Title: Lew Rockwell explains how the Federal Reserve Enables War, Empire, and Destroys the Middle Class Source:
[None] URL Source:http://libertycrier.com/finance/lew ... ews10_21_2012&utm_medium=email Published:Oct 21, 2012 Author:Lew Rockwell Post Date:2012-10-21 10:44:16 by christine Keywords:None Views:1464 Comments:60
From the YouTube description: The accused Federal Reserve bomb plotter’s home country wants details on his case. While this may make headlines, we ask Lew Rockwell of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute about one aspect of the Federal Reserve that has not made front page news: how the Fed, with its printing press, may be making war easier. After all, if the people of the United States were asked to write a check every year to the IRS in order to fund the exploding deficits and rising interest payments on the national debt, would they continue to support all these wars? Randolph Bourne may have famously quipped that “war is the health of the state,” but it isn’t the health of the economy, this is for certain. If the American people could identify their miserable economic plight with the actions of the federal reserve and with the hundreds of billions of dollars spent every year on war and defense, it is reasonable to expect that they would simply refuse the burden all together. We will ask Lew Rockwell, Chairman of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute what he thinks, and if he thinks that war is made easier by a pliant and compliant central bank.
And, sticking with this issue of the Federal Reserve as the great “enabler,” what about it’s role in “disabling” and dismembering America’s dwindling middle class? How responsible is the Federal Reserve and its quantitative easing, zero percent interest rate policy for the plight of America’s economy and its society? The two main contenders for the presidency, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, speak often about the Fed. The candidates talk about supporting the middle class in terms of tax cuts, loopholes, and regulation but they don’t discuss the “money” in the middle class’s pockets. We ask Lew Rockwell, Chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, about what happens to the middle class if you don’t address savings.
The following quotes from Rockefeller's Memoirs are fascinating:
David Rockefeller then goes on to describe his decision to attend the London School of Economics, and how the way was paved for him through his family's generous grants to the institution from the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial and from the Rockefeller Foundation. He also mentions his father's friendship with Sir William Beveridge, who was the director of the LSE, and who provided accommodations for David only a short walk away from the university.
While enrolled at the LSE the young David Rockefeller was personally tutored in economics by none other than Professor Friedrich A. Hayek. Rockefeller explains,
The economists at LSE were much more conservative than the rest of the faculty. In fact, its economists comprised the major center of opposition in England to Keynes and his Cambridge School of interventionist economics.
"My tutor that year was Friedrich von Hayek, the noted Austrian economist who in 1974 would receive the Nobel Prize for the work he had done in the 1920s and 1930s on money, the business cycle, and capital theory. Like Schumpeter, Hayek placed his trust in the market, believing that over time, even with its many imperfections, it provided the most reliable means to distribute resources efficiently and to ensure sound economic growth. Hayek also believed that government should play a critical role as the rule maker and umpire and guarantor of a just and equitable social order, rather than the owner of economic resources or the arbiter of markets.
Hayek was in his late thirties when I first met him. Indisputably brilliant, he lacked Schumpeter's spark and charisma... Nevertheless, I found myself largely in agreement with his basic economic philosophy."
After spending a year under the care of Hayek at the LSE, David Rockefeller had to make a choice as to where he would finish his college education. It was not a hard choice to make,
" After a year in London I was eager to return to the United States to complete my graduate work at the University of Chicago, which boasted one of the premier economics faculties in the world, including such luminaries as Frank Knight, Jacob Viner, George Stigler, Henry Schultz, and Paul Douglas. I had heard Knight lecture at the LSE and found his more philosophical approach to economics quite compelling. Lionel Robbins knew Knight well and urged me to study with him. ......The fact that Grandfather had helped found the university played a distinctly secondary role in my choice......
The Rockefellers OWNED AND OPERATED von Mises and Hayek.
They were nobodies going nowhere until Rockefellers put them on the dole and brought them to America.
Rockefellers have bought and sold human beings for a hundred years, Mises and Hayek were just two useful idiots.
bwhahahahahahahaha!
The relationship between the Rockefeller foundation and von Mises and Hayek has been well established and has been well known for decades. They were in no way "owned and operated" by the Rockefellers. That is nothing more than your pitiful attempt to de-legitimize their ideas of small government, free markets, and liberty. That you would try to sell the idea that they were nobodies prior to coming to the United States does nothing but prove that you have very little knowledge of the subject or you are an outright liar. Both men were well established and prominent within their fields well before coming to the United States as any simple search engine search would prove.
It has been determined by most that their relationship does not take away from any of their written works. Even with this relationship, the classical liberal, libertarian, and pale-conservative movements all consider both von Mises and Hayek to be two of the greatest political commentators on liberty and Austrian economists of the 20th century. Their books, which I doubt you've ever read or have the mental capacity to understand, speak for themselves.
I guess everyone is stupid but the o' so wise Cynicom. Only Cynicom knows the truth! So what is the truth Cynicom? What exactly are you trying to say? Are all of the small government/anti-socialist and Austrian economic works of von Mises and Hayek some sort of Rockefeller/Rothschild conspiracy? Has everyone been fooled? Considering much of the above mentioned political movements have been heavily influenced by both von Mises and Hayek, should those political movements be ignored? Are those movements Rockefeller/Rothschild conspiracies as well? If von Mises and Hayek were "just two useful idiots" then I guess everything they wrote was false and therefore the before mentioned movements are filled with "useful idiots." That appears to be your stance.
Or maybe the truth is that you disagree with everything they wrote and so are trying to undermine their legitimacy among people you know are likely to never have read their works and who likely know little about them except for their names and will therefore take your word for it.
It is an established fact that you are a lifelong government bureaucrat - the very sort of person von Mises wrote about in his books Bureaucracy, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, and Omnipotent Government: The Rise of Total State and Total War. The very sort of person Hayek warned us about in Road to Serfdom and The Political Order of a Free People.
As someone who regularly opposes the idea that people should not be forced to join a union in order to get a job(i.e. right to work laws); as someone who regularly defends, makes excuses for, and attempts to deflect attention away from government atrocities; as someone who tries his hardest to keep people away from the voting booth instead of voting for a third party, it makes perfect sense that you would oppose the political and economic views of von Mises and Hayek, and as such, those of the classical liberal, libertarian, and pale-conservative movements.
You claim to oppose the two-party fraud, therefore a reasonable person can conclude that you are not a Republican nor a Democrat. Due to your hatred of von Mises and Hayek, your pro-forced-union and pro-government atrocity stances, you are obviously not a conservative, libertarian, classical liberal, or paleo-conservative. One has to wonder exactly what your political beliefs are and what your agenda on this board is. It seems obvious to me that you are here with an agenda. You remind me of yukon on Liberty Post in that you are against everything except for big government.
Taking my gentleman's C in macro (nearly forty years ago), I've not done all the original source reading that I should have done.
Too busy paying all the various taxes, I guess...
I would just ask for people to not take Cynicom's words as the gospel truth. He obviously dislikes Hayek and von Mises, which he has every right to. However, the reason why he despises them is important.
If you look to the logical conclusion of Cynicom's statements, he is basically saying that classical liberalism, libertarianism, and paleo-conservatism are all political movements based upon falseness and deception, that falseness and deception being small government, individual liberty, and the free market. They would have to be false considering the influence that Hayek and von Mises had on these movements.
Is it realistic to think that the leaders and scholars of the various political movements and the Austrian school of economics have all been bamboozled by "the Jews" for 60+ years? Do they not have access to the same information as Cynicom does? Why were they unable to come to the same conclusions as Cynicom? Does anyone actually believe that Cynicom is that much smarter than everyone else?
Is it realistic to think that men who wrote dozens of books about small government and individual liberty, in some cases consisting of 800+ pages, are in some secret cabal to establish a centralized one-world government? If they were in such a cabal what use would the books they wrote be? Wouldn't have it made more sense to write books that justified their supposed one world government beliefs in order to draw supporters? It makes no sense that they would spend the mental energy writing about things in such detail that they did not believe.
It seems to me much more likely that Cynicom dislikes Hayek and von Mises due to their anti-bureaucratic and anti-forced-union membership writings and beliefs and is trying to make mountains out of molehills in an attempt to delegitimize those beliefs.
Well look who showed up, Cynicommmie's own personal sycophant. How cute. I've always wondered, do you get paid to follow Cynicommie from thread to thread with your nose buried up his ass or is it a voluntary position? By all means continue with your constant verbal fellatio. I find it amusing to see an octarian carrying on so.
Well look who showed up, Cynicommmie's own personal sycophant.
If you weren't so wrong, it would be funny. I follow Cyni's comments because of the content he provides, quite contrary to the bloviating posts of insults and name-calling coming from your's. On the other hand, I am not a robot, a mute, nor a calloused and incompassionate on-looker. I find the silence from others to your unwarranted attacks indicative of our sick society.
Could it be that a 4'3" homosapien has taken the moniker of F.A. Hayek Fan, who uses his/her/its time at the computer trying to give the impression he/she/it is of superior intelligence and above-average stature? To an objective and compassionate reader you come off as nothing more than a hot-headed, arrogant bully, of which our sick society suffers an overabundance.