Skip to content

How the Money Power created Libertarianism and Austrian Economics

by on February 17, 2012
Volker

“You say that Marxism is the very antithesis of capitalism, which is equally sacred to us [The Money Power] It is precisely for this reason that they are direct opposites to one another, that they put into our hands the two poles of this planet and allow us to be its axis. These two contraries, like Bolshevism and ourselves, find their identity in the International.”
Otto Kahn, Investment Banker

William S. Volker (1859-1947) was a wealthy German-Jewish businessman. Dismayed by the rise of Socialism in America, he created the Volker fund to provide a reactionary ideology based on “laissez-faire” and Social Darwinism. This was to become Libertarianism.

This article was written for Henry Makow

Libertarianism and its twin sister Austrian Economics were invented by the Money Power to be the other side of the dialectic with Communism.

According to this amazing report, all non-specified quotes in this essay are taken from it, “Volker was no great scholar or thinker. The ideology he set out to create was built upside down, starting only with a set of foggy conclusions for which he had a predisposition. From these conclusions, it was the task of Volker’s considerable fortune to find a set of justifications, then an enabling ideology or “theory” that gave it all perspective and unity and, eventually, a true philosophical platform from which to launch the whole.”

Even though Volker was not an economist of philosopher he had money and, very important, influential relations with the University of Chicago, founded by John D. Rockefeller.

This turned out to be a crucial connection.

Volker’s nephew Harold Luhnow took over the Fund in 1944.

Friedrich Hayek’s ‘the road to Serfdom’ was published the same year. With its defense of ‘laissez-faire’ capitalism and claim that any attempt at regulation would inevitably lead to totalitarianism, it was exactly what the Volker Fund had been looking for. It was only then that the Volker fund started to have a real impact. It arranged for a reprint of Hayek’s book with the University of Chicago and made sure the book ended up in every library in the United States.

The Volker Fund would finance all the leading Austrian Economists and would have a substantial impact on the ‘Chicago School of Economics’, including Milton Friedman.

Von Mises, who throughout his career never held a payed job at any University, was maintained first by David Rockefeller and then for decades received money from the Volker fund and related business men, like Lawrence Fertig.
Von Mises’ biographer, Richard M. Ebeling:
Many readers may be surprised to learn the extent to which the Graduate Institute and then Mises himself in the years immediately    after he came to United States were kept afloat financially through generous grants from the Rockefeller Foundation. In fact, for the first years of Mises’s life in the United States, before his appointment as a visiting professor in the Graduate School of Business Administration at New York University (NYU) in 1945, he was almost totally dependent on annual research grants from the Rockefeller Foundation.”

David Rockefeller himself was quoted as saying: “Finally, in his most surprising statement, he revealed he considers himself a follower of the Austrian school of economics. Friedrich Hayek had been his tutor at the London School of Economics in the 1930s.

Rothbard too was financed by the Volker Fund:
“Rothbard began his consulting work for the Volker Fund in 1951. This relationship lasted until 1962, when the VF was dissolved. A major part of Rothbard’s work for the VF consisted of reading and evaluating books, journal articles, and other materials. On the basis of written reports by Rothbard and another reader – Rose Wilder Lane – the VF’s directors would decide whether to undertake massive distribution of particular works to public libraries.

Rothbard later called his work with the Volker Fund, “the best job I’ve ever had in my life.”

The Volker Fund also explored a tactic that was to find wider application later: it spawned an enormous number of organizations, loosely organized to suggest mutual independence and a ‘Libertarian Movement’. Among these was the Foundation for Economic Education, which in turn would create the Mont Pelerin Society.

The Mont Pelerin Society
The Mont Pelerin Society was named after the  Swiss Alp where the first conference was held. It was founded by Hayek with the financial support of the Volker fund, which payed for the expenses of all American participants. Key co-founders were von Mises, Milton Friedman and Karl Popper.

No less than eight  Noble prizes for Economics were to be won by Mont Pelerin members in the decades ahead. Not bad, for a ‘fringe movement, ignored by the Mainstream’.

The Mont Pelerin, in turn, oversaw the creation of many influential institutions. One of them was the Institute of Economic Affairs in London, 1955. This organization reinvented the Conservative Party, of which Margeret Thatcher was to say: “You created the atmosphere which made our victory possible… May I say how thankful we are to those who joined your great endeavor. They were the few, but they were right, and they saved Britain.

The Heritage Foundation was also a result of the Mont Pelerin Society, as were the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, which in turn birthed a plethora of think tanks, including the Fraser Institute.

The amount of money that was invested in all this was tremendous:
“John Blundell, the head of the IEA, in a speech to the Heritage Foundation, and Atlas in 1990, would identify a rare failure in the Society’s efforts. Shaking his head at the abortive attempt to subsidize academic “Chairs of Free Enterprise” in dozens of countries throughout the world, Blundell complained about wasting, “hundreds of millions, perhaps one billion dollars”. This was just one initiative among many.”

The Koch Family.
The Volker fund was disbanded in 1962. It still had $7 million in assets, which it donated to the Hoover society.

But in the mean time another very wealthy Jewish family,  the Koch family (see ‘the Zionist Billionaires that control Politics‘), had taken over the organization of Libertarianism and Austrian Economics.

Fred Koch founded the John Birch Society in 1958. Ed Griffin was educated there. He later wrote a famous book, “the Creature of Jekyll Island”. This was a rehash of Eustace Mullins’ brilliant ‘Secrets of the Federal Reserve’, with one exception: it left out all Mullins’ analysis of the Gold Standard as a Banker operation and how Britain’s demand for taxes payed in Gold were the cause of the war of Independence. Instead it called for the reinstatement of a Gold Standard. This is a key part of the story how Austrian Economics managed to take over the ‘Truth Movement’.

Koch’s son Charles Koch founded the CATO Institute, together with Murray Rothbard. The CATO Institute remains to this day a leading Libertarian outlet.

Libertarianism as a Jewish Movement
Most Leading Libertarians are or were Jewish. Von Mises, Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Irwin (and Peter) Schiff. According to Peter Schiff, his grandfather Jacob Schiff is not the same as the infamous financier.

Rothbard himself had interesting views about race and inequality in the free market: “Rothbard was proud to be a ‘racialist’ because racialism exposed the true source of inequality in a free market, namely genetics. A belief in biological racial inequality was, for Rothbard, part of the libertarian project, because racial inequality was simply how markets reflected nature. Moreover, this was no sudden conversion: Rothbard promoted the same view, as early as 1973, here.”

So Jewish Supremacism can be retraced directly to the Austrian Economics’ main proponent himself.

Conclusion
Libertarianism and Austrian Economics are not the products of maverick free thinkers. On the contrary, all leading proponents of the movement were highly connected individuals. In the early years the Volker Fund made available vast sums of money, because Austrian Economics was considered the right answer to communism, to maintain the dialectic the Money Power needs (also see: ‘Banker explained ‘Occupy America’ Scam‘).

Far from a fringe movement, Mont Pelerin Alumni collected no less than eight Noble Prizes. Alan Greenspan testified of its pervasive influence by saying in 2000:
the Austrian School have reached far into the future from when most of them practiced and have had a profound and, in my judgment, probably an irreversible effect on how most mainstream economists think in this country.

In this day and age when communism is no longer considered a threat, but with Marxism/Liberalism/Political Correctness a strong force in Western nations, Libertarianism has found a new lease of life as a way co-opting the resistance in the Alternative Media.

The dialectic continues unabated.

special thanks: Meme Hunter

Related:

Main source of this article by Anonymous: The not so spontaneous birth of the Libertarian Movement
Ron Paul’s Masonic Jewish Economics
Return of the Gold Standard imminent
Faux Economics
Top Ten Lies and Mistakes of Austrian Economics
Hate the State, Buy Gold and all will be well: the Alternative Media in Crisis

the Daily Bell responds
Gary North responds

About these ads
85 Comments
  1. The Causes of the Economic Crisis for non Economists- The Austrian Approach

    http://iakal.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/the-causes-of-the-economic-crisis-for-non-economists-the-austrian-school-approach/

  2. hanneesh permalink

    Not everyone’s attempts to reject current abuses of power by finance are conspiracies or inside agents. It is so arrogant to instantly dismiss the good intentions of libertarians and the work they’ve done towards a fair money system. The Texan’s don’t seem to be complaining about their complimentary currency system.

    Capitalism is not a perfect system, but don’t get confused between it and the crony capitalism of today. The two are different kettles of fish. Can you suggest a better system? (I don’t have time to study your entire blog)

    Whether you like it or not, gold is a currency with intrinsic value, and has been so for 5000 years. Sure a gold standard is not perfect, but as Jim Rickards says the only reason the return to the gold standard after the great depression filed was because it wasn’t set at the right price. The massive transfer of wealth you talk about is true and will happen, which is why central banks in the far east are hoarding gold like mad, and those in the know are buying physical while the price is manipulated and before the cataclysmic credit crash.

    Their hasn’t been a money system not based on usury since before the knights templar, Damning anyone who doesn’t fight for that exact thing, and deeming them an idiot, deluded, agent or traitor is totally counter-productive. You should be in league with the libertarians in so far as your aims are the same; massive reformation of the world’s system of credit. Lets take it one step at a time shall we, then we can discuss your utopic usury-free world.

    I’d need some decent sources to check out your quite frankly, tenuous conspiracy theories. You’re the kind that give the MSM the perfect excuse to dismiss any logical debate by the mere mention of the word.

    On the other hand I’m intrigued by your key influences. I’d be happy to read them if you’d recommend them to me.

    • Dennis Berube permalink

      This “gold standard” nonsense needs to stop. We cannot and should not ever go back to any kind of pure gold standard. A Bretton Woods style parity, maybe. By far the best economic system yet designed was made by Alexander Hamilton. It was not capitalism. Much closer to dirigisme. The general difference from today is how the central bank acted and the governments role in guiding investments to productive areas for the general welfare per the Constitution. The central bank was not entirely privately owned and operated as it is today, making decisions for the benefit of its owners (bankers) and not the general welfare (public). Otherwise, instead of spending $27 trillion to bailout banks everywhere from derivatives debt in 2008, we would have updated infrastructure and maybe a massive maglev train system or something. Central banks have the ability to do good despite the irrational view that government is the root of all evil but somehow Wall Street and London are ok.
      I have to wonder why Libertarians never seem to notice this key difference with the central bank and just want it to end. No central bank at all would be just as bad as a private Federal Reserve, if not worse. A gold standard would mean everyone but the very richest are done for. Who does this philosophy serve? You should know that Hamilton’s views would likely be called “Socialist” by today’s economists and that should tell you something. Economists are largely corrupted by modern garbage like Friedman, VonMises, Volker, Greenspan, (other banking darlings) etc….

      • You make Claims without ANY evidence To back it up. “Gold standard hurts everyone but the richest” How so? keep in mind I don’t support the gold standard. I feel it is a waste of resources like using gas as a currency instead of using it would be a waste. I much prefer Competing currencies. That said saying the gold standard hurts everybody but the rich is a hell of a claim. Maybe you should provide evidence.

        Also Modern economists Being corrupted By “Garbage” like Vonmises, Volker, Friedman, ect. You do know modern economist Are raised and bred in schools to be little followers of Keynes right? Have you read Mises? Friedman? And how could you say these men were Banking darlings when Most of them would surely oppose bailing out banks.

        Also you spout That a central bank is better than a private bank.. has it occurred to you what we have now isn’t really a private bank? it is.. but it isn’t. to say a bank that has control over monetary policy of the entire country is private is a little ridiculous. Libertarians would oppose Central banking not only in its current form, but in any. AND WE WOULDN’T ALLOW PUBLIC BAILOUTS.

    • I’m not against normal folk falling for libertarianism hanneesh, quite the contrary: I understand their pain and my intention is to do a favor by exposing a massive, multi billion, decades old operation.

      Gold is even worse than usurious paper. As currency, that is. It’s not bad to hold a little gold as a safeguard for continuing planned collapse.

      The days that ‘conspiracy theorists’ can be shamed with that silly label (the CIA invented this to shut them up) are long gone.

      The history of mankind can be put in one sentence: liberation from those controlling the money supply and enslaving us with Usury.

      There is no ‘improvement’ in Gold. Do you really believe that Austrianism, China moving to Gold backed currency, Russia, India paying for Iranian oil with Gold is a coincidence? While they’re all in the same supra-national governmental agencies? All in the Committee of 30, with the leading Central Bankers?

      Banking is One. It’s one massive cartel. They all own each other. You can check easily for yourself. It’s humanity against the banks, who own all Governments too. Government is NOT the cause, annoying as it may be. Why believe in Government conspiracy and call me a ‘conspiracy theorist’? Doesn’t add up.

      Check this blog to find out about Usury. How do you intend to ‘improve’ the situation with Gold, when they will still be charging you 300k interest over your 200k Gold based mortgage?

      I also recommend the money masters by Bill Still, a good film about real history.

      David Astle’s the Babylonian Woe will quickly cure you of illusions about ‘the free market’ that created Gold money. The Money Power has owned the Gold mines since they began, 5000 years ago.

      • hanneesh permalink

        Ah OK, I can accept that banksters/globalists transcend nationality.

        Don’t get me wrong, I’m under no illusions about bankers master scheme for enslaving the human race to debt, I’ve read Michael Rivero’s “all wars are bankers wars”, whose blog I saw on your blogroll and I found out about this blog from a link on Max Keiser’s website who opened my eyes to a lot of the corruption in finance and banking (although I do not trust him entirely). I’ve never heard it termed ‘the money power’ though, I think that is a great way of articulating the immense evil which is dominating and strengthening its grip all the time through its associated agendas.

        I find it all fascinating but I must admit I didn’t think Ron Paul was in league with them, I genuinely thought he was a man of integrity and believes in his doctrine enfranchising the people against these criminals. It would be easy for people to believe that as it is an apparently opposing school of thought to the current one.

        Having read further, I realise I agree with you on a lot of issues but do you really think you can change the world? Isn’t it wiser to buy gold and hope for the best? What’s the point of shouting into the wind?

        In the UK, where I am from a man started his own bank to help his community as the high street banks were not lending. A documentary was made called “bank of Dave” (check that out! Real action) but ultimately he was prevented from obtaining a banking license. I really think if low interest (slightly usurious, lets not get carried away) independent community banks could be allowed to be established, the whole system could be bypassed. The problem lies in how the get the legislation passed to make the practise legal (which it wouldn’t be because of the powers that shouldn’t be)

        What do you think?

  3. “…and claim that any attempt at regulation would inevitably lead to totalitarianism…”

    Snerk. Did you actually read it?

  4. monkyroo permalink

    What they leave out is the the Rockefeller financed all sides to every argument. They purposely made connections everywhere to be able to infiltrate every movement. They fostered just about all movement and helped them grow to keep the division growing… which in turn, more govt was always the result. So does that mean all sides of every thought is wrong, or right? Of course not. Freedom always rings true.. I don’t give a rat’s ass who financed what.. man was meant to be free.

  5. The debate and arguments made in this thread are spectacular. Kudos on making a post that makes some people troll and argue and provide intense fact based posts. All I can say is, I am floored with all the ideas and counter arguments thrown, Some still need to be answered though. Hope a perfect economic system is made in the future. An economic system where businesses, big and small, can have equal opportunities. Where profit is not the main aim, but world peace or just plain for the good of all humanity. Is it possible? Maybe, when humanity is no longer greedy or obsessed with amassing money or assets or power. Or maybe if justice is equal for all.

    • Hi Sophia Anne Walker. Notice “they” look upon themselves as “the Money Power(s)”. And this is critical in understanding why we, the common people, find ourselves in the situation and world state we do today. The ‘Money Power’ IS the “power to issue/create and control money”, no matter the form utilized. The fact is, whoever is in control of the Money Power literally has the power to control the world eventually. Eventually is now at our doorsteps. You see, the Money Power rightfully belongs to ALL people, individually and collectively. But we, through ignorance, have forsaken our right AND responsibility to secure it to ourselves. When the people cease to be monetarily illiterate and take this Money Power to ourselves along with a proper monetary-based system, then, and only then, will all the things most of us desire so greatly, such as peace, harmony, balance, personal prosperity, liberty and freedom, and the blessings upon our Mother Earth she so greatly deserves, will become a reality. The ‘Money Power’ is the greatest “weapon of mass destruction” the Elite use against the people to steal the wealth of the people from us and empower themselves. To learn more about what we can do to create that “….perfect economic system … in the future” you hope for, I invite you and all to check out the following website and learn the truth about ‘money’, the Money Power as it relates to liberty and freedom, and what we can do about, right now. The People Have the Power. We just need to take it to ourselves. Blessings All …. Laurence Gilbert

      • Larry permalink

        Laurence Gilbert – I greatly enjoyed your post and found your website to be interesting and valuable. Thanks!

  6. Mike M permalink

    Funny the article didn’t mention Carl Menger or Eugen Bohm Bawerk, the Austrian economists that gave us “Subjective Theory of Value” and “Time preference” and ” diminishing marginal utility”.

    Why don’t you try arguing against the theory instead of throwing red herrings?

    • That’s what I did first. You can read about it at the Faux Economics page (to your right)

      But I then started discussing these issues with people like the Daily Bell and Gary North. And guess what: what they had to say about usury, deflation and money power was so stupid, I started digging in the backgrounds. And indeed: the trillionaires transpired to have made it all up themselves.

  7. I was referred to this site by a reader of my site who said I would be good debate for you. I would have to read some of this stuff to see where I do and do not agree with you. In part, Austrians are anti debt money and it appears you contend the opposite. Second, Rothbard hated the conservatives, the Willaim F. Buckley’s, whom he said helped hijack American politics to the benefit of the royals and elite. This is well documented.

    Money is a paradocical item. There is a lot of truth in that you can’t sell to broke people. And people can’t pay back what they don’t possess. Giving a small group the privilege of creating money while the rest of us have to rent it is very anti-libertarian and falls more into the realm of crony capitalism. Prosperity under such a system is merely the time between 2 great liquidations. Money might not have to have value over time, but it has to begin in value. Afterwards, it can only have value in payment of debt, satisfactions of contracts. Thus debt needs to be self liquidating either in payment or in default and not institutionalized. I find what I have read of Rothbards to concur, to be very anti-banking in the sense we have banks today and to require liquidation of debt to maintain a free society. BTW, Marx was a Jew as well.

  8. Anders permalink

    It would be fun to hear you debate Tom Woods, Bob Murphy, James Grant or Peter Schiff on the subject of Austrian Economics.

    Personally I think you would be destroyed within seconds but that’s just my opinion.

    • So how do you think they’d explain away the interest issue, deflation, ignoring the Money Power and the fact of interest free currency?

    • In the faux economics page you can find my discussions with the Daily Bell. These are quite professional Austrians, and I think it’s fair to say they had a hard time of it.

    • I dont know if you are still following this thread, but I’ve met Tom Woods on facebook recently. Here’s how our debate went:

      It’s a long thread, but worth while……..

      Let me know what you think!

  9. GoldBug permalink

    Did I miss your attempt of a point by point falsification of Dr. Norths article, Mr. Migchels?

    http://www.garynorth.com/public/9117print.cfm

    Or am I right in thinking that you can’t deliver?

  10. GoldBug permalink

    A Greenbacker Invents a Nut-Case History of Libertarianism
    Gary North
    Feb. 20, 2012

    I have been asked by several of my subscribers to respond to this article: Proof Libertarianism is an Illuminati Ploy. It appears here: http://www.henrymakow.com/libertarianism_as_an_illuminat.html

    Let me say, before I begin, that the author of this article is the only person I have come across who could profitably study with Ellen Brown.

    There is a subhead: William S. Volker (1859-1947) was a wealthy German-Jewish businessman.

    There is a biography of William Volker, Mr. Anonymous (1951). On Page 16, we read:

    After supper they gathered around Dorothea to pray and to listen to her read passages from the Bible. The Scriptures finished, she laid the Bible aside and explained the practical application of each admonition. Dorothea also passed along to her children the plain homilies she had learned from her parents. She spoke with serious purposefulness; her steady voice revealed her deep conviction. William joined his mother’s circle of instruction before he could comprehend all her teachings. And each Sunday the whole family attended the Lutheran Church services in Esperke where the family prayers were supplemented with more formal worship.
    From here, the article goes downhill.

    At the end of the article, we learn:

    Anthony Migchels is an Interest-Free Currency activist and founder of the Gelre, the first Regional Currency in the Netherlands. You can read all of his articles on his blog Real Currencies
    In short, he is a Greenbacker. He believes in the same fiat money utopia that Ellen Brown promotes. But, when compared to Mr. Migchels, lawyer Brown is a Pulitzer-Prize candidate in history.

    Far from defending freedom, the Illuminati created Libertarianism to reflect their Social Darwinian and racial supremacist ideology. With its opposite twin, Communism, they control the dialectic. The efficacy of this tactic is demonstrated by their duping the “Truth Movement.”
    I am not sure how he got from William Volker to the Illuminati. But, in the wacky world of Greenbackism, anything is possible. “Connecting the dots” produces some truly dotty connections. This article is among the dottiest.

    “You say that Marxism is the very antithesis of capitalism, which is equally sacred to us [Illuminati Jewish bankers.] It is precisely for this reason that they are direct opposites to one another, that they put into our hands the two poles of this planet and allow us to be its axis. These two contraries, like Bolshevism and ourselves, find their identity in the International.” — Otto Kahn, Investment Banker
    I hope Mr. Kahn was better at investing than he was in social theory.

    Actually, there is no record that Mr. Kahn ever said this. He was a highly successful banker and a literate author. We have here another example of an invented quotation. It is a way of life for Greenbackers.

    William S. Volker (1859-1947) was a wealthy German-Jewish businessman. Dismayed by the rise of socialism in America, he created the Volker Fund to support a reactionary ideology based on “laissez-faire” and Social Darwinism. This was to become Libertarianism.
    Volker created the Volker Fund in 1932 to finance hospitals and charities. Only late in his career did he use the Fund’s money for ideological purposes: local civic government education. He lived in Missouri, and he was a long-time critic of boss Tom Pendergast and Pendergast’s hand-picked local politician, Harry Truman. This did not make him a member of the Immuninati.

    Libertarianism and its twin sister Austrian Economics were invented by the Money Power to be the opposite of Communism in a dialectic.
    Well, all I can say is that the Money Power sure has short-changed me for 50 years. Here I am, a certified running dog of the capitalist class, and I have had to bankroll myself since 1967.

    Anyway, the author believes in Marx’s dialectic. This indicates a certain lack of perception on his part. The Marxian dialectic had some tough times back in 1991. You may have read about this. The Communist Party did the unforgivable. It committed suicide. It handed over the infrastructure to the party’s insiders and cashed out. Marx called this the “cash nexus.” Boy, was he right!

    So, the Money Power invented Austrian economics (developed by Karl Menger in 1871) and libetarianism (a term coined by Leonard E. Read around 1946) in order to fight Communism (created in 1848 by an unemployed Ph.D. and his capitalist donor). The Money Power in 1871 was really smart. It spotted a couple of Gentiles to do the deed. Menger’s disciple, Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk, another Gentile, did not write his first critique of Marx until 1884, a year after Marx died. He buried this critique in a long, detailed book, History and Critique of Interest Theories, which almost no has ever one read. Why didn’t they come to him and say this? “Look, Eugen, publish your Marx critique as a pamphlet. You have just got to come up with a better title. This might work: Marx Was a Commie. That will sell a lot better.” How they could have foreseen that Menger would launch the Austrian School remains a mystery to every other historian of Communism and libertarianism. I say this as the author of a 1968 book on Marx.

    According to this amazing report, (from which all non-specified quotes here are taken,) “Volker was no great scholar or thinker. The ideology he set out to create was built upside down, starting only with a set of foggy conclusions for which he had a predisposition. From these conclusions, it was the task of Volker’s considerable fortune to find a set of justifications, then an enabling ideology or “theory” that gave it all perspective and unity and, eventually, a true philosophical platform from which to launch the whole.”
    Whoever wrote that amazing report has some serious problems with grammar. “. . . it was the task of Volker’s considerable fortune to find a set of justifications. . . ” I can visualize it. There was that considerable fortune, sitting at its desk, planning a series of justifications. Then the fortune called in Volker and said, “Look, Bill, you have got to spend me more effectively. Now here’s my plan. . . .”

    The anonymous author speculates that Volker was a secret fascist. He offers no evidence. You may recall how well the Jewish Money Power did in Germany, 1933-45. But I digress.

    Even though Volker was not an economist or philosopher he had money and, very important, influential relations with the University of Chicago, founded by John D. Rockefeller.
    This turned out to be a crucial connection.

    Exactly what a man who sold lampshades and window blinds wholesale in the Midwest had to do with the University of Chicago is not clear. There is no reference to the University of Chicago in Mr. Anonymous. In Chapter XXIV, we do learn that Volker wanted to fund civil education in local government, beginning in 1940. This was eight years after the William Volker Fund began.

    Volker’s nephew Harold Luhnow took over the Fund in 1944.
    This is the first accurate statement in the article.

    Friedrich Hayek’s ‘The Road to Serfdom’ was published the same year. With its defense of ‘laissez-faire’ capitalism and claim that any attempt at regulation would inevitably lead to totalitarianism, it was exactly what the Volker Fund wanted. It arranged for a reprint of Hayek’s book with the University of Chicago and made sure the book ended up in every library in the United States.
    First, there is no evidence offered for this. Second, if true, it is not clear how Luhnow arranged this. It sounds like a very good idea. Frankly, having worked for Luhnow in the summer of 1963, I am amazed that he figured out this strategy. He may have lost some of his edge.

    The Volker Fund would finance all the leading Austrian Economists and would have a substantial impact on the ‘Chicago School of Economics’, including Milton Friedman.
    This is true. I even had a summer job there in 1963. It was the best salaried job I ever had. They paid me to read.

    Ludwig Von Mises, who never held a paid job at any University, was maintained first by David Rockefeller and then for decades received money from the Volker Fund and related business men, like Lawrence Fertig.
    There is no evidence that David Rockefeller ever gave Mises a dime. Fertig did. He was a free market-promoting businessman, the author of a book on the market, Prosperity Through Freedom (1961).

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

    This is true. It has been known to anyone who read Mises’ book, Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War (1944). In the “Acknowledgment,” he thanked the Rockefeller Foundation and the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). Note: his theory of economic epistemology was totally at odds with the NBER. But the NBER liked this project.

    David Rockefeller said: “Finally, in his most surprising statement, he revealed he considers himself a follower of the Austrian school of economics. Friedrich Hayek had been his tutor at the London School of Economics in the 1930s.”
    There is no trace of any of Hayek’s ideas in anything David Rockefeller has said or done. Hayek clearly wasted his time on David Rockefeller.

    Murray Rothbard too was financed by the Volker Fund:
    “Rothbard began his consulting work for the Volker Fund in 1951. This relationship lasted until 1962, when the VF was dissolved. A major part of Rothbard’s work for the VF consisted of reading and evaluating books, journal articles, and other materials. On the basis of written reports by Rothbard and another reader – Rose Wilder Lane – the VF’s directors would decide whether to undertake massive distribution of particular works to public libraries.

    Rothbard later called his work with the Volker Fund, “the best job I’ve ever had in my life.”

    Rothbard and I agreed. It was the best job we had in our lives. I got $500 a month in 1963 — a princely sum in 1963 for a 21-year-old kid in his first real job. Rothbard got free books and $6,000 a year.

    The Volker Fund did close in 1962. It was re-named as the Center fort American Studies late in the year. Luhnow fired F. A. “Baldy” Harper and replaced the staff. My father-in-law, R. J. Rushdoony, became its main scholar. He was fired a year later. He received a research stipend as a severance pay for bout two years. Luhnow closed it a few years later.

    The Volker Fund also explored a tactic that was to find wider application later: it spawned an enormous number of organizations, loosely organized to suggest mutual independence and a ‘Libertarian Movement’. Among these was the Foundation for Economic Education, which in turn would create the Mont Pelerin Society.
    Wider application by whom? Where? When?

    Enormous number? Maybe a dozen groups — all small, all without influence until long after the Fund was gone. It gave out very little money. It published nothing until the early 1960s, when it funded two dozen books. That led to the firing of Harper.

    And then there is this question: What has all this to do with the Illuminati?

    You forgot about the Illuminati, didn’t you?

    The Volker Fund was disbanded in 1962. It still had $7 million in assets, which it donated to the Hoover society.
    The money went to the Hoover Institution. So did all the Fund’s records. But the records are now missing. Mr. Anonymous would be pleased.

    THE KOCH FAMILY
    But in the meantime another very wealthy Jewish family, the Koch family (see ‘the Zionist Billionaires that Control Politics’), had taken over the organization of Libertarianism and Austrian Economics.

    The Kochs are not Jewish. One of them is an Episcopalian.

    Fred Koch founded the John Birch Society in 1958. Ed Griffin was educated there. He later wrote a famous book, “The Creature of Jekyll Island”. This was a rehash of Eustace Mullins’ brilliant ‘Secrets of the Federal Reserve’, with one exception: it left out all Mullins’ analysis of the Gold Standard as a Banker operation and how Britain’s demand for taxes paid in Gold were the cause of the war of Independence. Instead it called for the reinstatement of a Gold Standard. This is a key part of the story OF how Austrian Economics managed to take over the ‘Truth Movement’.
    Eustace Mullins’ book has no trace of free market economic theory in it. He was a Greenbacker. The book is anything but scholarly. It has no detailed footnotes. Griffin’s is a well-researched book based on Austrian economics. To suggest that he borrowed anything from the fat pamphlet of Mullins is an insult to Griffin’s intelligence.

    Koch’s son Charles Koch founded the CATO Institute, together with Murray Rothbard. The CATO Institute remains to this day a leading Libertarian outlet.
    What has this to do with the Illuminati?

    THE JEWISH CHARACTER OF LIBERTARIANISM
    Most Leading Libertarians are or were Jewish. Von Mises, Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Irwin (and Peter) Schiff. According to Peter Schiff, his grandfather Jacob Schiff is not the same as the infamous financier.

    Most leading economists are Jewish, i.e., circumcised atheists. There is nothing uniquely Jewish about libertarianism. I say this as a Calvinist who has spent 39 years writing an economic commentary on the Bible. It should be finished this year: 31 volume and 4 book-length appendixes. The series rests heavily on Austrian School reasoning, though not in the area of epistemology.

    Rothbard himself had interesting views about race and inequality in the free market: “Rothbard was proud to be a ‘racialist’ because racialism exposed the true source of inequality in a free market, namely genetics. A belief in biological racial inequality was, for Rothbard, part of the libertarian project, because racial inequality was simply how markets reflected nature. Moreover, this was no sudden conversion: Rothbard promoted the same view, as early as 1973, here.”
    I clicked to the article. It has a total of one sentence on Jews. “Or, we can ponder Professor Due writing similarly on behalf of the ‘opinion of society today’ in the Germany of the 1930s with regard to the social treatment of Jews.” That’s all? That’s all.

    So Jewish Supremacism can be retraced directly to the Austrian Economics’ main proponent himself.
    But what has this got to do with the Illuminati?

    Or the Money Power?

    Or the Zionists?

    Libertarianism and Austrian Economics are not the products of maverick free thinkers. On the contrary, all leading proponents of the movement were highly connected individuals.
    Mises was without a job from 1940 to 1946. New York University never paid him a dime. Rothbard worked for very little salary for most of his academic career at a school that did not have an economics department, Brooklyn Polytechnic. Highly connected?

    In the early years the Volker Fund made available vast sums of money, because Austrian Economics was considered the right answer to communism, to maintain the dialectic the Money Power needs (also see: ‘Banker explained ‘Occupy America’ Scam’).
    The Volker Fund under Luhnow paid a tiny staff middle-class wages. It did help fund Hayek and Mises, because the University of Chicago and NYU did not pay the two any money.

    Far from a fringe movement, Mont Pelerin Alumni collected no less than eight Nobel Prizes. Alan Greenspan testified of its pervasive influence by saying in 2000: “the Austrian School have reached far into the future from when most of them practiced and have had a profound and, in my judgment, probably an irreversible effect on how most mainstream economists think in this country.”
    Austrian theory has about at much impact on mainstream economists as it had on Alan Greenspan, the bubble master.

    In this day and age when communism is no longer considered a threat, but with Marxism/Liberalism/Political Correctness a strong force in Western nations, Libertarianism has found a new lease on life as a way of co-opting the resistance in the Alternative Media.
    The dialectic continues unabated.

    In conclusion, I shall once again quote one of the great social observers of the Ozarks, Mitch Jayne, who played bass fiddle with the bluegrass group, the Dillards (aka the Darlings) in 1963. Of the author of this breakthrough article on the history of libertarianism, we can say: Two of him would not make a half-wit.

    As for Henry Makow, whoever he is, who was unwise enough to post this preposterous screed on his Website, he is now publicly revealed as a naive sucker who can be easily taken in by obvious nonsense. His situation is what is euphemistically called a turd in the punchbowl, and his site is the punchbowl. If he leaves the article posted on his site for all to see, he is visibly a fool. If he takes it down, he is a sucker emeritus, one more victim of Greenbacker “scholarship,” for my article is permanent. He is in a lose-lose situation.”

    http://www.garynorth.com/public/9117print.cfm

    • Throughout the whole book Griffin from Jeckyl Island uses other people’s footnotes, attempting to create the impression that he read them, Gary North falls for it; Griffin never studied any of those cited sources. People seek their own kind: con-man North finds a kindred spirit in con-man Griffin.

      The book is very much based on “None dare call it conspiracy” by Gary Allen & Larry Abraham (two nice guys who also generously helped themselves to Eustace Mullins’ work). The reason Griffin knows about Gabiel Kolko, Matthew Josephson, Kenneth Galbraith is not because he read the works of these authors but because he read about them in “None dare call it conspiracy”.

      And, of course, there is question of the story of Jeckyl Island. How did Griffin find out about that meeting ? Did he one day sit down and read Warburg’s book? hardly. He knows about Jeckyl Island because he read about it in Mullins’ book. Obviously he does not want to reveal the source of his finagled wisdom, there is no money in that.

      He also helps himself generously to Sutton’s and Rothbart’s works. There is not one primary source in his compilation. Like Mullins once remarked, it is doubtful Griffin ever saw the inside of the library

      Griffin bold face lies and shamelessly copies and pastes from “None Dare Call it Conspiracy” and gives himself away:–
      “Nathan had made loans to various states of the Union, had been, for a time, the official European banker for the US government and was a pledged supporter of the Bank of the United States.

      “Gustavus Myers, in his History of the Great American Fortunes, is more pointed. He says:

      “Under the surface, the Rothschilds long had a powerful influence in dictating American financial laws. The law records show that they were the power in the old Bank of the United States.

      “The Rothschilds, therefore, were not merely investors nor just an important power. They were the power behind the Bank of the United States! The significance of the Rothschild power in American finance and politics was the subject of extensive comment in a previous section, so there is no need to cover that ground again.”

      Scum bag Griffin first lies by giving the impression that he read Myers’ book, he did not; he copies this slightly mis-quoted footnote –it is a footnote– from Gary Allen’s book, who also mis-quoted it, and everyone down the line who helped himself to it; then Griffin from Jeckyl Island builds up a theory based on this mis-quote
      please see if ye can spot the difference:

      http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/myers/am_fortune/am_fortune_408.html

      There is no source (much less document) that N.M. Rothschild owned any shares in the first Bank (and there is official record that N.M. Rothschild did not own shares in the second Bank). There is document that Baring & brothers owned 1million worth (out of 25, and Baring purchased these 2,200 shares from the Government of the United States, in 1803, while Thomas Jefferson was President; in 1803 Baring handled the $15,000,000 Louisiana transaction, for which they received how much in co-mission?), and there is contemporary testimony (of which Griffin knows absolutely nothing –if there is no one to copy from Griffin knows not of the subject– that 7-tenth of the shares were owned by british nobility, in those days no friends of Rothschild and in direct competition with N.M. Rothschild (remember the famous dinner invitation?; and also bear in mind that this all took place before the battle of Waterloo, when Mr. Rothschild gave a haircut to these upstanding british gentlemen, and before the Peninsular War)

      N.M. Rothschild became bankers of the United States during Andrew Jackson’s Presidency, not at the time of the first bank (how could Griffin know that?).

      __________________
      Griffin displays his complete ignorance –how could he know anything if there is no other people’s work from which copy and paste–
      “Who were these private investors? Their names do not appear in the published literature, but we can be certain they included the Congressmen and Senators –and their associates– who engineered the charter. But there is an interesting line in Galbraith’s text that hints at another dimension to the composition of this group. On page 72 of Money: Whence It Came, Where It Went, he states matter-of-factly: “Foreigners could own shares but not vote them” What a story is hidden behind that innocuous statement. The blunt reality is that the Rothschild banking dynasty in Europe was the dominant force, both financially and politically, in the formation of the Bank of the United States. Biographer, Derek Wilson, explains:

      “Over the years since NM [Rothschild], the Manchester textile manufacturer, had bought cotton from the Southern states, Rothschilds had developed heavy American commitments. Nathan had made loans to various states of the Union, had been, for a time, the official European banker for the US government and was a pledged supporter of the Bank of the United States.”

      Yes N.M. Rothschild made loans to States in the 1830s, not at the time of the formation of the first bank of the U.S.; as to the “pledged support” Derek fails to present basis for it.

      If only, Griffin from Jeckyl Island –and all the other regurgitators, plagiarist, book-peddlers, and charlatans– had seen the hand-written letters from N.M. Rothschild to the President of the United States, telling him to please expedite the payment on State debts…… Which, of course, is one of the greatest proof that these low-lifes never studied the history of central banking in the United States

      Griffin is flaunting his ignorance, again:
      “The National Banking Act of 1863 required banks to keep a percentage of their notes and deposits in the form of lawful money (gold coins) as a reserve to cover the possibility of a run.”
      What bone-head error, everyone who read that Act in 1863 and years following, knew that “lawful money” meant greenbacks; Senator John Sherman openly stated it during the debate; no banker would keep gold in his vaults when he could get lawful money at half price (how could Griffin from Jeckyl Island know about that?).

      ________________

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uno_reform/message/1250

      http://waronyou.com/topics/fractures-in-the-truth-movement-part-4-tabloids-and-the-alternative-press/

  11. “well, we’re back at where we began, right?
    Tell me: how much funding does the Mises institute receive from multinational corporations and the Government? How much of these funds is used to keep you off the str …”

    — I was in a discussion with you and without replying my arguments, you start to dive away. Clearly out of arguments as I said. Whatever, the Mises Institute does not get subsidies. And if they get money from multinational corporations, it’s their business and free choice. Strange that you seem to have a problem both with getting government subsidies AND with private funding. Clueless again. Looks like you’re a troll, by the way.

    • I have a problem with Money Power funding, whether it comes through the State or one of their many Transnational Outlets.

      I know Austrians don’t care about private control of markets and Monopoly Capitalism.

      That’s why it sucks so bad, after all.

      • You really are a troll and you know it. “I know Austrians don’t care about private control of markets and Monopoly Capitalism.”

        — If there’s anything they care of, it’s markets and real capitalism, not supporting monopolies. You may think you are smart by dragging Austrians through the dirt, but you just unmask yourself as a troll.

        • This is my site. I would be a troll if I would be hassling you on your site.
          You are trolling here.

          be that as it may: Whose going to stop monopolies in your ‘free market’?

          Oh……..wait…………it’s the HIDDEN HAND!!!!!!!!!!!! The invisible hand!
          Making everything alright! Automatically!
          Free markets are all about competition, right?

          No, capitalists hate monopolies, they would never kill competition to gain the whole market!
          Really!
          Honest!
          Human Action!
          Promise!

          lol………

    • Dennis permalink

      The inherent contradiction with Austrians is they claim they support markets free from monopoly and presumably manipulation, yet they fail to admit that the current market is dominated by the top 300 or so Wall St/London finance firms. There is no free market when “market events” are completely manipulated by large private interests operating totally privately or by control of a section of government. The obvious truth that Austrians fail to grasp is that positive and honest government is the only weapon against these crooks (Goldman Sachs, JPM, BOA, etc…). A weaker government means an even stronger Wall Street, period. Which is the general reason why the Austrian and Chicago economic schools were created.
      I’m sorry but the reality is Andrew Jackson was Aaron Burr’s protege and basically a traitor to America. He caused the worst economic situation in the country in his day and was indirectly responsible for the Civil War. Get a better hero! Hamilton, JQA, Lincoln, FDR, JFK, true patriots

  12. My post was cut off in a reply to another, so I’m reposting it again here so that it can be read properly.

    Once again the Austrian gold bugs demonstrate that they do not understand money or accounting.

    Most money, even in today’s economy, is NOT paper, nor is it “fiat” money. Most money is commercial bank created credit. This money is not “fiat money”. Even under as supposed “gold standard” most money is not gold, nor is it “backed by gold”. It would be bank created credit.

    Banks create money everytime they make a loan. Money is destroyed when the principle of the loan is repaid.

    The essential quality of money is not what it’s made of – whether gold, paper, or merely a number in a bank account (which is what most money is).

    The essential quality of money is found in the root of the word “credit” itself, which comes from the Latin word “credo” – which means “to believe in”.

    In other words, what money is made of is irrelevant as long as people believe in it.

  13. Peter Thiel, leading Bilderberger and anti-nationalist activist, gives $900,000 to Ron Paul’s SuperPAC:

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/ron-pauls-biggest-supporter-is-a-bilderberger

    And he’s a gay activist, which reminded me of this one:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/06/us-blankfein-gay-marriage-idUSTRE81508120120206

    Usury, sodomy, free trade, narcotics – you know, “liberty!”

    • tell it like it is deadeye!

  14. E.A. Blair permalink

    total garbage from start to finish – Mankow doesn’t know the first thing about what the Austrian School of economics is, or what actually happens in the world outside of his addled mind.

    • Really Eric?

      Just check what I’ve done to Austrian Economics in the Faux Economics link to the right. It will take you one or two hours, but you will get the picture.

      The damage it has done is immense. It’s high time we get it out of our system, if we are ever going to get rid of these jerks in London.

      • Most Austrians argue that “deflation” as you define it (collapse in the money supply) is actually hurting the economy, whereas falling prices are fine. Please consult on this Selgin, Rothbard (after 1970s), Huerta de Soto, Reisman… You will see that they critisize the inflation system (the one you support in a different version) precisely because it will in the long run either lead to deflation or hyperinflation.

        • Well, I’m not too sure Adam. If you check the comments on this site, you’ll see many Austrians defending deflation. The Daily Bell also defended deflation at several occasions in my discussions with them (see ‘the daily bell tolls for another round in the debate).

          It is true, of course, that Austrianists have correctly concluded that inflating the money supply creates deflationary busts. But they cite the wrong reasons ignoring interest and unsustainably rising capital costs.

  15. A bullshit article, full of guilty by association and conspiracy crap. Ludwig von Mises wrote his masterpiece in 1912 and subsequent works in the 1920’s, long before he went to the US and before being paid by the Volker Fund, which in itself proves nothing. Besides, it’s the economic arguments and reasoning of the Ausrians which should be scrutinized. Then you will find they’re telling the economic truths,

    • Well, yes, at the time you mention von Mises was an adviser to Otto von Habsburg, heir apperant to the lost throne of Austria Hungary.
      You can check under faux economics (link on the right) how I have discussed Austrian Economics at length.

      I would be most interested in anything you might have to add to that.

      • I’ve read your introduction and I quote with comments:

        Quote:
        Modern Austrians want a free market for currencies, which is positive. They mistakenly claim Gold will prove to be best in such market. But Gresham’s Law predicts people will hoard gold and pay with paper.
        /Quote

        — Paying with paper is no problem, as long as it is covered by gold, which on a free market, people will logically choose. So you mention a non-problem. If people would voluntarily choose money to be debased by fractional reserve banking, there would be no central banks and governments to force people in using this, as is now the case.

        Quote:
        Clamors for deflation. Deflation hurts debtors (90% of the population), as the value of debts and the interest payed over them increases in value. Kills economic growth because people hoard cash instead of investing and consuming.
        /Quote

        — Deflation is great: it discourages debt and encourages saving and productive labor (instead of all the fake growth based on stealing purchasing power by fractional reserve banking). This leads to investments and productivity growth, based on real money resources, which in effect is always based on producing goods, not printing money. So deflation is an effect of an improving economy, not an economy in crisis. It is only a transition to such an economy which would cause some troubles, but they are temporary and not general. People will ALWAYS keep spending because they have instinctive needs. So the primary needs like food, housing, clothing, health care and so would be abundant under a gold standard.

        • “Paying with paper is no problem, as long as it is covered by gold, which on a free market, people will logically choose. So you mention a non-problem”
          Please, it’s about what backs the paper. If it’s Gold backing it, it will be probably solid. If it’s not, it will probably lose value. Because it loses value, it circulates while the gold backed paper is hoarded.

          I know Austrians always like to explain that nonsense. Deflation sure does discourage debt. It’s an absolute scourge for debtors. Sinces everybody except the rich are in debt, not to mention the State, it might not be a good idea making it much worse with deflation.
          Deflation is theft. It is a clear wealth transfer from the have nots to the haves.

          It is insane defending it.

          • “Please, it’s about what backs the paper. If it’s Gold backing it, it will be probably solid. If it’s not, it will probably lose value. Because it loses value, it circulates while the gold backed paper is hoarded.”

            That would prove again in favor of gold. You just stated that unbacked paper money would be considered crap – just as the Austrians do. Welcome to the club.

            “I know Austrians always like to explain that nonsense. Deflation sure does discourage debt. It’s an absolute scourge for debtors. Sinces everybody except the rich are in debt, not to mention the State, it might not be a good idea making it much worse with deflation.
            Deflation is theft. It is a clear wealth transfer from the have nots to the haves. It is insane defending it.”

            Your reasoning is insane. In a productive economy, people would simply not need (as much as now) debt, not even for buying a home. Businesses would have debts and credits would exist, but investments would lead to profits, more productivity, the paying off of debt and less and less need for debt: Deflation makes products cheaper, so that both the buying and producing get cheaper over time. May I remind you that the debt bubbles only exploded in size after leaving the gold standard. It’s not debt in itself that improves life; it’s more that the driving up of prices forces many into debts. Besides their recklessness, which gets encouraged by too low interest rates and thus cheap money.

            • Did you know that if there was no debt there would be no money? A piece of paper is only worth something if someone is trying to capture it to extinguish a debt. After the debt is extinguished, the paper is only worth paper, regardless of its face value. I can turn a gold coin into paper if I loan it to you. It now becomes a debt instrument on a ledger. Now you’ll pay me “interest” if your brainwashed into a gold standard when you could be using paper and paying no one “interest”. If the public currency was issued to the public by a public bookkeeper and not a private bank, we wouldn’t have parasites running the planet.

              • “Did you know that if there was no debt there would be no money?”

                You are confusing the present fiat-debt-fractional-“money” system with a true gold (standard) money, which does not thrive on debt. Interest is never a problem, not under gold nor in the present system, as long as productivity gives you enough income to pay your interest.

                • “Interest is never a problem, not under gold nor in the present system, as long as productivity gives you enough income to pay your interest.”

                  One must be productive enough to satisfy Capital’s desire for return on its capital, right?

                  In times of deflation, on a Gold Standard, no less.

                  yes, that’s the kind of Feudalism that Austrian Economics is famous for.

                  • Reality again proves you are clueless, like any critic of the Austrians. Cars, calculators, computers, equipment, tv’s and many other consumers’ and producers’ goods have become much cheaper over the last decades and centuries. Nonetheless (or because of that) , they are being produced and bought massively, manufacturers make big profits and pay off their debts without any problem. It’s not a certain amount of money that drives enterpreneurs, but a profit margin. As long as that is enough to pay off investments including interest, and make a profit for themselves, they will produce. Deflation is certainly not keeping them away from doing so.

                    • Declining prices is not deflation.

                      A contracting money supply is deflation.

                      declining prices as a result of improving tech is fine. Deflation is not.

                    • This is actually quite typical of Austrianism: they bend definitions to suit their purposes.

                      One of its few strengths is exactly appreciation of the importance of Volume of the Money Supply……………when its about inflation.

                      When we talk deflation, I always get this crap you give me. It’s called ‘intellectual dishonesty’.

                      I’d leave that smugness at home when you come here: I know Autrianism and if you want a real debate, you’d better pump yourself up a little because you get nowhere with platitudes.

                • If I can get you to borrow or lend to someone else, and I’m the one who is paid interest because you don’t understand something I do, wouldn’t you consider that to be fraud?

            • That would prove again in favor of gold. You just stated that unbacked paper money would be considered crap – just as the Austrians do. Welcome to the club.

              I don’t think so: money is a means of exchange, not a store of value. The unit that circulates is the better means of exchange: it facilitates trade. The gold backed paper is just sitting in vaults, maintaining value.

              Please read the articles first if you want to get into this. ‘What Gary North is not telling you about interest’ and ‘discussing Gold and Interest with the Daily Bell’.

              About deflation:
              That’s all rubbish: the deflation is caused by a contracting money supply. Id est: an imploding economy.

              “It’s not debt in itself that improves life; it’s more that the driving up of prices forces many into debts. Besides their recklessness, which gets encouraged by too low interest rates and thus cheap money.”

              No my friend: it’s the ever higher interest costs that drive up prices. In a Gold Standard environment, with eternal deflation we have an eternally depressed economy.
              In our current environment, we have an ever growing money supply, and thus ever growing debt, and thus ever growing cost for capital.

              Please also read the ‘On Interest’ article and ‘Budget of an Interest Slave’ to find out about the horrible implications of interest on the money supply.

              • GoldGold permalink

                “I don’t think so: money is a means of exchange, not a store of value. The unit that circulates is the better means of exchange: it facilitates trade.”

                — Under a 100 percent gold standard, people will use coins as well as covered banknotes and digital money. Your case applies only to a situation with irredeemable notes, which would compete with gold coins. And yeah, I would hoard gold then too. Rightly so.

                “The gold backed paper is just sitting in vaults, maintaining value.”

                — I was talking about unbacked paper money. If people want to hoard gold or whatever good, it’s their free choice and saving is always wise. Eventually the money gets spent, because savings are never for ever.

                “That’s all rubbish: the deflation is caused by a contracting money supply. Id est: an imploding economy.”

                — That is only the case and a “problem” if there are bubbles, created by fractional reserve banking. In fact, a crisis is just that: imploding bubbles. Or better still: a crisis is in fact the solution, whereas the bubbles themselves are the real crisis. And because such bubbles don’t exist under 100 percent gold, there will never be an imploding economy because of “hoarding”. You again confuse the present economy with an imaginable one under gold.

                “No my friend: it’s the ever higher interest costs that drive up prices. In a Gold Standard environment, with eternal deflation we have an eternally depressed economy.”

                — Bullshit, under gold the would be no fractional-financed bubbles, thus no implosions, just a regular growing prosperity, based on productivity growth, real savings and capital and above: fulfilling real needs. People always spend money because they have their instinctive needs.

                “In our current environment, we have an ever growing money supply, and thus ever growing debt, and thus ever growing cost for capital.”

                — Strange remark. Central bankers (always) aim to lower interest rates by printing money. Nowadays it’s almost worldwide around an historical low of 1 percent or less.

                I’m not gonna read your articles further. The one above is already full of crap and in our discussion you dropped a big bunch of well-known, easy to refute anti-Austrian fallacies. That’s more than enough.

                • phiew, such a relief, I feared getting saddled with a highly payed professional from mises.org, keeping me going in circles for ever, never coming clean on the issues, always misrepresenting, clever debating techniques, all based on deductionism, often, like with deflation in the face of the blatantly obvious.

                  You do seem a bit light though, so I’ll await the cavalry.

                  • Haha, you are clearly out of arguments (if you ever had any) and start making me suspect. Again a failed attack on the Austrian school.

                    • well, we’re back at where we began, right?
                      Tell me: how much funding does the Mises institute receive from multinational corporations and the Government?
                      How much of these funds is used to keep you off the streets?

                    • Once again the Austrian gold bugs demonstrate that they do not understand money or accounting.

                      Most money, even in today’s economy, is NOT paper, nor is it “fiat” money. Most money is commercial bank created credit. This money is not “fiat money”. Even under as supposed “gold standard” most money is not gold, nor is it “backed by gold”. It would be bank created credit.

                      Banks create money everytime they make a loan. Money is destroyed when the principle of the loan is repaid.

                      The essential quality of money is not what it’s made of – whether gold, paper, or merely a number in a bank account (which is what most money is).

                      The essential quality of money is found in the root of the word “credit” itself, which comes from the Latin word “credo” – which means “to believe in”.

                      In other words, what money is made of is irrelevant as long as people believe in it.

                    • @Socred – Yes, the money is created at the establishment of a debt, so the bank didn’t loan anything. Someone did borrow though, and someone lent. Who’s the lender? All money is extinguished as debt is extinguished. And, just as an aside, what’s the origin of the words debt and debit?

  16. Thanks for your excellent article Anthony. I think people are starting to wake up, and you are helping in the process.

    The following was written by C.H. Douglas in 1919. It seems that no matter how much things change they stay the same, and as you point out, it is this false dialectic that keeps it that way.

    “WHEN two opposing forces of sufficient magnitude push transversely at either end of a plank–or a problem–it revolves: there is Revolution. When the forces are exhausted, the revolution subsides, and the plank or problem remains in much the same position in space which it occupied before the forces acted on it. It is possible to conceive its molecules as being somewhat worn and giddy as a result of their rapid re-orientation, but their environment is otherwise unchanged. If, however, the forces act through the centre of resistance, actual motion results; the object is shifted bodily by the greater force, without revolution.

    In the first portion of this metaphor is to be found the explanation of the devastating inconclusiveness which dogs the steps of the constant and increasingly embittered controversy between the forces of what is called Capitalism and its antagonist Labour”

    http://douglassocialcredit.com/resources/resources/what_is_%20capitalism_by_%20c_h_douglas.pdf

    • And thank you Socred, also for that brilliant Douglas quote. When I hear and read the great thinkers of that era, and Douglas certainly was one of those, I’m often dumbfounded by their incredibly astute appreciation of the issues. Douglas evidently had no problems fathoming the dialectic.

      • Hi Anthony:

        I find this part of your article interesting.

        “Rothbard himself had interesting views about race and inequality in the free market: “Rothbard was proud to be a ‘racialist’ because racialism exposed the true source of inequality in a free market, namely genetics. A belief in biological racial inequality was, for Rothbard, part of the libertarian project, because racial inequality was simply how markets reflected nature. Moreover, this was no sudden conversion: Rothbard promoted the same view, as early as 1973, here.”

        You might also be interested in this quote from Douglas in 1919 as it pertains to Libertarianism today and this type of misapplied Darwinism:

        “It is widely recognized that a mangled and mis-applied
        Darwinism has been one of the most potent factors in the social
        development of the past 60 years; from the date of the publication
        of “The Origin of Species” the theory of the “survival of the
        fittest” has always been put forward as an omnibus answer to any
        individual hardship; and although such books as Mr. Benjamin
        Kidd’s “Science of Power” have pretty well exposed the reasons
        why the individual efficient in his own interest, and consequently
        well fitted to survive, may and will possess characteristics which
        completely unfit him for positions of power in the community,
        we may notice that one of the most serious causes of the
        prevalent dissatisfaction and disquietude is the obvious survival,
        success and rise to positions of great power of individuals to
        whom the term “fittest” could only be applied in the very
        narrowest sense.

        And in admitting the justice of the criticism, it is not, of
        course, necessary to question the soundness of Darwin’s theory:
        it is simply evidence that the particular environment in which
        the “fittest” are admittedly surviving and succeeding, is
        unsatisfactory, that in consequence those best fitted for it are not
        representative of the ideal existent in the mind of the critic, and
        that environment cannot be left to the unaided law of Darwinian
        evolution, in view of its effect on other than material issues.”

        http://douglassocialcredit.com/resources/resources/the_pyramid_of_power_by_c_h_douglas.pdf

  17. Ron Paul 2012!

    • haha, I admire your enthusiasm, but this is not a place where many Ron Paul fans hang out!

  18. Here’s an example of why the Power Elite would create a welfare state and simultaneously create opposition condemning it:
    In warfare, you naturally would want to use the enemies weapons against him. Why wouldn’t you unless you were shamed into not? Banking is what creates poverty. Therefore, as an enemy of the Power Elite, it makes sense to take advantage of welfare whenever possible so as to spend time destroying the banking industry.

  19. Hey Anthony,
    This was an AWESOME article. Thanks for filling in a lot of connections. I would strongly recommend the book “Invisible Hands” by Kim Phillips Fein, which goes into quite a lot of detail on the funding, organizations and personalities involved in birthing the “conservative” movement in the USA as a counter-revolution against the New Deal.
    Great, great work. I hope this will inspire some people to start wandering off the libertarian reservation. With more efforts like this, maybe one day the “truth” movement might begin to be worthy of such a name.

    • Thanks deadeye, I appreciate it!

  20. Henrique permalink

    Yeah the dialectic goes on, seems invincible with the passing of the generations. People maybe will never understand that the economic system could be changed WITHOUT radical changes in a society’s cultural, religious and ethical values. The eternal romanticizing of Economy ( mixing it with Race, Culture, Religion and other secondary factors ) always divert attention and dilute it’s meaning. I think it’s the perfect alienation tactic – and they keep using ( and have historically used ) it all the time.

  21. Volker was a brilliant philosopher only he didn’t write down his philosophy, just as Marx didn’t write down his true philosophy. It wouldn’t work if they wrote it down. These men understood how to hypnotize people into going to a private bank for their public currency, and how to create the illusion of political choice. Anyone who understands this knows it’s virtually impossible to explain it to someone who doesn’t. Combined with the intimidation factor of going against the biggest mob on the planet, there appears to be only one who is trying to do this.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Ed Griffin admits the Bankers own all the Gold and that Usury is the issue | Real Currencies
  2. Libertarianism is Dying! Truthers Unite! | Real Currencies
  3. A Real Currencies Top Ten | Real Currencies
  4. End the Fed: a Trojan Horse destroying the Truth Movement from within | Real Currencies
  5. Why Tom Woods is wrong about the Greenbackers | Real Currencies
  6. “InfowarInfowars “banned” these links – but we think you have the right to see them: Anti-Usury Links From Wayne Walton | Sedona Dreams
  7. Why is Gold not rising? « Real Currencies
  8. The Mont Pèlerin Society: The ultimate neoliberal Trojan horse « The Daily Knell
  9. Debunking Tom Woods’ “Catholic” Austrian economics « Real Currencies
  10. The Daily Bell Hoax? « Real Currencies
  11. Robert Stark interviews Anthony Migchels « Real Currencies
  12. The Austrian ‘Free Market for Currencies’ Hoax « Real Currencies
  13. Hoe de Illuminati het Libertarisme en de Oostenrijkse School creëerden « voor God en Vaderland
  14. Gary North’s Bluff: the Lie he’s been sitting on for 50 years « Real Currencies
  15. The Satanic Core of Libertarianism « Real Currencies
  16. Responding to Gary North « Real Currencies
  17. The”Catholic” Arm of Libertarianism « Real Currencies
  18. Libertarianism is an Illuminati Ploy Run By Jews « …………….THE LIBERTARIAN – El Libertario – Le Libertaire……. Ongoing SMILE News, Tools & Humor
  19. Libertarianism’s main fault: Blaming the State while ignoring the Money Power « Real Currencies
  20. Why Gold is so strongly deflationary « Real Currencies
  21. How the Money Power created Libertarianism and Austrian Economics « Piotr Bein's blog = blog Piotra Beina
  22. The Barking Dogs of the Daily Bell and Lew Rockwell « Recovering Austrians

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,126 other followers

%d bloggers like this: