Its about time that we take care of our own! On Nov 6 2012 Americans rejected the Conservative "Fend For Yourself" religion. In a Monetarily Sovereign Nation there is no need for a balanced budget. Actually Government does not need revenue to spend, it can collect it later as a way to give value to the currency it creates. Spending > Revenue expands the economy, Spending < Revenue contracts the economy, Spending = Revenue is irrelevant and unnecessary. Fiscal Monetary reform is an important agenda for ethical, economic, and political reasons and to undo the privatized franchise by which our economy has been based upon a debt based currency. The deficit terrorism by Fiscal Conservatives threatening austerity and even deeper privatization is based upon the Gold Standard model when dollar was backed by gold and limited, thanks to Nixon, this is no longer the case since 1971, and is thereby false, fraudulent and clearly a fear tactic based upon disinformation. When we align the nature of our economics and the capacities of modern money with the policies of governance as a socializing agenda significant changes will be possible. Based on understanding how sovereign fiat money actually is used can impact Fiscal Policy allowing the Federal government to extend funding for the construction of roads, mass transit, bridges and other "hard" infrastructure to put people back to work which would increase demand for products. This same process can be applied to social infrastructure such as national health care, education, and pensions. Further, an employer of last resort (ELR) process could be established, whereby individuals who wanted to work could be provided a living wage for advancing any number of needed projects toward building communities. Modern Monetary Theory > MMT AND A GOVERNMENT FOR THE PEOPLE | <a href="http://sco.lt/8zdEO1" rel="nofollow">http://sco.lt/8zdEO1</a>; government is not a wealth taker. It is a wealth maker. What’s more, the wealth it makes is not just its own. Generally speaking, people create much more wealth with the aid of government than they do without it. We don’t first become rich and then decide to form a government. First we form governments. Then and only then can we become rich. Without a strong government that works for all, it is not possible to have a strong economy that works for all. They go together. This important insight is actually inscribed in the preamble of the US Constitution, where “to promote the general welfare” is listed as one of the principal purposes of our federal government, along with establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, defending the nation and securing the blessings of liberty."
This book exposes their crap...illustrates neo-confederate groups such as the John Birch Society and others pretending to be American Patriots
Mahilena Dianz's insight:
One of the core ideas of the US right is that modern liberalism is an ally of collectivism and a handmaiden for godless communism. This book exposes their crap...illustrates neo-confederate groups such as the John Birch Society and others pretending to be American Patriots Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort
The Virginia state senate is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, 20-20. Republicans really hate this, but what can they do? Answer: wait for a Democratic state senator to be absent and jam through a mid-decade redistricting plan that switches one seat from D to R by creating a new pack-and-crack majority black district just south of Richmond. The vote was 20-19.
But wait! That's not all. The deed was done on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and at the end of the session Republicans adjourned in memory of Confederate general Stonewall Jackson, whose birthday is today.
Oh, and did I mention that the state senator who was absent is a veteran of the civil rights movement? And that he was in Washington to attend the inauguration of our country's first black president?
House Republicans are backing away from their threat to plunge the United States into a catastrophic budget default and will instead pursue the somewhat less reckless strategy of passing a three-month increase in the debt limit.
Mahilena Dianz's insight:
House Republicans are backing away from their threat to plunge the United States into a catastrophic budget default and will instead pursue the somewhat less reckless strategy of passing a three-month increase in the debt limit. According to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), the bill will also contain a provision cutting off congressional pay unless both houses meet a particular milestone: “If the Senate or House fails to pass a budget in that time, members of Congress will not be paid by the American people for failing to do their job. No budget, no pay.” Before Cantor gets too excited about this plan, however, he may want to familiarize himself with the Twenty-Seventh Amendment to the Constitution:
"No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened."
“But here is the point: If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good... If the Government issues bonds, the brokers will sell them. The bonds will be negotiable; they will be considered as gilt edged paper. Why? Because the government is behind them, but who is behind the Government? The people. Therefore it is the people who constitute the basis of Government credit. Why then cannot the people have the benefit of their own gilt-edged credit by receiving non-interest bearing currency… instead of the bankers receiving the benefit of the people’s credit in interest-bearing bonds?” Thomas Edison, quoted in NY Times, Dec. 6, 1921 http://prosperityuk.com/2000/09/thomas-edison-on-government-created-debt-free-money/
If you think about it, it does seem odd that the US Government is the monopoly supplier of US dollars and yet our politicians go through life thinking the government will run out of money unless it can borrow more. Of course that’s not true, the coins in your pocket are legal tender and yet were not issued against debt. They’re minted by the US Government, backed only by the gilt-edged credit of the American people, no one is paid interest on it and they don’t add a penny to the statutory debt. What’s more, the use of coins as legal tender is scalable, they could replace the use of Tsy debt sales. No, you wouldn’t have to carry more coins in your pocket. Nothing would change except Tsy would be credited by the Federal Reserve for the sale of interest-free Treasury coins (presumably of large denominations) instead of interest-bearing Treasury bonds.
The two great powers of a sovereign state are the monopoly of violence and seigniorage, the profits from the creation of money. If the federal deficit (that is, expenditures in excess of tax receipts) were funded by seigniorage revenue, not only would there be no debt service owed on the money, there’d actually be no deficit. Seigniorage (whether generated by the Federal Reserve or by the US Mint) is supposed to be booked by Treasury as “miscellaneous receipts”, since the funds can appropriated for other govt uses, it actually reduces the deficit dollar for dollar. Looking into it, I found that while Federal Reserve profits are counted as a revenue source (larger than estate taxes and customs duties combined), US Mint profits are not. I sent a couple of emails to the Tsy Inspector General’s office to point this out, but have’t heard anything back. I’ve copied below what I sent Tsy (changing the formatting a bit to merge the two emails). I go WAY into the weeds legally (“presumably in USSGL account, Acct Title: Seigniorage; Acct No 5795″), so I apologize for that in advance. Feel free to ask me to translate anything below into the English language. The bottom line is, the Secretary of Treasury already has the authority to create money without debt so there’s no fiscal reason to raise the debt limit. What’s more, since the Federal Reserve began paying interest on reserves in 2008, there’s no longer a monetary reason to raise the debt limit either.
Circulating coins are shipped to the Federal Reserve Banks (FRB) as needed to replenish inventory and fulfill commercial demand… Seigniorage is the difference between the face value and the gross costs of coins shipped. Seigniorage adds to the Federal Government’s cash balance, but unlike the payment of taxes or other receipts, seigniorage does not involve a transfer of financial assets from the public. Instead, it arises from the exercise of the Federal Government’s sovereign power to create money and the public’s desire to hold financial assets in the form of coins. The President’s Budget excludes seigniorage from receipts and treats it as a means of financing the national debt… p. 28, US Mint, 2009 Annual Report
My question is whether its accurate, under current law, to state that coin seignorage does not involved the transfer of financial assets from the public and whether the President’s Budget should be excluding seigniorage from receipts when Congress directed the Secretary to sweep the “receipts… from the sale of circulating coins” into “miscellaneous receipts” (which is where Federal Reserve seigniorage revenue has long been placed). I understand that Tsy adopted the “other financing source” definition of coin seigniorage years ago, at least since the time of President Johnson’s 1967 Commission on Budget Concepts. Since the time of the Commission (and currently reflected in FASAB SFFAS No. 7) , the US Mint has been on-budget with its seigniorage off-budget while the Federal Reserve System has been off-budget and its seigniorage (reflected in the net earnings refunded to Tsy) on-budget as part of miscellaneous receipts. Indeed, according to the CBO, in 2009 miscellaneous receipts (which are mostly but not solely Fed profits) were a larger source of federal revenue– that is, reduced the federal deficit by a larger amount– than estate/gift taxes and customs duties combined. (Table T-3). To put it another way, if the Federal Reserve sends money directly to the Tsy General Fund, it is counted on the budget. If the Federal Reserve sends money to the Tsy General Fund that stops in the US Mint Public Enterprise Fund first, it is not counted on the budget. That seems anomalous. Leaving aside whether the nature of budget concepts changed after President Nixon took us off the gold standard (I’ll outsource that issue to the estimable Warren Mosler), neither he US Mint Annual Report nor the President’s Budget appear to reflect the statutory language in 31 USC 5136 (which in the mid 90s created the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund). To backtrack a moment, transactions with the Federal Reserve are not considered intergovernmental transfers by Tsy since the Fed’s deposit of earnings at Tsy are booked as nonexchange revenue received from “the public” and are deposited in miscellaneous receipts. Analogously, proceeds from the sale of govt property– that is, an exchange of, say, Federal Reserve notes for a govt asset– received by the Mint from the Federal Reserve (or from the public at large, since they too buy coins from the Mint), should be booked in the Mint PEF as exchange revenue received from “the public”.
The point is, in section 5136, Congress characterizes the exchange of coinage produced ex nihilo by the US Mint for the face value equivalent in Federal Reserve notes (or more typically, by marking up the balance in Tsy’s reserve account) as a “sale”– “Provided further, That the Fund may retain receipts from the Federal Reserve System from the sale of circulating coins at face value for deposit into the Fund“. What’s more, the statute also says, “at such times as the Secretary of the Treasury determines appropriate, but not less than annually, any amount in the Fund that is determined to be in excess of the amount required by the Fund shall be transferred to the Treasury for deposit as miscellaneous receipts“. Unless Congress intended “receipts… from the sale” to not mean exchange revenue and for “the public”, “miscellaneous receipts” and ultimately “seigniorage” to have each have two different meanings depending on whether we’re referring to the US Mint or to the Federal Reserve System, my suspicion is that Mint seigniorage and Fed seignoirage were intended to be treated the same for budgetary purposes.
If, in fact, Mint seigniorage is legally indistinguishable from Fed seigniorage as miscellaneous receipts revenue, it does offer an escape hatch (or more like a subway tunnel really) if Congress refuses to increase the statutory debt limit this spring. The Secretary has rather broad authority to mint coins, Congress was apparently feeling generous when it authorized platinum coins in 31 USC 5112(k) (“with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may prescribe…”). If deficit spending was paid for (eliminated actually) with miscellaneous receipts revenue generated by selling the Fed jumbo denomination coins, and since the Federal Fund Rate can now be pegged with Interest on Reserve payments in lieu selling Treasuries to drain excess reserves, Tsy could fund govt operations indefinitely without ever raising the statutory debt limit.
Coin sale proceeds received by the Mint Public Enterprise Fund seem to fall squarely into the category of “exchange revenue received from public”. To quote from FASAB FSSAB No. 7:
“Exchange transactions with the public: revenue 270. Sales of goods and services.–The cost of production for goods and services such as electricity, mail delivery, and maps is defrayed in whole or in part by revenue from selling the goods or services provided. The sales may be made by a public enterprise revolving fund (such as the Bonneville Power Administration)…”
Like the Bonneville Power Administration, the Mint Public Enterprise Fund is a “public enterprise revolving fund”. I’d note that The President’s FY 11 Budget, Sect. 11 Budget Concepts defines “seigniorage” as:
“The profit from coining money. It is the difference between the value of coins as money and their cost of production. Seigniorage reduces the Government’s need to borrow. Unlike the payment of taxes or other receipts, it does not involve a transfer of financial assets from the public. Instead, it arises from the exercise of the Government’s power to create money and the public’s desire to hold financial assets in the form of coins. Therefore, the budget excludes seigniorage from receipts and treats it as a means of financing other than borrowing from the public.”
However Sect. 11 also defines “public enterprise funds” as:
“revolving funds used for programs authorized by law to conduct a cycle of business-type operations, primarily with the public, in which outlays generate collections.”
Presumably these “business-type operations” involve the collection of “financial assets from the public”. Where this discrepancy arose , I think, was when in 1995, Congress passed (and the President signed) the Mint Public Enterprise Fund statute. Under that statute, the funds generated by coin sales to the Federal Reserve and public can be in one of two places, 1. The coin sale earnings can stay in the Enterprise Fund where it will be apart from the Treasury General Fund (presumably in USSGL account, Acct Title: Seigniorage; Acct No 5795) ; or later, 2. The Secretary can sweep the revenue ex costs out of the Mint PEF into miscellaneous receipts (presumably FAS Account Title: Receipt from Monetary Power; Acct No 0600); where it becomes part off the General Fund. There is a FAS Acct No 0610 also titled “Seigniorage”. But it is for “other financing” deposits which, at least since the PEF Statute, would not apply to Mint earnings since sales proceeds that go into a public enterprise revolving fund are, in fact, exchange revenue.
I’d add that it is to the same destination, General Fund as miscellaneous receipts (Acct No 0600), that the Federal Reserve transfers its earnings (which as noted above, make “miscellaneous receipts” one of Tsy’s largest sources of revenue on the federal budget). Since the courts have held both the the Fed and the Mint to be nonappropriated fund instrumentalities, transferring the earnings from either of their separate and distinct funds into Treasury general receipts would presumably be nonexchange transactions from the public.
In AINS, Inc. v. United States, 56 Fed. Cl. 522 (2003); affm’d. 365 F.d 1333 Fed Cir. (2004), the Court, in the course of finding the Mint was a “nonappropriated fund instrumentality”, noted that the revenue was generated (Bonneville Power Administration-like) from sales by a public enterprise revolving fund, and identified the destination of both Federal Reserve earnings and Mint earnings. “Congress has clearly expressed this intent through its authorization of the Mint’s Public Enterprise Fund. By directing that all receipts from the Federal Reserve System and the public from the sale of circulating coins at face value must be deposited into a special fund, Congress has made clear that the Mint’s funds are to be kept separate and distinct from the general Treasury fund…
“The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board, established as a NAFI in Denkler, has since 1947 established a policy to transfer excess earnings to the Treasury. See 33 Fed. Res. Bull. supp. app. 1-2 (May 1947). Congress in 2002 expressly required the Federal Reserve Board to transfer any surplus for fiscal year 2000 to the secretary of the Treasury for “deposit in the general fund of the Treasury.” 12 U.S.C. § 289(b)(1) (2000)….Therefore, that excess funds are to be deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts has no bearing on whether the Mint, or any other agency, is a NAFI.”
What’s more, two years ago the Mint, in the course of issuing a federal regulation authorizing civil fines for infringement of the Mint’s trademark, stated that Mint “seigniorage and profits” are deposited in the General Fund as miscellaneous receipts: “Pursuant to the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund (PEF) statute, 31 U.S.C. 5136, all receipts from fines assessed under the regulation would be deposited in the PEF and the Secretary of the Treasury would transfer these amounts, along with regular United States Mint seigniorage and profits, to the General Fund as miscellaneous receipts. As miscellaneous receipts in the Treasury—the drawing of funds from which are subject to appropriation by Congress—neither the Secretary of the Treasury, nor the Director of the Mint could be subject to “possible temptation * * * when [their] executive responsibilities * * * may make [them] partisan to maintain the high level of contribution” from the assessment process provided for under the regulation. Cf. Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 60 (1972). Moreover, the amounts involved would nonetheless render any ostensible temptation inconsequential because the relatively small amounts that the United States Mint could be expected to receive in fines payable under 31 U.S.C. 333 would be de minimis when compared to the recent amounts ($600-800 million) that the United States Mint annually has transferred to the General Fund.“ 72 FR 60771 (2007) (emphasis added).
Seeing as the Mint stated in the Federal Register that 31 USC 5136 allows the Secretary to deposit Mint seigniorage “as miscellaneous receipts in the Treasury, the drawing of funds from which are subject to appropriation by Congress”, I would argued that it should be counted on the federal budget as revenue in like manner as Federal Reserve seigniorage, which as you know, is deposited as miscellaneous receipts in the Treasury, the drawing of funds from which are subject to appropriation by Congress.
Read the full text of Richard Blanco's inaugural poem and watch his performance VIDEO
Mahilena Dianz's insight:
Miami-raised Cuban poet Richard Blanco delivered his poem “One Today,” written especially for the inauguration ceremony. The full text is below:
One sun rose on us today, kindled over our shores, peeking over the Smokies, greeting the faces of the Great Lakes, spreading a simple truth across the Great Plains, then charging across the Rockies. One light, waking up rooftops, under each one, a story told by our silent gestures moving behind windows.
My face, your face, millions of faces in morning’s mirrors, each one yawning to life, crescendoing into our day: pencil-yellow school buses, the rhythm of traffic lights, fruit stands: apples, limes, and oranges arrayed like rainbows begging our praise. Silver trucks heavy with oil or paper— bricks or milk, teeming over highways alongside us,
on our way to clean tables, read ledgers, or save lives— to teach geometry, or ring-up groceries as my mother did for twenty years, so I could write this poem.
All of us as vital as the one light we move through, the same light on blackboards with lessons for the day: equations to solve, history to question, or atoms imagined, the “I have a dream” we keep dreaming, or the impossible vocabulary of sorrow that won’t explain the empty desks of twenty children marked absent today, and forever. Many prayers, but one light breathing color into stained glass windows, life into the faces of bronze statues, warmth onto the steps of our museums and park benches 2 as mothers watch children slide into the day.
One ground. Our ground, rooting us to every stalk of corn, every head of wheat sown by sweat and hands, hands gleaning coal or planting windmills in deserts and hilltops that keep us warm, hands digging trenches, routing pipes and cables, hands
as worn as my father’s cutting sugarcane so my brother and I could have books and shoes.
The dust of farms and deserts, cities and plains mingled by one wind—our breath. Breathe. Hear it through the day’s gorgeous din of honking cabs, buses launching down avenues, the symphony
of footsteps, guitars, and screeching subways, the unexpected song bird on your clothes line.
or whispers across café tables, Hear: the doors we open for each other all day, saying: hello| shalom, buon giorno |howdy |namaste |or buenos días in the language my mother taught me—in every language spoken into one wind carrying our lives
without prejudice, as these words break from my lips.
One sky: since the Appalachians and Sierras claimed their majesty, and the Mississippi and Colorado worked their way to the sea. Thank the work of our hands: weaving steel into bridges, finishing one more report for the boss on time, stitching another wound 3 or uniform, the first brush stroke on a portrait, or the last floor on the Freedom Tower jutting into a sky that yields to our resilience.
One sky, toward which we sometimes lift our eyes tired from work: some days guessing at the weather of our lives, some days giving thanks for a love that loves you back, sometimes praising a mother who knew how to give, or forgiving a father
who couldn’t give what you wanted.
We head home: through the gloss of rain or weight of snow, or the plum blush of dusk, but always—home, always under one sky, our sky. And always one moon like a silent drum tapping on every rooftop and every window, of one country—all of us— facing the stars hope—a new constellation waiting for us to map it, waiting for us to name it—together
Watch Blanco deliver his poem at the inauguration, via CNN:
Libertarianism and its twin sister Austrian Economics were invented by the Money Power to be the other side of dialectic with Communism.
Mahilena Dianz's insight:
How the Money Power created Libertarianism and Austrian Economics William S. Volker (1859-1947) was a wealthy German-Jewish businessman. Dismayed by the rise of Socialism America, he created the Volker fund to provide a reactionary ideology based on “laissez-faire” and Social Darwinism.
This was to become Libertarianism.
Libertarianism and its twin sister Austrian Economics were invented by the Money Power to be the other side of 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 which he had a predisposition. From these conclusions, it was the task of Volker’s considerable fortune to find 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 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 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 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 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 dissolved. A major part of Rothbard’s work for the VF consisted of reading and evaluating books, journal articles, 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 organizations, loosely organized to suggest mutual independence and a ‘Libertarian Movement’. Among these 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 with the financial support of the Volker fund, which payed for the expenses of all American participants. Key cofounders 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. 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 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, Creature of Jekyll Island”. This was a rehash of Eustace Mullins’ brilliant ‘Secrets of the Federal Reserve’, with exception: it left out all Mullins’ analysis of the Gold Standard as a Banker operation and how Britain’s demand 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 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 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 ‘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 markets reflected nature. Moreover, this was no sudden conversion: Rothbard promoted the same view, as early 1973, here.”
So Jewish Supremacism can be retraced directly to the Austrian Economics’ main proponent himself.
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 sums of money, because Austrian Economics was considered the right answer to communism, to maintain the dialectic the Money Power needs