debt, monopoly, class interest, and possibly gross indifference and contempt for humanity.”
And elsewhere: “Gold is a coward. Gold is not the backbone of nations. It is their ruin. A coward, at the first breath of danger gold flows away, gold flows out of the country.”
That is the real face of Gold as Pound saw it and how right he was.
Pound, evidently, had no problems seeing the self evident: that the Gold Standards of the past and most certainly of modern history, beginning in Amsterdam, were banker operations.
Neither had Eustace Mullins, who left very little to guess in his book:
“The international gold dealings of the Federal Reserve System, and its active support in helping the League of Nations to force all the nations of Europe and South America back on the gold standard for the benefit of international gold merchants like Eugene Meyer, Jr. and Albert Strauss, is best demonstrated by a classic incident, the sterling credit of 1925.
J.E. Darling wrote, in the English periodical, “Spectator”, on January 10, 1925 that:
“Obviously, it is of the first importance to the United States to induce England to resume the gold standard as early as possible. An American controlled Gold Standard, which must inevitably result in the United States becoming the world’s supreme financial power, makes England a tributary and satellite, and New York the world’s financial centre.”
Mr. Darling fails to point out that the American people have as little to do with this as the British people, and that resumption of the gold standard by Britain would benefit only that small group of international gold merchants who own the world’s gold. No wonder that “Banker’s Magazine” gleefully remarked in July, 1925 that:
“The outstanding event of the past half year in the banking world was the restoration of the gold standard.”"
So where the currently popular notion comes from that Gold is feared by the Bankers is really very hard to understand. It was certainly not the opinion of Mullins or Pound.
Of course, neither Mullins nor Pound are saints whose stories we should accept at face value. But it is strange that Griffin is associated with them. Because he clearly vehemently disagrees with both his forebears.
Griffin on Gold
On his website Griffin addresses a number of questions about his position on Gold. They are arranged in a Q & A. Let’s have a look at them.
We will not go into the stuff we already discussed with Gary North and the Daily Bell, but Griffin mentions a few more typical pro Gold arguments and we’ll deconstruct them here.
1. On Social Credit
Let’s first see how Griffin responds to the question whether Social Credit would be a better monetary system. And let’s keep in mind that Ezra Pound favored this system.
Here’s what Griffin replies:
“Fiat money remains fiat money regardless of the formulas used to determine its quantity and distribution. Social credit systems are designed by men according to formulas drafted by men and enforced by men – all of which means the system is not fixed by supply and demand but by edict – and that is not fundamentally different from the present system. Eventually, if the rules for money creation CAN be changed, they WILL be changed to the advantage of those with the power to change them and to the disadvantage of everyone else.”
Now this is the typically incredibly lame clincher that Austrian Economics is famous for. ‘It’s Fiat Money so it’s bad’. They’ll mess up the volume!
And how about 700 billion on debt service per year for the Government Mr. Griffin? How about paying 150.000 dollars in interest over a 100.000 mortgage over 30 years? Ring a bell?
Again: the blatant ignoring of Interest. Usura.
In this case damnable because Griffin MUST know about interest, when considering his predecessors.
2. On the wonders of Gold
The question he replies to is fair enough:
‘If the Banks own all the Gold, why would we want a Gold-Backed Money System?’
Now that is a very, very good question indeed. Here’s Griffin’s reply:
“The Rothschilds do not own all the gold or even close to it. Most of it is still in the ground, in the ocean, and in private hoards. Even if they did own all of it that presently is in the form of bars, that would just drive up the price and stimulate gold mining so that new supplies would quickly come into production – as now is happening around the world. When the price hits several thousands of dollars per ounce, it will be profitable to extract it from the oceans, and there is a limitless supply from that source. It’s just a question of the natural balance between supply and demand – without a committee of politicians and bankers drafting a magic formula and using coercion to redirect human resources.
Bankers may hoard gold (because they understand its value more than most people) but they have always done everything possible to prevent a gold-backed currency. If they wanted it, they could have had it long ago, but (as you may have noticed) they always have worked against it. Why is that? It’s because they can acquire far more wealth by expanding the money supply at will and collecting interest on money created out of nothing than they can by having limits on their money supply and collecting interest on a much smaller amount of gold-backed loans. Bankers love to possess gold but they hate a gold-backed currency because that limits their money supply and, thereby, limits the volume of loans.
Any system other than precious metals is dependent on human decree and manipulation. It must inevitably end up no different than any other fiat money. I am familiar with the social-credit scheme and find it lacking in merit. It is a social engineer’s fantasy. It does not line up with human nature.
Gold has always worked well as a monetary base throughout history. It can’t be improved upon. We must not fall for the line about gold being just a pretty metal, etc. It has intrinsic value even if not used for money, it does not deteriorate, it can be divided into small units and recombined again if necessary, it is scarce so it has great value in a small space, and, best of all, it can be precisely measured for purity and weight, which allows for units that are beyond human judgment and human manipulation. It is the perfect money.”
Let’s go through this point for point:
“The Rothschilds do not own all the gold or even close to it. Most of it is still in the ground, in the ocean, and in private hoards.“
Now this is a completely unprovable statement. It is just as unprovable as the idea that they DO own it all. However, since the Rothschilds CLEARLY owned the Gold Market during the 19th century, it is at least a very serious possibility that they still do today. And considering the all importance of the control of the money supply it should be completely self evident that we should not take the risk.
Even Bitcoin is better than Gold: at least we know where these Units are. We don’t know where the Gold is, so we don’t know what the Volume is, and whether someone could manipulate it.
Therefore the rationale for Gold, stable Volume, does not stand: we simply cannot know whether it can be inflated and/or deflated.
Griffin himself seems to understand his treading on quicksand, because he continues:
“Even if they did own all of it that presently is in the form of bars, that would just drive up the price and stimulate gold mining so that new supplies would quickly come into production – as now is happening around the world. When the price hits several thousands of dollars per ounce, it will be profitable to extract it from the oceans, and there is a limitless supply from that source. It’s just a question of the natural balance between supply and demand – without a committee of politicians and bankers drafting a magic formula and using coercion to redirect human resources.“
Suggesting we could break a Rothschild Monopoly if it were real.
But Ed: who do you think controls the Gold Mines?
Cooperative Unions of Sovereign Individuals? 6 Billion wide awake Citizens of the World? The White Brotherhood? Ben Fulford’s Friends?
Or perhaps the Usual Suspects?
And it’s even worse. We are supposed to go Gold because its volume cannot be increased. But if we need more we can dig it up?
Huh? What kind of logic is this?
And last: the notion that rising prices would force Gold out of hoarding. The Daily Bell is also known for spouting this ridiculous nonsense: a Monopolist doesn’t surrender his stash when the price is right! He just lets the market set the maximum price it can bear and then proceeds to rip us all off for ever at that price!
So no, there is no free market for Gold. Rothschild DOES own a decisive stake in the World’s reserves. And rising prices due to scarcity is his wet dream: he can continue his monopoly pricing operation.
It’s just incredibly upsetting and annoying that we even need to have this conversation.
Then this:
“Bankers may hoard gold (because they understand its value more than most people) but they have always done everything possible to prevent a gold-backed currency.“
This is such a blatant lie. Are we to believe that Ed Griffin did not read Eustace Mullins? Just read Mullins’ quote above. His entire book radiates an absolute disgust for a Gold Standard. Mullins time and again explains it’s a banker operation.
I can understand people reading Griffin and ignorantly touting this lie all over the Blogosphere.
But Griffin is responsible for this obfuscation of the Truth. For this clearly blatant and well considered try to extinguish Mullins’ and Pound’s message from the Truth Movement.
“If they wanted it, they could have had it long ago, but (as you may have noticed) they always have worked against it.”
Again lying. And adding another lie: they could have had it long ago.
They had it. The reason they lost it, is because the Great Depression was SO bad through artificially deflated volume WHILE ON A GOLD STANDARD, that populists in both Europe and America finally managed to force their elites to dump the Gold Standard. THAT’s what happened in the thirties.
However, they were compensated for their loss by a new monopoly, based on the printing press. In Europe, anyway, because the Dollar remained redeemable for Gold under Bretton Woods, although not for American Citizens and only in international trade.
“Bankers love to possess gold but they hate a gold-backed currency because that limits their money supply and, thereby, limits the volume of loans.“
Another example of idiotic ‘logic’. What does the size of the Money Supply matter?? Even if we would have only ONE ounce of Gold, it would suit them fine. For the reason that is always explained so beautifully by the Austrians themselves: We simply divide the Gold through all the money there is, and that’s what the one ounce will be worth. We then divide the Gold through trillion and use these small nuggets as backing for the notes that will circulate.
It is completely irrelevant how large the size of the money supply is. What matters is who owns and controls it. So he can slap interest on it.
Griffin also makes the point that bankers want to inflate the money supply because that will make them more money.
Nonsense! Bankers are interested in their share of the whole, not in nominal profits. They will prefer a billion which is half of the total over a trillion which is only a quarter of the total.
They are willing to let the total pie shrink, if they get a larger percentage of what remains.
That’s why Bankers love deflation: it shrinks the total because it destroys economic growth, leaving less for us and increasing their share of the total.
Griffin ends with a love song comprised of erroneous and or unprovable statements quite typical of Goldbugs:
“Gold has always worked well as a monetary base throughout history. It can’t be improved upon. We must not fall for the line about gold being just a pretty metal, etc. It has intrinsic value even if not used for money, it does not deteriorate, it can be divided into small units and recombined again if necessary, it is scarce so it has great value in a small space, and, best of all, it can be precisely measured for purity and weight, which allows for units that are beyond human judgment and human manipulation. It is the perfect money.”
Gold has not always worked well as money. That’s why there was almost revolution in the thirties and the elite dumped it to save their asses. That’s why the colonists went to war with Britain in 1776, because Britain’s Gold Standard was impoverishing the colonies, which had thrived under their own scrip.
That’s why Caesar ended fiat money that brought the Roman Republic to Hegemony, when he perpetrated his Plutocracy sponsored coup in 44 BC. He introduced a Gold Standard and the newly formed Empire started Rome’s decline.
That’s why millions upon millions of desperate Europeans allowed themselves to be forced from the land they inherited through generation upon generation and left for the sweatshops in the cities: because scarce Gold forced upon them by the emerging Central Banks destroyed their ancient fiat currency based economies.
That’s why Bryan so brilliantly exclaimed: “Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.“
Many Problems, One Source
The problem is that the enemy is everywhere. GMO ‘foods’, Pharmacide, Big Oil, Empire, Feminism, Global Warming, Environmental Destruction, Famine, DU weapons, left wing radicals, right wing radicals, Consumerism, the coming Iran War and WW3, Pornography, Television and other Mass Media.
Each of these represent a major threat. As a result everybody attacking one or more of these outrages is welcomed in the Alternative Media as a valiant knight fighting Power.
But we must understand that behind all these phenomenona there is one source: the Money Power.
And the Money Power rules through control over the Money Supply. It uses this control to enslave us with Interest first and foremost, but certainly also through the boom/bust cycle.
All issues must be addressed, but they cannot be addressed before we get it right concerning the money supply!
How are we going to finance green energy, healthy food and 21st century architecture? Do you really believe going to a bank for some interest bearing credit is going to work out?
No! We need Trillions of interest free capital to clear up this mess.
The Money Power rules through control of the money supply. It enslaves us with Interest and the boom/bust cycle. We cannot allow the Truth Movement to be hijacked by change agents who make moot points about cancer and like looking a hero by exposing chemtrailing in 2010 when even the UN is already admitting large scale terra forming and Geo Engineering.
We must not fall for the idea that ‘My enemy’s enemy is my friend’.
Not so! The Money Power is well known for organizing its own opposition.
Money is All Important!
People that hide behind credible information about cancer but in the mean time plug a Gold Standard, subverting the legacy of Pound and his pupil Mullins, should not be taken seriously!
Conclusion
We have cooperated with Austrian Economics because they hate the FED, abusive Government, Fractional Reserve Banking and inflation.
But in the final analysis these are ALL red herrings. The FED is not the problem but a symptom. The Money Power does not care about the FED. It is ready to dump this vehicle. As long as it controls its successor! And it will, because its successor will oversee a Gold Standard.
Inflation is way overrated and absolutely the lesser evil compared to Deflation. Deflation comes with economic stagnation and decline, inflation is associated with economic growth.
Deflation is good for creditors, inflation good for debtors.
Abusive Government is a result of it being subverted by the Money Power. But the Money Power fears Government, because it can be liberated by the Nation to which it belongs. That’s why they want their World Government, that will know no national affiliation and will be of their making only.
Considering the horrible damage done by the Austrian Economics Mind Control operation, as witnessed by Ron Paul’s ascent, it will no longer do to see them as allies against the Powers that Be.
Ed Griffin is a particularly nasty cookie, as he clearly purposefully tries to obscure the crucial messages of Pound and Mullins. Knowing the Money Power there is every reason to suggest that this is the main reason Ed Griffin exists and why we all know about him.
Related:
Austrian Economics still is ‘Jewish’ Economics
The Ron Paul Challenge: 10 Reasons the Alternative Media is Failing this Test
What Gary North is not telling you about Interest
Discussing Gold and Interest with the Daily Bell
Faux Economics
Budget of an Interest Slave
The main reason why interest slavery goes largely unnoticed is because most of what we pay is invisible: it is included in prices. Producers cannot avoid capital costs and must pass these on to consumers.
It has been established that 45% of prices we pay are for interest on business loans or other capital costs. No less than 50% of taxes we pay go to servicing the National Debt and capital costs included in prices the Government pays. So what does the budget of a typical interest slave look like?
Here’s one from a young man, 31 years old, living in North Western Europe and working as a civil servant, making €37,200 per year. He has bought his own apartment a few years ago, so most of it is still property of the bank. He has a €10,000 credit line which he has used to decorate his place.
His monthly gross income is €3,100, of which €1,000 goes to income tax and other levies. Of this money, €500 is lost to interest on the National Debt and capital costs included in prices the Government pays.
His net income is €2,100.
Percentages differ per expenditure, depending on the capital intensity of the industry involved. The percentages in the left column are the fractions of the prices that are lost to interest.
So let’s see what his budget looks like:
| Spent | VAT | Excluding VAT | VAT lost to interest | % lost to capital costs excl. VAT | |
| Mortgage, 100% | 450 | 0% | 450 | 0 | 450 |
| Energy, 45% | 100 | 30% | 70 | 15 | 31.5 |
| Food, 25% | 400 | 6% | 376 | 12 | 94 |
| Internet/Telecom, 50% | 100 | 19% | 81 | 9.5 | 40.5 |
| Interest payments credit, 100% | 100 | 0% | 100 | 0 | 100 |
| savings | 100 | 0% | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| Going out, 30% | 500 | 19% | 405 | 47.5 | 121.5 |
| Clothing, 30% | 100 | 19% | 81 | 9.5 | 24.3 |
| Transportation, 50% | 100 | 6% | 94 | 3 | 47 |
| Various, 45% | 150 | 19% | 121.5 | 14.25 | 54.68 |
| Totals | 2100 | 110.75 | 963.48 | ||
| VAT + Income Tax | 1221,50 | ||||
| Of which Interest | 610,75 | ||||
| Lost to Interest | 1574,23 |
Analysis:
- An astounding €1574,23 (610,75 + 963,48) of a monthly gross €3100,- income is lost to interest!
- Taxation (VAT + Income Tax) is €1221,50, but half of this, about €610,- is lost to interest the Government pays.
- Taxation (corrected for interest) + Interest takes away an incredible 75% of the disposable income.
- This example shows someone with a reasonable income, but a little less than zero net assets. This is quite common throughout the West: 50% of Americans have zero net assets or less.
- Had he rented a place instead of buying his own apartment, he would not have been better off: 75% of the rent we pay is compensation for the landlord’s capital costs.
- All percentages where available are taken from Margrit Kennedy, in the case of clothing and Telecom they have been estimated.
So while it is natural to complain of high taxes, it transpires that no less than half of taxes we pay is lost to interest. We would pay 50% less tax were there no cost for capital.
Worse still: approximately half our own disposable income is lost to interest, on top of the taxes we pay. Combined interest + tax takes 75% of our gross income.
Amazingly, a Medieval serf typically payed only 10% of his gross income to his ‘Lord’. Interest was unheard of then.
Would we end interest, our interest slave’s disposable income would triple: He would be left paying only 25% in taxes, leaving 75% for himself.
The only way we can escape being net payers of interest is by having assets ourselves. But this forces us to exploit others, to compensate for, instead of ending, being exploited ourselves. In this way the Money Power’s methods have become acceptable to the mainstream, whereas Usury has been a taboo for most of human history.
To add insult to injury: all the interest ends up with the rich: after all, they have money to lend, while the poor borrow. Margrit Kennedy also established that 80% of the population pays interest to the richest 10%. But also within the top 10% bracket the redistribution of wealth continues: the ‘poorer’ 8% pay interest to the richest 1% and eventually all ends up with the Plutocracy.
Conclusion
The Money Power has subverted almost every Government on the Globe. It has forced them to surrender their currency monopoly to the Money Power’s Central Banks. They use this monopoly to enslave both Government and us with interest and the boom/bust cycle.
It cares not whether her monopoly is paper or metal based: it owns all Gold and came to power through the Gold Standard. Gold as currency is interest bearing.
But the Government can be reconquered by the People and that’s why they want to consolidate their power in World Government and World Currency, both of which will know no national affiliation.
Our own goal must be to have interest free money. Both by reconquering Government and forcing it to end the Central Bank monopoly and by creating independent currencies, based on interest free credit. Modern Mutual Credit will destroy Federal Reserve Notes and the Euro in the market place.
World Government and Government tyranny are both Money Power projects and to defeat them an interest free money supply is a ‘sine qua non’.
Related:
On Interest
The Goal of Monetary Reform
Financial Warfare 2012: Boycott All Banks!
We can consider ourselves lucky Ron Paul is not likely to win the elections. His economics are a disaster and the Alternative Media’s credibility would suffer a horrible blow from bringing him to power. Just think of the field day the Main Stream Media would have explaining they warned us of Paul when millions take to the street to resist his destruction of the economy with his 1 trillion austerity drive.
How could our best and brightest be suckered in to supporting a Freemason wanting a Gold Standard with an austerity program the IMF would tout as an example?
Financial Warfare 2012: Boycott all Banks
The Credit Crunch is not some natural phenomenon but an all out assault by the Money Power. The solution is simple: quit their banks. To say this is irresponsible as it will worsen the crunch is ridiculous: propping up a system that only exists to enslave us is irresponsible, not disconnecting from it.
We have everything we need to shut this system down and start over in a realistic and equitable way.
We must force the hand of Government and Banking. They will never stop anyway and that’s why a Boycott is the only real way forward.
The Inflation vs. Deflation Dialectic
After decades of inflation and fears of Ben ‘Helicopter’ Bernanke induced hyperinflation it is probably not surprising that a wearying public is starting to wonder whether deflation would be the lesser evil.
But not only is deflation (austerity) a disaster, we are being set up to believe it’s the only alternative to rampant inflation.
It is not and it is time we bury this lie before it starts a life of its own.
How about the Lectro?
People doing some independent thinking on currency often at some point come up with the idea of using energy as backing. It is easy to see why: energy is probably our most important resource and intuitively it seems attractive to use it as currency. But does it serve the goals of Monetary Reform?
As a monetary architect I’ve spent many hours discussing monetary innovations with hundreds of people. The notion of energy backed currency pops up often and it is easy to see why: energy is probably our most important resource and intuitively it seems attractive to use it as currency.
Mike Rivero’s Lectro is a case in point, so let’s have a look at it and analyze its pro’s and con’s.
It’s a simple idea. One Lectro is redeemable for 1kWh of energy. Everybody supplying the grid with 1kWh will get a note worth 1 Lectro.
Rivero states the following:
1. There is no central issuing authority. Every home can have solar panels generating power to the grid, which is redeemable in Lectro notes.
2. Because power is now the actual monetary system, this approach encourages efficient (and with the proper tax penalties for pollution) clean power generation as well as conservation at the consumer and factory levels.
3. Nobody can short the money supply because everyone can create their own power and monetize it through the treasury. Runaway inflation is impossible because all the coins and certificates in circulation are tied to the available power grid. As power is created, coins and certificates flow into circulation. As power is used, the coins and certificates are taken out of circulation.
4. In the long term, creation of an energy-based money system will smooth the transition from a human-labor to machine-labor society. At present, human labor precedes all capital, payable in a monetary system that pays primarily for human labor. In switching to a monetary system that pays for machine based power production, we evolve towards a society where machines become the primary creators of capital, and all humans shift towards the demand side of the economy. Instead of creating poverty, the push towards automation creates more wealth.
To evaluate the Lectro, let’s first recap the Goals of Monetary Reform:
1. To end the control of the Money Supply by the Money Power and bring it back to where it belongs: the individuals forming the Commonwealth.
2. To decimate cost for capital. We are Interest Slaves. Interest is per definition a wealth transfer from poor to rich, so our Money Supply must be interest-free.
3. To allow equitable access to all. As opposed to the current situation, where the Money Power only finances those it owns or wants to own and starves the rest from credit.
4. To have a stable money supply. It should never deflate faster than the economy and if it inflates, it at least should be clear that the means of exchange is not hoarded (‘saved’).
So does the Lectro help us achieve these goals? It transpires it does not. At this point energy is produced by strongly centralized Transnationals. Big Oil and the Nuclear Industry. These industries are tightly controlled by the Money Power, so the Lectro would not end control of the Money Supply by the Money Power. Big Oil and its sisters would become the new banks.
As a result, with the Lectro we can forget about interest free credit: the Money Power will continue to use its control of the Money Supply to rape us with extortionist interest rates.
However, it most probably would allow an attack on the Money Power’s control, because it would be very lucrative for individuals and corporations to start generating energy. It would create a massive innovation boom, although this innovation would also be fiercely combated by the Money Power and of course Government, which is controlled by the Money Power.
This is where a serious weakness in the Lectro comes to the fore. Mike states: “Because power is now the actual monetary system, this approach encourages efficient (and with the proper tax penalties for pollution) clean power generation as well as conservation at the consumer and factory levels. “
The catch is: ‘with the proper tax penalties for pollution’. This will be used by the Money Power to have its scientists ‘prove’ that her energy is very clean, while decentralized energy is very bad for the environment. The Money Power will make the Government distort the market with these taxes.
Also it does not provide a stable volume of the money supply. It would be very easy to manipulate. The main threat is runaway inflation as a massive boom in energy production takes off. When production goes up, prices go down. So the currency would be depreciating and asset prices would start to rise.
Also, if the Money Power would maintain control of the volume by managing to keep Big Oil and Nuclear Energy in charge and preventing large scale decentralized production, it could easily create a boom/bust cycle.
After all, they have no problems creating a ‘Peak Oil’ phenomenon. This would mean deflation when the Lectro is our money.
Conclusion
We need to keep the eye on the ball: who is in control of the money supply? The Lectro does not provide a satisfactory answer to that question. In its early stages the Money Power would firmly control it and although the Lectro would allow a reaction through decentralized production of energy, it is far from certain that this would lead to free energy. After all: there is every incentive today to create ample energy, but it is not forthcoming.
However, the main issue is that there are better solutions already available: Mutual Credit can provide interest free money, completely free from control from the Money Power or even Government. Social Credit and Public Banking are two other systems serving the goals of monetary reform.
Related:
The Goal of Monetary Reform
On Interest
Budget of an Interest Slave
Mutual Credit, the Astonishingly Simple Truth About Money Creation
Mutual Credit for the 21st Century: Convertibility
Rate this: