News & Analysis
Central Banks Won't Produce Natural Interest
The Bank of England should raise interest rates next week ... Most people that read finance columns have heard of the "natural rate of unemployment", and many will know that the term was introduced by Milton Friedman. But far fewer will know where he got the term. He said himself, in his Nobel Prize lecture, that "The 'natural rate of unemployment' [is] a term I introduced to parallel Knut Wicksell's 'natural rate of interest'". But who was Knut Wicksell and what is the "natural rate of interest" – and does it matter? We shall see that it does indeed matter, and tells us something important about current UK monetary policy and the outlook for the UK economy and George Osborne's chances of delivering his fiscal plans ...Three years, now, at 0.5 percent, and counting. That compares with a natural rate of interest that was about 5 percent when times were better and will be around 3-3.5 percent now. (Essentially, add the 2.5 per cent RPI inflation rate that's about the target to the 1 percent or so sustainable growth rate, and you get a decent guess at the natural rate.) Having interest rates so far below the natural rate damages the sustainable growth rate of the economy. – UK Telegraph/ Andrew Lilico
Dominant Social Theme: We just have to figure out what's natural and then fake it.
Free-Market Analysis: Here comes Andrew Lilico, an economist with Europe Economics, and a member of the Shadow Monetary Policy Committee, according to the UK Telegraph (see article above).
The gibberish contained in the above excerpt is only magnified throughout the article. It is really incredible. What is it about price fixing that such intelligent commentators don't understand?
If you artificially set a price by force – and this is what central banks do – then that price is almost bound to be incorrect. Only the market itself can generate a "natural" rate of interest or determine monetary volume.
That's because the market itself is competitive. The "Invisible Hand" of competition creates naturally fluctuating interest rates and the appropriate volume of money stuff.
This is why monetary competition historically yields up evermore efficient and healthy money. People voluntarily choose the kind of money they want and the volume of money as well.
Within this context, gold and silver have proven to be a historically popular money stuff. Used with each other, gold and silver provide a ratio. If the ratio becomes distorted, people can tell that someone is trying to manipulate the market. This called bi-metalism.
Greenbackerism has made a startling comeback of late, which we have long predicted, citing Ellen Brown's effective boosting of the idea that government ought to have the sole franchise to print money.
But regardless of whether a mercantilist public/private body like the Bank of England or Federal Reserve prints paper-fiat money, or a fully public enterprise, such as those found in India or China, the problem of the natural rate and volume remains. Once human beings arrogate to themselves such decisions, money itself cannot help but be distorted.
Both India and China are now suffering from vigorous price inflation. That's because when human beings have a monopoly of something, it will inevitably be abused. It is impossible to expect mere flesh and blood not to print too much money. Money buys all kinds of fun, especially for those in control of it.
Over time, even within a competitive monetary environment, government eventually prints too much paper money, eventually debasing it. As this paper money became cheapened, people seek not to hold it, and try to get rid of it.
This is why schemes like Greenbackerism tend to lead to government consolidation of money authority. As people reject government money, those in charge gradually mandate its use. Within historical contexts, there tends to be an expansion of force as people are compelled to use what they would otherwise reject.
There are arguments that certain kinds of government monopoly money have proven more effective than other kinds. Ellen Brown, Bill Still and others argue that tally sticks were a wonderfully effective government initiated money that helped England build an empire.
But from our point of view this is perhaps a misreading on several fronts. First of all, there is nothing all that admirable about an empire. Societies tend to flourish, as we have often pointed out, when they are separate and singular but gathered closely together.
This allows people to travel from one place to another nearby place if they are being oppressed. Gradually over time, a culture of freedom is established as governments compete with one another to provide environments that are attractive and laissez faire.
Many great cultures have been established within this context. Rome had its Seven Hills, the Greek Golden Age and the Renaissance had city states, the United States had "these" united States.
Over time, consolidation usually takes place and gradually what was free and innovative becomes less so. Eventually dirigisme and socialism may set in.
Gradually the leaders of the consolidated country begin to become aggressive and to focus on outside threats to distract attention from an increasingly failed society. This is the empire phase.
It is unfortunate that most of history focuses on the "greatness" of empire when in fact, an "empire" is symptomatic of societal sickness not health.
During the tally stick era in Britain, Kings – having access to the money supply – apparently borrowed against the stock of tally sticks considerably for purposes of waging war. Not only that, but as tally sticks were generated to pay taxes, the volume of the money supply was seemingly artificially restricted.
This was great for those who controlled tally sticks – the ruling class – because an artificially restrained money deprived people of capital and likely had a retardant effect on social mobility and individual economic potential. Tally sticks were a perfect money for the elites.
There is seemingly no substitute for competitive money and for the Invisible Hand setting the volume and price of money. In economies that use gold and silver, hoarding and dishoarding sets the price of market money, along, perhaps, with the opening and closing of mines, depending on how much gold and silver is circulating. This is one reason why precious metals have been successful as money throughout history.
In the modern era, central banking has taken over the world – and the result is general catastrophe and ruin. This is only to be expected. It is in fact what those behind the system are intending to create.
The power elite that has seemingly installed modern monopoly fiat money – and the dollar reserve system itself – apparently seeks to build world government. It needs to foment economic turmoil and wars in order to move society toward one-world money.
Central banking is key to this strategy. The more monetary price fixing there is, the more economic chaos and catastrophe takes place. It is a closed loop, a virtuous circle from the power elite point of view.
The elites spend an enormous amount of time trying to justify central bank price fixing. It is one of their biggest dominant social themes – that only a handful of good, gray men can manage the economy and make decisions for everyone else.
Andrew Lilico wants us to believe that central banks ARE capable of mimicking natural rates of money production. In truth, there is no "natural interest rate" or rate of monetary production that human beings are EVER capable of creating.
Even if the top people at these monopoly money banks were capable of figuring out where the price and volume of money could be, there is no guarantee that they would generate the correct prices over time.
They would use their power for their OWN benefit. As indeed they have. We can see it clearly, even today. What misery there is in the world.
Conclusion: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
l 
|
You must be a site member to submit suggested edits or post feedback. In addition to submitting edit suggestions and posting feedback, your Free Membership to The Daily Bell gives you access to our Member Zone where you will discover a plethora of other member benefits. Want to learn more? click here |
|||||
|
|
||||
 |
Posted by memehunter on 04/01/12 01:55 AM
DB: This is what Ingo B., who is a most interesting fellow continues to expend thousands of words on. Real bills have likely fallen out of favor because of the increasing availability of fiat money, though Ingo may have some other explanation ...
I may not agree with Bischoff on everything, but he is one of the rare feedbackers on this website having the intellectual honesty and courage to denounce the Daily Bell's hare-brained monetary schemes.
And "hare-brained" is a charitable word here, because as others have noted in the blogosphere (not only Anthony Migchels), some of the DB's views on monetary matters are suspiciously favorable to some factions of Money Power.
I note for instance the DB's proposal of "private gold-backed currencies", their attempts to entrap readers into the gold/paper dialectic while ignoring the much larger issues posed by interest-bearing debt-based currencies, and finally their quasi-religious devotion to Austrianism which conveniently the fact that Austrianism is itself part of a dialectic construed by Money Power.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Others have noted, what ... that we believe in freedom?
You - and Ingo - cannot describe your theories except within the context of a kind of coercion. You wish to use state power to ban interest or demand a gold standard or certain kind of accounting measures. People will be "forced" to do as you wish.
We simply propose that people, singly and communally ought to insist as far as is feasible that they be free to choose and use their own money stuff.
(Could be gold, silver, or even non-government fiat. Could be interest free money. Could be a fractional reserve currency, so long as people understand the nature of the fractional ratio ...)
That anyone within the alternative blogosphere would find such a statement objectionable says more about them than us.
 |
Posted by Bischoff on 03/31/12 04:49 PM
Why is it an avoidance of an answer? You ask me to compare Real Bills to "quantitatively eased" Federal Reserve Notes. I am telling you that there is no comparison, other than to say that Real Bills cannot coexist with irredeemable, "legal tender" bank notes. So, why compare them?
If you want Real Bills to reemerge, strip the FRN of "legal tender" protection and issue bank charters to create redeemable currency under the gold standard. Then, if you want, let the redeemable RBD currency compete with the irredeemable FRN currency.
What will happen is that the productive sector of the economy will have a labor shortage, but it will attract government workers to be paid with a currency they can save rather than be paid by government with a currency which "no good" for saving and which no investment trust would touch to invest.
As to the crazy games played in the markets, it is a direct result of currency creation against debt sold in secondary markets. After 25 to 30 years such currency in existence, it either must explode in volume or it will self destructs.
What you see in the markets today are all sorts of government interference attempts to stem the collapse of the currency. This includes "The Working Group on Markets", aka PPT, which is the main perpetrator of direct interference in markets to keep equity prices from collapsing and taking pension funds, IRAs and 401Ks with them.
The ultra low interest rates set by the FOMC are way below the "natural rate of interest". This is done to keep the banks from insolvency. On the other hand, these ultra low interest rates have a detrimental effect the liquidation values of capital heavy industries which are severely penalized should they try to restructure their debt obligations.
Reply from The Daily Bell
It is kinda sad. Real bills evolved hundreds of years ago. They were bills issued against agriculture or some other securitized commodity. The bills matured along with the commodity or crop and were short term (not supposed to be more than 60 days). They would be discounted in terms of value as the date certain approached and the interest due on the bill lessened.
This is what Ingo B., who is a most interesting fellow continues to expend thousands of words on. Real bills have likely fallen out of favor because of the increasing availability of fiat money, though Ingo may have some other explanation ...
 |
Posted by amanfromMars on 03/31/12 02:54 PM
Thanks for that super reply, Bischoff, which is more an avoidance of an answer than anything else. Such refined ambiguity tells much though, and in most all cases, everything that one would need to know but was clearly missing.
What do you think of the crazy great games being played today in all manner of markets? Apart from, that is, pretty darned poor and incredibly sub-prime?
|
Posted by Bischoff on 03/31/12 01:53 PM
"... as long as a currency is interest-bearing and issued as debt, it does not matter much whether it is made of paper, gold, or tally sticks, it remains an exploitative device to the benefit of the currency issuer."
A de-monetized currency is not necessarily interest bearing (Greenbacks).
However, I completely agree with you that a currency created against debt, which is sold in secondary markets, has the very effect you describe, regardless of the intrinsic value of the currency itself.
As to physical gold v. "paper" gold, what I take from your explanation of "paper" gold, you seem to refer to warehouse receipts for gold deposits by the use of that term.
It must be obvious to every one that a warehouse receipt is not a store of value. The store of value is represented by the physical gold. If the warehouse operator accepts credit risk for a fee to loan out the gold of his depositors, that warehouse operator performs an "investment" function which has absolutely nothing to do with "banking".
Banking involves the creation of currency under charter, meaning government supervision. Such currency can either have a positive value when created under the Real Bills Doctrine by private banks, or it can have a "negative" value created by monetizing debt by a central bank.
It is a common fallacy, in which the DB happily engages all the time, that "fractional reserve lending" is "fractional reserve banking". "Fractional reserve lending" does not involve the creation of currency. It is strictly an investment function, not a banking function.
There is no such thing as "fractional reserve banking." While the Fed central bank sets "reserve requirements" to match the lending capacity of Fed district banks to the economic conditions prevailing within a Fed region, it is false to interpret the "reserve requirement" to "fractional reserve lending". They have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.
"Reserve requirements" set by the Fed have their purpose in trying to mirror the effects of RBD banking, while "Fractional reserve lending" is nothing but accepting credit risks for loaning out depositors' gold. A depositor must have confidence in the ability and the honesty of the warehouse operator to pay him his interest earned, and to return to him his principal capital. Under no circumstance does the warehouse operator create a currency. While loan contracts can be transferred or assigned, these instruments are in no way a currency created under bank charter.
|
Posted by Bischoff on 03/31/12 01:11 PM
The quick answer. Real Bills do not exist. They have not existed since March 8, 1933.
So, quantitatively eased notes have nothing to do with Real Bills.
To learn about Real Bills, I suggest "The Wealth of Nations" 1776, by Adam Smith. The Modern Library Edition, New York has the details starting on page 324.
Maybe after reading up on Real Bills, you will be able to clear your mind of the cobb webs that is your present paradigm of a monetary system.
|
Posted by memehunter on 03/31/12 07:38 AM
"What do you mean by "gold/paper dialectic"... ??? What do you mean with "physical gold versus paper gold"... ???"
Gold/paper dialectic: The tendency to oppose paper money (seen as "dishonest money") to gold or precious metals (seen as being automatically "honest money", but see below for my views on this), while ignoring the much larger issue that, as long as a currency is interest-bearing and issued as debt, it does not matter much whether it is made of paper, gold, or tally sticks, it remains an exploitative device to the benefit of the currency issuer.
Physical Gold vs "paper gold": There is a difference between using physical gold as a store of value and any form of gold standard involving fractional-reserve banking. The traditional gold standard (including, as far as I understand the DB's proposal, the type of "private gold-backed currencies" that they advocate) is not particularly "honest". I would recommend reading FOFOA on this (you said previously that you were familiar with his work). See especially "The Return to Honest Money":
Click to view link
|
Posted by memehunter on 03/31/12 07:26 AM
DB: "As we can see from de Mandeville's Fable of the Bees, Satanist propaganda is at the core of Libertarian doctrine and Austrian Economics."
M: Yes, well that's what I have been saying all along - I simply said that I did not use the "Satanic church" comparison. My article is available for everyone to read. So what is your point?
And why should I not be allowed to quote Kirzner's interesting views (on 03/30/12 12:10 AM) on pure time preference and resource ownership simply because I wrote this article (I have to remind readers that this whole discussion about Satanism came about because the DB apparently believes that I should not be allowed to quote Kirzner... ).
|
Posted by amanfromMars on 03/31/12 05:49 AM
Let me just make this statement as emphatically as I can make it: "Currency created against the value of Real Bills is not debt based, because Real Bills are not debt, nor credit. They are a freely negotiable asset without reservation or possibility of counter claim." ……. Posted by Bischoff on 03/30/12 11:52 PM
In that case, Bischoff, are quantitatively-eased notes*, Real Bills?
For are they not neither debt nor credit, being invented/imaginary wealth to create currency, a freely negotiable asset without reservation or possibility of counter claim?
And do quantitatively eased notes come in a number of different counterfeit guises such as TARP funds/future government IOUs/paper gilts and bonds that return only more paper gilts and bonds/quantitatively eased notes and promises to pay the bearer on demand more of the same?
* ….. Of course, the whole operation, in all and any of its guises, is complicated/simplified by now being just an electronic exchange/addition of arbitrary/subjectively decided sums, for there is no real physicality of money/coin/wealth/paper transfer nowadays, is there?
|
Posted by Bischoff on 03/30/12 11:52 PM
"I knew it was debt based money, but I never knew I could just ask and receive it!"
Weebly,
What is it with you... ??? I tell you again and again that Real Bills are not debt, nor do they involve credit. Then you tell me that you know all about Real Bills and that they are debt.
Be honest... You haven't got a clue about the nature of Real Bills, how they function and how they are dealt with in English-American Commercial Law.
Normally, I'd take the time to explain Real Bills in detail, but I have already done this before here on the DB site for at least half a dozen times.
Let me just make this statement as emphatically as I can make it: "Currency created against the value of Real Bills is not debt based, because Real Bills are not debt, nor credit. They are a freely negotiable asset without reservation or possibility of counter claim."
Now let me correct the nonsensical comments you made.
1. "I have determined the need for me to draw $4.2 million in Real Bills from you."
--One does not "draw a Real Bill from". One "draws a Real Bill on". That is clue #1 that you don't understand the function of Real Bills.
2. "Can you establish the interest rate by your willingness to invest your gold savings in me, please."
--Real Bills have next to nothing to do with the rate of interest on savings. Real Bills do not pay interest. Real Bills earn a discount. There is a huge difference between earning interest and earning discount. That is clue #2 that you don't understand how Real Bills work.
3. "... how do I know you won't do the same for someone else with the same gold?"
--That statement is about as nonsensical as they come. If I discount a Real Bill to you, you give me the gold or redeemable currency we agreed upon and I endorse the Real Bill over to you. If you discount a Real Bill to me, I pay you the amount of gold or redeemable currency we agreed upon and you endorse the Real Bill over to me. If I am the bank, and I have a charter which authorizes me to create redeemable currency against the value of un-matured Real Bills I hold, I print currency in value up to the value of the Real Bills in my bank vault, and I circulate the currency instead of the Real Bills.
--"How do I know you won't do the same for someone else with the same gold?" In the light of my explanation, do you see how silly your question is? That is clue #3 that you don't understand how Real Bills are used to create redeemable currency.
4. "Can you establish the interest rate by your willingness to invest your gold savings in me, please?"
--Interest rate relates to savings. Savings are invested in bonds. Bonds pay interest. The willingness of savers to invest their gold in bonds establishes the interest rate. Since redeemable currency no longer exists, savers can no longer save, and they are therefore cut out from determining the interest rate. The Fed sets the interest rate for them now. As to investing in you, all I can say that I invest in capital. I do hire labor, though.
Discount rate relates to Real Bills. Discounts are earned with acquisition of Real Bills. Real Bills do not pay interest, they earn a discount. Since there exists only "legal tender" Federal Reserve Note currency since 1982, no supplier in his right mind will draw a Real Bill on a producer, to have the producer pay him with irredeemable Federal Reserve Notes upon maturity. A supplier is not about to give up something of "positive" value, just to be payed back with a currency having "negative" value when the Real Bill matures.
--"Can you establish the interest rate by your willingness to invest your gold savings in me, please?" In the light of my explanation can you see how silly this question also is? That is clue #4 that you haven't got the foggiest idea about the nature and function of Real Bills, nor that you understand the importance of Real Bills in a viable monetary system.
There is a book on Real Bills by Dr. Stevens at Boston Law College which can enlighten you. It is a small paperback. However, it will set you back about $125.
So maybe next time when you talk about Real Bills, you'll at least will have a clue what you are talking about... .
 |
Posted by Agent Weebley on 03/30/12 09:26 PM
Hi Ingo,
I have determined the need for me to draw $4.2 million in Real Bills from you. Can you establish the interest rate by your willingness to invest your gold savings in me, please?
I knew it was debt based money, but I never knew I could just ask and receive it!
Awesome!
Hang on a mo' . . . how do I know you won't do the same for someone else with the same gold? How about just lending me the gold then . . . pretty please? You did say that only gold is money . . . so hopefully that is OK.
Oh, and I melt on delivery . . . I don't trust that tungsten crap.
|
Posted by Bischoff on 03/30/12 05:57 PM
"Satanic ideologies are at the core of Libertarianism."
Satanic = develish, wicked, infernal, diabolical... .
I'll look into your "Satanic Core of Libertarianism" treatise. However, I am interested in your terminology as it regards your comments, "the issues related to interest-bearind debt-based currencies versus the gold/paper dialectic, and to physical gold versus "paper gold".
What do you mean by "gold/paper dialectic"... ??? What do you mean with "physical gold versus paper gold"... ???
Forget the DB's idea of competing currencies. There are really only two types of monetary systems. One is a redeemable paper currency created by independent, private banks against the value of Real Bills using gold as the standard of value. The other is an irredeemable, "legal tender" de-monetized paper currency created by a central bank against sovereign debt.
The volume of the first type of currency is controlled by the consumer who determines the need for drawing of Real Bills, and by the saver who establishes the interest rate by his willingness to invest his gold savings. The volume of the second kind of currency is controlled by the creators of government debt, and the interest rate determining returns on investment of debt based currency is artifically through Open Market Operations of a central bank.
The choice seems to be very clear. Do you as a consumer and saver want to control the volume of currency in circulation and the rate of interest in return for the investment of your savings, or do you want to give up control over the volume of currency and the prime interests rate to elected politicians and a government run central bank?
It's as simple as that. The other terminologies thrown into this discussion seem just confusing.
|
Posted by amanfromMars on 03/30/12 02:21 PM
It is a work in current progress, 4irw4y ... ... ... Click to view link
|
Posted by 4irw4y on 03/30/12 12:55 PM
We're talking to a system we should destroy with no extra word out.
 |
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 03/30/12 12:05 PM
'I don't know if the DB is just enjoying calling me a liar'
-------------------
Well, I called you a liar because you are. If you don't like being called a liar, stop lying.
|
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 03/30/12 11:57 AM
'I will rebut the DB's inconsistencies from time to time, and have done so (with respect to the article presented here) for interested parties.'
-----------
No, you haven't. You CLAIM to have done so. Big difference. Repeating a claim does not make it true either.
|
Posted by memehunter on 03/30/12 10:55 AM
I don't know if the DB is just enjoying calling me a liar. I mean, I wrote the "Satanic Core of Libertarianism", I should know what's in it. I did not call the Austrian School a "Satanic Church", I said that Satanic ideologies were at the core of Libertarianism.
About changing the subject, the DB elves have still not properly answered most of the issues that were brought up following their article and switched the topic to Satanism instead. It's ironic that they accuse me of being caught in a "mis-statement" (but which mis-statement, actually - one loses track of the DB's inventions... ) and of changing the topic.
I note that attacking me does not advance the discussion one iota, but the issues related to interest-bearind debt-based currencies versus the gold/paper dialectic, and to physical gold versus "paper gold" and other related topics remain as pressing as ever, but the DB refuses to address them properly.
I will rebut the DB's inconsistencies from time to time, and have done so (with respect to the article presented here) for interested parties.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Here from the TOP of your own article:
-----
The Satanic Core of Libertarianism
February 25, 2012
As we can see from de Mandeville’s Fable of the Bees, Satanist propaganda is at the core of Libertarian doctrine and Austrian Economics.
-----
"Austrian economics" ... "Satanic propaganda."
link to article: Click to view link
We were characterizing your description of Austrian economics. If we had meant it literally, we'd have put it in quotes.
You simply cannot deny that you are using religious language. You use the word Satanism. This has religious connotations. It is entirely fair to characterize your comparison of Austrian economics to a Satanic church (lower case).
Here from Wikipedia: "Satanism is a group of religions composed of a diverse number of ideological and philosophical beliefs and social phenomena. Their shared features include symbolic association with, admiration for the character of, and even veneration of Satan or similar rebellious, promethean, and liberating figures."
"Click to view link
Satanism is a religion. It is a "church." You make the comparison.
You will be relieved to know that (because there are so many of them) we have lost track of your "mis-statements," and factual inaccuracies.
|
Posted by memehunter on 03/30/12 09:33 AM
DB: You are citing people you characterize as "Satanists" to rebut other "Satanists?" - as you have described them?
I will repeat: Since for the DB there is apparently no salvation outside of the religion of Austrian economics, it is relevant to point out that even some of these Austrian economists disagreed among pure time preference or resource ownership.
The discussion would be more interesting if you actually attempted to address the topics I initially mentioned (interest-bearing debt-based currencies versus the "gold/paper" dialectic, physical gold versus "paper gold", etc... ) instead of trying to obfuscate the issues. Should I assume that it is simply because you do not have a good answer?
Reply from The Daily Bell
MH: 'it is the DB who claims that Austrianism is a Satanic Church, not me'
AA: Well, you're lying again, memehunter. Here's YOUR article:
'The Satanic Core of Libertarianism - As we can see from de Mandeville's Fable of the Bees, Satanist propaganda is at the core of Libertarian doctrine and Austrian Economics.'
Click to view link
--------------
Every time you are caught in a mis-statement - and we listed about five whoppers in a previous thread - you change the subject and seek to "move on" like Bill Clinton ...
As far as discussing issues with you, we have written tens of thousands of words on Austrian economics .. a very broad field contrary to your weird attempt to categorize 150 years of economic investigations as a rebranding of the "Fable of the Bees."
In fact, you have already admitted you know little or nothing of it, though this didn't stop you from branding an entire intellectual discipline as "Satanic."
We will rebut your more glaring errors from time to time, and have done so herein for interested parties.
|
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 03/30/12 08:24 AM
MH: 'it is the DB who claims that Austrianism is a Satanic Church, not me'
AA: Well, you're lying again, memehunter. Here's YOUR article:
'The Satanic Core of Libertarianism - As we can see from de Mandeville's Fable of the Bees, Satanist propaganda is at the core of Libertarian doctrine and Austrian Economics.'
Click to view link
MH: 'And yes, Austrianism and Libertarianism were influenced by Satanism and Illuminati ideologies (I think this should be "obvious and evident" to anyone who has read my articles and down their own research afterwards)'
AA: The only thing, in my humble view, that is obvious and evident to anyone who has read your articles is that you need to get a life soon!
|
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 03/30/12 07:39 AM
'And yes, Austrianism and Libertarianism were influenced by Satanism and Illuminati ideologies (I think this should be "obvious and evident" to anyone who has read my articles and down their own research afterwards)'
---------------
You recently bragged about being 'proud of your IGNORANCE' regarding the very subject of your articles.
You claim education about FREEDOM is in reality a form of deception in order to establish (satanic) SLAVERY.
Consequentially your next series of articles oughta 'uncover' that WAR IS PEACE, right?
Reply from The Daily Bell
It seems ... Orwellian. Just in this thread he has apparently taken the position that it is government that is responsible for creating and maintaining freedom ... see below.
|
Posted by memehunter on 03/30/12 07:15 AM
DB: Boy, you really shoot yourself in the foot here. Having put your pen name on articles that claim that the Austrian economic school is actually a Satanic church, you now CITE these same Satanic Austrian economists to try to prove points about interest and monopoly!
M: The point is to show that even among Austrian economists, some disagree about the premise of the pure time preference, and some admit that resource ownership can sometimes be problematic. Since this website is ostensibly about promoting Austrianism, I think it is perfectly legitimate to cite Austrian economists who seem to hold different viewpoints.
And yes, Austrianism and Libertarianism were influenced by Satanism and Illuminati ideologies (I think this should be "obvious and evident" to anyone who has read my articles and down their own research afterwards), but it is the DB who claims that Austrianism is a Satanic Church, not me.
As you said, "Noted".
Reply from The Daily Bell
Hmm-mm ...
You are citing people you characterize as "Satanists" to rebut other "Satanists?" - as you have described them?
Down the rabbit hole we go ...
|
|
