The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Steve Penfield Archive
Financial Fraud: Lord Keynes, the New Deal and 'Stimulus' Mania
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

Groucho Marx in the movie Horse Feathers, 1932.

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

A collection of quacks and shrewd self-promoters sold millions of Americans on exotic theories of financial ease. Instead of a promised land of sustained prosperity, we’re left with an enormous mess to clean up (at best) and probably a full economic meltdown on the horizon. For starters, we might want to try looking for better advice.

If the stars align just right, each generation may witness one or two radiant figures who achieve such dazzling advances for totalitarian authority that our ruling elites can speak no ill of their personal and public failings, no matter how dramatic. Abe Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and Michael “Martin Luther” King serve as worthy members of that ignoble pantheon, if we can look past so much Hollywood, state media and public school adulation. (Some may question the inclusion of MLK on this short list of super-villains. But providing rhetorical ammunition for three generations of arbitrary racial revenge, hounding millions of European Americans from their U.S. urban homelands, chasing manufacturing jobs out of city environments with nationalized union fascism, spawning the scourge of black welfare dependency, neutralizing non-governmental black progress of the 1940s and 50s, and riling up his followers so greatly they would riot in over 110 cities the week after his death—while helping to seed a staggering 750 race riots from 1964 to 1971—settles it for me.)

The Right Honorable Lord John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946) is another such example.

The distinguished British salesman of international “free lunch” economics was a master of pandering to politicians’ short-term desires for instant gratification at someone else’s expense. His eloquence in advocating fallacious but soothing positions empowered ruling establishments and their corporate facilitators for decades. For that, he is celebrated by many, despised by a few, yet emulated by nearly everyone in the halls of high finance.

The section headings for this essay are as follows:

  • The Economic Crisis at Hand: Who Taught Us to be this Dumb?
  • ‘Free Lunch’ Fantasies: 1930s – the Decade of Economic Insanity
  • Keynesian Influence on the New Deal
  • Maynard ‘Feasting with Panthers’: The Making of a Megalomaniac
  • Keynesian Alchemy Finds a Home at Subsidized Colleges
  • The ‘Stimulus’ Ruse: Putting a Positive Spin on Wealth Destruction
  • Academic Effrontery Becomes the New Normal
  • Recap on Banking Basics
  • The Original Fraud of Modern Banking
  • The Fickle, Futile and Fanatical Opposition
  • I Hate the Same People You Hate: Please Buy My Newsletter!
  • Left-wing Economic Crack Up
  • Conclusion

If the flawed ideas of J.M. Keynes had rested merely with his colleagues at school or perhaps some avid book readers, the world might have been spared some of the economic calamity from the Depression era that still haunts us today. But in America, its four-term President and his stable of academic wizards—known affectionately as the Brain Trust—latched on to Keynesian “stimulus” folly and other aromatic but implausible notions. Immediately after World War II, and largely to this day, college economics departments cling to his theories as well. Political and institutional supporters of Keynesian principles now control nearly all positions of power in the West, which helps explain the dire financial conditions we now face.

While Franklin D. Roosevelt was instrumental as the front man for many fantastically failed political programs, his personality and background have already been thoroughly analyzed by others. This essay will offer a recap of New Deal economic highlights, but it will not further evaluate FDR, the Man, other than this brief synopsis: he was a shallow, eager-to-please aristocrat with remarkable acting abilities and a gigantic ego, hopelessly in over his head. Accordingly, no one teaches or believes in “Rooseveltism.” (Spell check doesn’t even recognize it as a word.)

On the other hand, most Wall Street, media and college economics experts treat Keynesianism as a serious governing philosophy, even if some may disagree with elements of his positions. As such, Mr. Keynes will receive more attention in this essay.

How was, and is, John Maynard Keynes influential? For starters, the student and lecturer from Cambridge University who went on to various governmental advisory positions led the charge from the 1920s to mid-40s against the political constraints of the gold standard and gave rhetorical cover for cheap and easy credit to fund rampant social spending that made him the darling of FDR, his disastrous New Deal and subsequent deficit chicanery.

Other notable accomplishments of the dashing economist include a clueless oblivion to harmful fiat inflation while promoting the concept of public servitude under the ruse of “full employment.” The professed expert on everything—who held a semi-valid job for a scant two years—also promoted a farcical “paradox of thrift” which further encouraged wasteful government spending while attacking the virtues of individual saving and investing. Those enduring legacies of raw political quackery enabled the debt and inflation explosions we suffer from today.

Keynes’s appeal rested on a mix of talents common to any successful court suitor. The Dr. Feelgood of economic theory used a mix of charm, refined British manners and fanciful jargon on “liquidity preference”, “aggregate demand” and other pretentious tripe to compel fellow intellectuals and witless politicians to gullibly buy his tarnished wares.

Regarding his relentless assault against individual “thrift”—made futile now by ongoing inflationary debasement—the hedonist Keynes loved public adoration and hated anything that required patience and self-control. Accordingly, he championed an ideology that merely reflected his own personal preferences at the expense of everyone else. And the imperial command in Washington D.C. has been infatuated with Keynesian promises ever since.

Meanwhile, flustered conservative critics have failed since the 1930s to make any traction against Keynes’s flawed prescriptions in particular and to counter runaway debt in general. Instead, this hapless gang of right-wing and libertarian book-thumpers and pamphleteers have settled for turning Keynesian into a meaningless epithet interspersed with chants of “end the Fed” or some unintelligible noises about “globalism.” Hardly a valid alternative for anyone to rally around.

The Economic Crisis at Hand: Who Taught Us to be this Dumb?

Which brings us to some important preliminary considerations. Many economic commentators have drawn attention to the growing wealth disparity between rich and poor in America. The fact that the top 0.1% of Americans now own more wealth than the bottom 80% (here’s a nice graphic on that from C.H. Smith and the Washington Post) is disturbing in itself, even if most critics of that destabilizing wealth gap offer no sensible advice on what to do about it.

Others focus on the massive $1.6 trillion of student debt or the gargantuan $26 trillion of national debt. Still others point to the real annual inflation rate of 8-10% over the last two decades (based on traditional accounting measures tracked by ShadowStats) of which our government claims is only about 1-2%.

I would agree that all of those issues are legitimate concerns. And I also think that most mainstream (and some internet) attention given to those problems amounts to convenient excuses to breed discontent and impose more socialist government programs—or in the case of libertarians, to bash the Federal Reserve and exonerate their beloved private-sector Debt Dealers.

In a more general sense, I think we should be asking: How did all this happen? How did a supposedly “educated” populace of functioning adults allow such malfunction to occur without any effective opposition (or arguably, any semblance of a counter-strategy)?

When faced with such staggering long-term incompetence, my first thought is to ask: Who is teaching us history, economics and other political matters? The answer to that should be obvious, but doesn’t get much objective attention in mainstream media. Unfortunately, education in America—the leading source of ostensible “experts” on practically everything—has largely been corrupted by government subsidies (nearly $1.3 trillion as of FY 2020) and is now run predominantly by control freaks, charlatans and sycophants who (in addition to their smorgasbord of PC pig vomit) think monologue books and lectures are the only way of learning (as opposed to a more balanced mix of mentoring and apprenticeships that worked for centuries without subsidies, hair-trigger censorship or student rioting).

This scholastic cult of empire worship naturally concludes that central planning is the answer to every problem in society. And they teach that skewed opinion as a fact to be memorized and recited like some quasi-religious catechism that feigns to be “science.” This is actually nothing new. The crude method of monologue indoctrination—as opposed to a more mentally sharpening dialogue approach or dynamic learning experience under a competent “master” in some chosen profession—has always been central to the university model.

In higher education, less than 10 of the 4,300 colleges in the U.S. (as of 2017) decline federal subsidies along with their anti-social and legalistic strings attached. The college and university system in America—a $671 billion industry as of the Fall 2017 to Spring 2018 school year—is dominated with over 98% of revenue going to tax-favored governmental and “non-profit” schools, removing any pretense of independence.

What we have left is an atmosphere of pampered elites jostling for attention and knee-jerk conformists trying to appease the increasingly angry mobs. Even back in 1944, economist F.A. Hayek in The Road to Serfdom warned of the easy step “From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic” being common to the ideology of central planning. Two years later, economist Henry Hazlitt, in his popular book Economics in One Lesson, criticized the academic tendency of “exhibitionistic straining for novelty and originality.” Since then, college theatrics have gotten immeasurably worse. At that time, neither man (both lifetime thinkers and writers) seemed willing to concede that the very nature of college prepares people to be single-minded extremists and unbalanced fanatics, with an official “degree” at the end of the process to falsely signal one’s theoretical achievement in some narrow field of interest.

Among other things, college in America is not driven by consumer needs or market efficiency. This “consumer-be-damned” attitude reveals itself with the Publish or Perish mentality where the English-language academic world now cranks out over 28,000 “scholarly peer-reviewed journals,” which scarcely few people bother to read. Little, if any, of that cryptic research improves student learning. But it does boost the school’s prestige and help secure more corporate and federal R&D grants, which now combine to over $60 billion annually just in the U.S. (Chasing after grants doesn’t offer much benefit to teaching either.)

As a result of the excessive reliance on monologue books and lectures, the institutional setting of a passive audience held captive by oppressive “degree” requirements, the dependence on outside political subsidies and constant groveling for attention, the conflict of interest to speak kindly of government programs—no matter how much obvious failure exists—permeates everything that oozes out of that decrepit environment. Shabby economic teaching is just one such deficiency.

Free Lunch’ Fantasies: 1930s – the Decade of Economic Insanity

When it comes to slovenly economic instruction, few topics bring out the malignant nature of subsidized academia like New Deal apologetics. It’s hard to imagine a more consistent record of failure that has received almost nothing but breathless adoration from people who should know better.

For this section, I’ll look primarily to the condensed record of what Keynesian and New Deal “stimulus” policies gave us—most of which has been whitewashed by fawning federal broadcasters and the rest of Hollywood story telling. Thanks again to educational incompetence, many in America are calling for a repeat of those disastrous measures with a ruinous Green New Deal.

After the stock market correction of 1929 (when very few Americans owned stock) President Hoover took radical measures to increase taxes and spending and to convince companies to keep wages high—although this made business survival more difficult and rendered new hiring nearly impossible. (Less than a decade prior, political leaders in Washington allowed the severe 1920-21 depression to naturally work itself out, with no “stimulus” spending shenanigans.)

While running for his first term in the 1932 election, Franklin Roosevelt openly ridiculed Hoover for his reckless spending, crying “Stop the deficits! Stop the deficits!” at campaign rallies, as recounted in John Flynn’s book The Roosevelt Myth. During that same bait-and-switch presidential race, FDR attacked Hoover’s spending as “the most reckless and extravagant past that I have been able to discover in the statistical record of any peacetime government anywhere, any time,” as quoted in Robert Murphy’s Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal, page 55.

When President Roosevelt took the reins of power in March 1933, his campaign lip-service to fiscal restraint would vanish before Washington D.C.’s famous cherry blossoms could fall to the ground.

Owing to his aristocratic upbringing and weak constitution, FDR chose to surround himself with a cast of little men with Big Ideas and a dangerously inflated view of their own abilities. These academic nudniks concocted one ridiculous scheme after another, all failing miserably, and all extending what should have been a brief market correction and liquidation of empty banks (guilty of rampant counterfeiting, protected by local laws against branch banking) into an extended state of misery. Thanks largely to the power of fiat credit—along with masterful stage management and forcibly silencing the opposition—New Deal accomplishments included:

1) thirteen consecutive years of usually massive deficit spending with outlays averaging 60% over revenues even before the FY 1942 war spike (a big win for bankers who financed that debt) whereas the entire decade of the 1920s had seen consistent budget surpluses

2) abandoning the domestic gold standard a mere 1 month and 1 day into office, on April 5, 1933, despite campaign promises to the contrary (triggering instability in business planning while opening the hydrants for more fiat spending)

3) paying farmers to throw away mountains of good food and cotton via the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act (struck down by the Supreme Court in 1936); a pro-farming website recounts the AAA as follows:

in the late spring of 1933, the federal government carried out “emergency livestock reductions.” In Nebraska, the government bought about 470,000 cattle and 438,000 pigs. Nationwide, six million hogs were purchased from desperate farmers. In the South, one million farmers were paid to plow under 10.4 million acres of cotton.

The hogs and cattle were simply killed. In Nebraska, thousands were shot and buried in deep pits.

Intentional waste and inflated food prices became a New Deal virtue. Keynes openly praised the AAA writing an open letter to FDR in December 1933 saying “I should strongly support in principle… [your] various schemes for agricultural restriction.”

4) pushing millions of people into long-term debt and houses they couldn’t afford with his 1934 National Housing Act (another big win for bankers)

5) concocting the overtly fascist NRA industrial cartels (unanimously struck down by the Supreme Court in 1935) that crushed small businesses and elevated labor strife

6) enticing old people to quit working entirely (thereby juicing employment stats, which treat unemployed elderly as “non-persons,” while politically dividing young and old people)

7) encouraging millions of middle-age people to join Civilian Conservation Corps and Works Progress Administration patronage “jobs” programs (further manipulating employment stats while hurting employers by tightening the labor pool)

Year U.S. Unemployment Rates (%) Percent on CCC or WPA “relief” jobs
Based on private-sector jobs Including gov’t “relief” jobs as work
1929 3.2 3.2 0.0
1932 23.6 22.9 0.7
1933 24.9 20.6 4.3
1934 21.7 16.0 5.7
1935 20.1 14.2 5.9
1936 16.9 9.9 7.0
1937 14.3 9.1 5.2
1938 19.0 12.5 6.5
1939 17.2 11.3 5.9
1940 14.6 9.5 5.1

Source: Economists S. Lebergott and M. Darby, summarized by Wikipedia.
About 25 million Americans participated in one of the New Deal federal jobs programs steered towards loyal Democrats, according to contemporary research compiled by historian John Flynn (The Roosevelt Myth, pages 122-127).

8) encouraging widespread union trespassing and violence with his 1935 NLRA that crippled thousands of businesses and radicalized the formerly reasonable union movement; this period is still celebrated by the mainstream media, commies in this detailed analysis and Socialist who praise the unionized “class struggle” as depicted below:

Long before cops appeased BLM and antifa militants, government law-enforcement turned a blind eye to pervasive union violence and trespassing. Provoked by earlier abuses from FDR’s National Recovery Act of 1933 (that created industrial cartels) and widespread mistreatment from monopolistic railroad, steel and other industries before that, organized labor went wild in the mid-1930s. Thanks to New Deal union interference, “the number of ‘strike days’ doubled in one year, from 14 million in 1936 to 28 million in 1937.” Backed by the new powers of the federal government to stifle management resistance, union membership soared “from 13 percent of the work force in 1935 to 29 percent in 1939.” Needless to say, the heavy-handed union thuggery (including blockades, damaging plant equipment and mass squatting) all hurt American economic conditions. (stats from Robert Murphy’s P.I. Guide, page 108)

9) transferring power from elected officials to swarms of unelected bureaucrats that write, enforce and judge their own rules (now millions of them) with virtually no checks or balances—nothing less than the illegitimate birth of our menacing Deep State

10) creating wage controls during World War II that became the basis of our coercive corporate “benefits” explosion in subsequent decades; skyrocketing medical costs would soon follow

A truly breathtaking record of incompetence, by any objective measure. But academic Quislings are not paid to be objective.

Instead, the sharpest minds from Roosevelt’s Brain Trust—mainly lawyers from Columbia and Harvard Universities—crafted speeches and legal arguments to sell their programs to the public and to skeptical judges (who would soon be bullied into submission). FDR’s penchant for praising himself and his unprecedented battalions of hundreds of employees in media relations fed loyal news agencies press releases touting wondrous benefits of “relief” and “assistance” and “progress” and “security” and other manipulative slogans that federal broadcasters have dutifully repeated to this day.

The glitch that the federal government has no legal authority to interfere in any of items #3 through 10—the Constitution says nothing about farming, housing, labor relations, retirement, etc.—never mattered to those in Washington who loved (and still lust) to forcibly impose their opinions on others. To defend their lawless crusade, New Dealers and their modern supporters reduce the entire Constitution down to trite bumper stickers of “general welfare”, “interstate commerce” and a few other simplistic concepts. Their frenetic zeal for social “uplift” could never be restrained by mere legal wording from the distant past.

In many regards, these were religious fanatics out to “save” the nation—not by any personal sacrifice of their own, but by the “shared sacrifices” of others. And with heavy public tribute.

Throughout the Great Depression, following Keynesian stimulus principles, “Roosevelt was able to raise the average income tax from 1.35% to 16.56% during his tenure—an increase of 1,100%” according to economics writer Doug Casey. All of this failed to “stimulate” the economy and just planted seeds of division that crass politicians would harvest at the polls every couple of years since then. Yet, remarkably, federal broadcasters and government educators still mischaracterize fiat spending as “stimulus” as if the latter was an established fact.

Then more inflationary spending on tanks, bombs and battleships—financed by fiat lending and massive tax increases—brought us ever greater Soviet-style austerity conditions during World War II. Shoddy economic historiography has consistently minimized the fact that during FDR’s and Churchill’s bloodbath in Europe and Japan, private-sector upheaval was masked because nearly everyone was now working directly or indirectly for Uncle Sam.

The U.S. economy only recovered after its ridiculous leader ceased his rule in 1945, wasteful government spending subsided and the economy was spared additional New Deal abuses that had created so much instability.

In total, the 10 major “stimulus” acts outlined above (and many more like them) were the undertakings of inept Washington officials who obsessed over their own personal image at the expense of the public—with most programs harming the country to this day. This was an early version of “virtue signaling” which is usually associated with “psychopathic, manipulative, and narcissistic people” who excel in traits like “self-promotion, emotional callousness, duplicity, and tendency to take advantage of others.”

Naturally, government enthusiasts celebrate FDR and his reckless New Deal and deceitful dragging of America into World War II without a hint of apprehension. PBS’s slick 7-part docudrama “The Roosevelts – An Intimate History” (carried recently on Netflix for over a year) leads off with a court historian offering the gushing assessment: “These two Roosevelts were exceptional with a capital ‘E’, underscore.” Other federal broadcasters offer only glib platitudes on FDR’s efforts for “saving” the nation and providing “relief” and “aid” for the common man. The jingoistic propaganda is reduced to that level of childish banter.

Keynesian Influence on the New Deal

To what extent J.M. Keynes figured into all that “stimulus” folly is perhaps open to debate, but by all accounts I can find, his influence was significant. Admirers of both FDR and Keynes openly share the credit between those two “giants” of Big Government. For instance, Business Insider says “Keynes’ approach, and one that FDR bought into, was that somebody had to step in and start buying stuff.” An Econ 488 outline effuses that “Roosevelt’s execution of Keynesian economic policy through the New Deal brought the United States out of one of its darkest eras.”

The FDR library makes no qualms about linking New Deal programs to the famed British economist:

At the end of FDR’s first year in office, in December 1933, Keynes was comfortable enough with Roosevelt that the economist wrote an open letter to the president (published in the New York Times) opining that:

You have made yourself the Trustee for those in every country who seek to mend the evils of our condition by reasoned experiment within the framework of the existing social system.

… I do not mean to impugn the social justice and social expediency of the redistribution of incomes aimed at by N.I.R.A. and by the various schemes for agricultural restriction. The latter, in particular, I should strongly support in principle. But too much emphasis on the remedial value of a higher price-level as an object in itself may lead to serious misapprehension as to the part which prices can play in the technique of recovery. The stimulation of output by increasing aggregate purchasing power is the right way to get prices up; and not the other way round.

… I put in the second place the maintenance of cheap and abundant credit and in particular the reduction of the long-term rates of interest.

The world-renowned economist ended his letter:

With great respect,

Your obedient servant
J M Keynes

This is a good representation of the “exhibitionistic” pseudo-intellectual “straining”—and political appeasement—that made Keynes a darling to the economic royalty of London, the budding Deep State in Washington and the academic elites in the New Deal administration.

Maynard ‘Feasting with Panthers’: The Making of a Megalomaniac

Keynes had already begun his journey to distinction decades before Franklin Roosevelt won the White House. From an early age, J.M. Keynes, known as Maynard to his friends and colleagues, was a prolific thinker and writer with high aspirations. As such, he earned a living like any academic celebrity with a flexible moral compass: by relying on corporate and political sponsors for most of his adult life. And his lofty ideas, not so much new as opposed to newly packaged, paid huge dividends to his public investors.

In 1908, at age 25, he was appointed as an economics lecturer at King’s College in Cambridge, England, where he had begun undergraduate math studies in 1902. For years there, Keynes polished his rhetorical skills in public debating, practicing the art of pretending to passionately support or oppose any given topic, a talent that trial lawyers and politicians find indispensable. As the son of a Cambridge University administrator, back when such status meant considerable privilege, the intellectually sharp Keynes disdained anything that resembled honest work. Personally implementing any of his opinions via offering services to willing customers never interested him at all.

Keynes’s early adult personality was molded through his membership in two proudly anti-social cliques: the secret society of the Cambridge Apostles and the London avant-garde club known as the Bloomsbury Group. Murray Rothbard’s 1992 biography Keynes, the Man deals extensively and critically with both groups; the prior sentence provides links to Wikipedia’s also unfavorable take on each. Artist and literary critic Wyndham Lewis’s 1930 satire The Apes of God called Bloomsbury “elitist, corrupt and talentless” according to Wikipedia. In both groups, it can reasonably be concluded that Keynes fostered his disgust for Victorian values while developing a conceit for his own manicured opinions.

From late-1906 to June 1908, Keynes worked for less than two years remotely planning Indian finances as a bureaucrat in London, his closest lifetime encounter with anything resembling a real job. During this time, the Cambridge intellectual showed no concern for British imperial abuses to the populous subcontinent, according to Rothbard. After that short stint in the civil service workforce, Keynes returned to teaching at Cambridge then moved on to further government employment for the British Treasury in 1915. During the 1920s, Keynes sold his enlightened opinions to corporate advertisers and loyal readers of the left-wing Manchester Guardian newspaper and the American socialist magazine The Nation.

By 1930, Keynes—an archetypical expert with no experience—had already authored A Treatise on Money as well as earlier books The Economic Consequences of Mr. Churchill (a screed against the gold standard in 1925) and The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919). The latter book correctly argued against “punitive reparations payments imposed on Germany by the Allied countries after World War I,” as one economic admirer put it. This touch of youthful boldness and bracingly frank yet reasonable analysis would fade away when Keynes later took center stage among economic monarchs.

Then in 1936, with most Western capitals desperate to latch onto any scheme that put a scholarly spin on deficit spending, the opportunistic Keynes authored his rambling The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money to quench their thirst. Politicians and government economists gobbled it whole.

The content and style of this legendary book is mostly disorganized and bland. But it is interspersed with academic banter like Keynes’s professed “emancipation from preconceived ideas,” his “struggle of escape from habitual modes of thought and expression” and his “divergence from received doctrine.” Keynes’s target audience was explicitly “my fellow economists” who reveled in such sophistry.

After wearing out the reader with over 60 pages of such pedantic but occasionally florid prose, the British aristocrat landed his first of many sucker punches against thrift—a veritable Academic Rope-A-Dope as so many book-thumping welterweights are prone to do. Keynes absolutely hated the middle-class values of the West that didn’t sufficiently appreciate a Man of Leisure and Letters (and adventurous bisexual) like himself. First, I’ll address the most likely reason why he despised conservative values. Then, I’ll make a go at how this attitude played out in his public mission.

In any serious discussion of J.M. Keynes, one cannot overlook the two great passions that animated his life: political exhibitionism in service of the state and having sex with random men, boys and the occasional child slave. On the latter predilection that Keynes once described as “feasting with panthers,” we don’t need to rely on tawdry gossip from foggy memories of partisan combatants (e.g., the elaborate smear campaigns against Supreme Court nominees Clarence Thomas and Brett Cavanaugh) or the wild accusations of an attention-seeking porn whore named Stormy attacking President Trump, all to the media’s delight. In the case of Master Keynes, we have remarkably candid admissions in his own words from two surviving diaries.

The relevance connecting Keynes’s promiscuous sexual appetite (which may possibly have subsided when he married Russian ballerina, Lydia Lopokova, in 1925) and childless status to his public policy impositions would seem apparent and noncontroversial: Keynes favored instant gratification and paid little heed to long-term ramifications. Hence, his most famous quote, “in the long run we are all dead” and the rest of his short-term panaceas that left long-term damage. Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s book Democracy, The God That Failed (p. 59) briefly touches on this theme, noting the continuum of “Keynes’s personal philosophy of hedonism and present-orientation” to his free-spending economics and chaotic anti-gold stance.

While sexual escapades usually make for sensational headlines (even among Kennedy and FDR admirers, long after their deaths) most mainstream accounts of Keynes conspicuously leave out his sordid lifestyle, any discussion of which might tarnish their economic hero. Two rare exceptions are a snarky liberal at The Atlantic poking fun in a 2008 blog post on “Keynes’s ‘Jew Boy’ Quickie” and the left-wing U.K. Independent newspaper in 2015 going into some detail on his conquests of “rent boys” and over 100 other recorded sexual encounters. The latter publication drew only positive conclusions that such random sexual behavior allowed Keynes to “meet people from less privileged backgrounds and less clever than he – which may have made him more liberal and tolerant.” The Independent’s salacious 2015 article on Keynes’s “shocking… sex life” was generously subtitled “his bedroom antics were as interesting as his theories.”

Wikipedia’s account of Mr. Keynes praises his economic theories and mentions none of his degenerate behavior, instead spinning a counter-offensive that “Political opponents have used Keynes’s sexuality to attack his academic work.”

The evidence that both left-wing admirers and many right-wing critics have dutifully gone along in covering up this bizarre and likely criminal conduct (not to mention savagely incompetent economic advice) shows the power of statist media and educational institutions in enforcing taboos defending their allies. Keynes, the self-described “immoralist,” was knighted by King George VI in 1942. After that, for the next two or three generations the high priests of government authority and academic effrontery offered nothing but rapturous praise for their counterfeit saint.

How Keynes manifested his personal worldview into involuntary public policy is of greater importance, even if it does seem less “interesting” to many in corporate media. Any reasonable person should certainly understand his desire to push back against the smothering conformity of early 20th century English culture—in many aspects of life, not just sexuality. But Keynes fought back by attacking personal thrift and doing so in the crudest language displayed in his roughly 240-page General Theory. And these hostile attitudes were, at Keynes’s enthusiastic urging to any politician who would listen, forged into weapons that would harm hundreds of millions of people within his lifetime.

In Keynes’s 1936 manifesto, thrift is “obstinately orthodox” and “Obstinacy can bring only a penalty and no reward.” He warns of a “sudden outbreak of thrift in the working classes.” Then Keynes hides behind the approving quote from another contemporary economist who claimed widespread “belief in the utility of luxury and the evil of thrift.”

After highlighting government’s role in the “great art to make a nation happy” via centralized employment policy, Keynes takes a sarcastic swipe at any remaining doubters, writing:

No wonder that such wicked sentiments called down the opprobrium of two centuries of moralists and economists who felt much more virtuous in possession of their austere doctrine that no sound remedy was discoverable except in the utmost of thrift and economy both by the individual and by the state.

This was classic Maynard snobbishness. With these quotes and many others beyond his 1936 book, Keynes made it clear—if one could stay alert through scores of pages of meandering mush—that he hated personal thrift. This attitude fit neatly with his personal lifestyle forged in the London intellectual community that openly despised mainstream values, as Murray Rothbard’s biography on Keynes extensively documents.

Aside from his personal disgust with thrift, Keynes (like FDR) prided himself on being far too sophisticated to be enslaved to any particular ideology, that is, any principles that might limit his flexibility to embrace the next soothing public policy remedy he stumbled across. In General Theory, he mocked liberal economic activist Henry George—whose popular writings during the 1880s and 90s are attributed to having sparked the Progressive Era that Keynes expressly agreed with—for creating a climate of “semi-religious fervour.” This was his polite way of calling George a Neanderthal. Keynes sniffed at another liberal economic activist, Silvio Gesell (1862–1930)—not claiming any error in Gesell’s teachings (again, which Keynes largely agreed with)—but for being “the revered prophet of a cult with many thousand disciples throughout the world.” Finally, Keynes also rejected Marxism, in which he found evidence of “some beastliness in the Russian nature” following his 1925 visit to the USSR (the last item is quoted by Rothbard).

Yet the narcissistic, omnipotent scholar liked to insert his ideological opinions (without any supporting logic or data in most cases) particularly in the following references. Quotes and page numbers below are from the free PDF version of General Theory:

The State will have to exercise a guiding influence on the propensity to consume partly through its scheme of taxation, partly by fixing the rate of interest, and partly, perhaps, in other ways. (PDF page 187)

the enlargement of the functions of government… I defend (PDF page 188)

the problem of unemployment… is associated—and, in my opinion, inevitably associated—with present-day capitalistic individualism. (PDF page 189)

These attitudes endeared Keynes to the statists of the New Deal, the post-World War II university clique (who got a huge boost with FDR’s 1944 G.I. Bill) and the increasingly powerful national broadcasting industry of the 1930s and 40s, which then was dominated by federally licensed NBC and CBS.

All three groups elevated Keynes to a position of sainthood in their insular but influential circles. Even a staunch critic of Keynesian economics, like libertarian Murray Rothbard in his biography Keynes, the Man, described the 1936 classic as “one of the most dazzlingly successful books of all time” for having “conquered the economics profession” in just a few years. As to the merit of Keynes’s most famous writing, Rothbard was less impressed, saying:

And yet The General Theory was not truly revolutionary at all but merely old and oft-refuted mercantilist and inflationist fallacies dressed up in shiny new garb, replete with newly constructed and largely incomprehensible jargon.

Longtime economics writer and editor of the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, Henry Hazlitt (1894–1993) was also critical of Keynes’s purported masterpiece. Hazlitt wrote his own extensive commentary on the General Theory, which has been condensed as:

Moreover, when Hazlitt analyzed it, he was “unable to find in it a single important doctrine that is both true and original. What is original in the book is not true; and what is true is not original.”

But no amount of criticism could sway the intellectual community, which viewed Keynes somewhere between a bold visionary and towering idol. Thanks overwhelmingly to Keynes—and his powerful friends in mass media and academia—after WW II the college textbook industry veered away from free-market economics to advocate and endless “feasting” of forced intervention. But even that description is probably too generous.

Keynesian Alchemy Finds a Home at Subsidized Colleges

For all the public denouncing of college “radicals” pushing bizarre new concepts, Keynesian economics and its ideological offspring surprisingly rest on a very old pursuit: the ability to turn common materials into gold, once known as alchemy. Privileged and isolated professors of economic theory now accept as holy writ the god-like ability to speak wealth into existence merely by writing the words “this is money” (or something similar) on worthless pieces of paper. (Throughout most of U.S. history, private banks—protected by state and federal charter privileges—have achieved this feat with fiat loans more than the government has done so with centralized banking.)

It might be of little consequence if just a small troupe of academics clung to such ancient superstitions, now sold under the rubric of “stimulus.” But the general public—with our beloved educational, housing, medical, retirement and other entitlements—now embraces this folly as well. I’ll address the personal choice (made by millions) to follow such madness in my next essay. For today, I’ll focus on the influential industry of classroom books and lectures that peddles this nonsense.

The most popular book (among college administrators) of this newly packaged medieval artistry—Economics by Paul Samuelson, first published in 1948—trumpeted the glories of stimulus/alchemy by various names to fund vast central planning under the banner of Keynesian wisdom. Other college textbooks quickly followed suit, to a point now that the belief in instantaneous, artificial “stimulus” now passes for serious public policy.

Economist and entrepreneur Mark Skousen took on the task of evaluating the viewpoints and biases of America’s top 10 leading college economics textbooks published as of the late 1980s (with most of the books having been first issued many decades prior). The results of Skousen’s research were published in the 1991 book Economics on Trial. Among his many findings is a summary of textbook references to prominent economic theories and their leading advocates, where Keynes and his anti-savings/pro-spending ideology led the pack:

References to Economics Schools of Thought in

Top 10 (USA) Textbooks

School Index Frequency
Keynes and Keynesianism 442
Friedman and Monetarism 252
Marx and Marxism 131
Rational Expectations 119
Laffer and Supply Side 95
Austrianism* 67
Galbraith and Institutionalism 53

Source: Mark Skousen, Economics on Trial (1991), page 276

Skousen’s note to the preceding table states that his count is “based on the combined references to specific theories and their leaders in the name and subject indexes” of the surveyed economics textbooks. *The author adds that the “Austrianism” category includes references to Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Joseph Schumpeter; all were advocates of market economics in lieu of government intervention.

As many others have concluded, since the end of World War II, Keynesian interventionism (using PC terminology) has been the dominant viewpoint taught to college students. The above table seems to support this belief. These economics students have gone on to influence politics, mass media and certainly other students via their own subsequent teaching roles.

The ‘Stimulus’ Ruse: Putting a Positive Spin on Wealth Destruction

Of course, being popular in eyes of the mainstream (highly subsidized) academic community does not in itself make Keynes, his supporters or their critics out to be frauds. It’s the results of their combined theories that earn most of them that designation, in my view. Consider the popular Keynesian mantra of “stimulus” (or more correctly, alchemy) that swayed New Deal thinking and eventually mesmerized every Republican president since Nixon. This policy of rampant deficit spending—in the name of “spurring growth” and “public assistance”—now has solid majorities in both parties supporting over $3 trillion in federal debt in a single year.

As I researched and condensed my findings on the above record of the New Deal, it caused me to reconsider this potent political jargon used widely (then and now) to sell the public on deficit spending and the associated programs it could finance. Until recently, I viewed “stimulus”—a term used incessantly in state media and government schools—as something entirely different than much of the wanton destruction during the New Deal/Keynesian era—e.g., wasting perfectly good food, violent union factory seizures, NRA price-fixing cartels, encouraging wealthy old retirees to mooch off poorer young laborers, and finally the carnage of WW II to “get people working again.” (Destruction is even more popular today, from the anti-human/anti-energy/anti-industry fanaticism of the Green New Deal to the intolerant climate of university “cancel culture” and the widespread violence in “progressive” urban areas.)

Upon further inspection, I now view stimulus and destruction, when employed as political tools, as a seamless and usually sinister continuum. Even something as simple as stimulus spending on food, housing or military hardware involves assigning actual value to money concocted out of thin air—government bonds sold to bankers, purchased with fiat loans to be repaid with real dollars and interest extracted from working Americans. In the last four decades, the banking industry has helped D.C. stimulators conjure over $20 trillion of illegitimate wealth (even before the covid debt explosion) for such endeavors.

Stimulus snapshot of one of FDR’s make-work programs, from a pro-New Deal website. Why work when you can get paid to plant trees?

Nationalized union furor—with blockades, “sit-down” trespassing and other thuggish activity—was another good example of federal provocation. For all the New Deal talk about “stimulus,” their real fondness was (and still is) social engineering through coercive wealth transfers or, simply, destruction of private enterprise. The atavistic glee that many on the Left (including this 2019 harangue from The Nation magazine) attach to labor strife further demonstrates their enduring passion for tribal warfare at the expense of paying consumers. But “stimulus” mania doesn’t stop there.

With the country being torn apart with divisive demands for political favoritism—everybody from farmers to vets and retirees to real estate agents and corporate behemoths to identity evangelists wanting a piece of the free public feast—it seems pretty clear that “stimulus” economics was a disaster in the 1930s and a complete catastrophe ever since then. This abject failure shouldn’t surprise anyone with an inkling of economic understanding—if they bothered to maintain any smidge of intellectual independence.

“Stimulus” itself is an act of intentional fraud that necessarily debases the current stock of wealth saved by every non-banker who is legally shut out from that counterfeiting racket. In other words, debt-based stimulus is always, by design, an assault against the responsible and productive sector. The beneficiaries of “stimulus” spending are those who refuse to pay for what they covet—such as free food, subsidized housing or medical care, or an excuse to play Rambo in a defenseless foreign land.

Once again, the value system of the D.C. establishment hides behind positive images of painless pleasure to sell their sickening agenda. (Unfortunately, the conservative opposition also engages in foolish banter over “stimulus” fiscal policy, feigning tepid resistance before capitulating to impulsive spending.)

Stimulus snapshot of New Deal/Keynesian “internationalism,” courtesy of Michael Hoffman. Easy bank credit made imperial London and D.C. dreams come true with deadly efficiency.

As for alleged benefits to employment, stimulus “jobs” during the New Deal fiasco were just as much of a fraud. Sure, people had “work” shoveling coal for a Tennessee Valley Authority power plant, tightening bolts on an Army Jeep assembly line, raking leaves at the local park, providing accounting services for government rationing boards, or peeling potatoes for Uncle Sam’s enlisted infantry. But the loss of freedom (and loss of American integrity) was immeasurable and the faux-jobs were often demeaning.

With so much emphasis on phony “stimulus,” I almost forgot to mention the option of real stimulus. If any honest politician wanted to stimulate the economy, he or she could start by lowering tax rates and eliminating much of the hyper-legalistic mandates that make new business formation more difficult (presently benefitting existing giant corporations).

After that, we could eliminate price-fixing cartels in the medical licensing racket, stop subsidizing over-priced and indoctrinating colleges and universities (allowing better alternatives to fairly compete), sell most or all of our 31,300 Post Office retail outlets to competent professionals (such as FedEx or UPS), or sell some of the 640 million acres of hoarded (presently squandered) “public” land to actual members of the public to put into productive use. Any of those actions would give a positive jolt to the economy as well as a boost to personal freedom. Not surprisingly, most apologists for the Total State recoil in disgust at such considerations.

Academic Effrontery Becomes the New Normal

In assessing the widespread failure of New Deal/Keynesian programs, accompanied by an adamant insistence from establishment voices that those policies were beneficial, we arrive at a major disconnect between Main Street reality and Deep State fantasy. Competent, rational people don’t make excuses for such rampant civil-rights abuses and man-made calamity. Fair-minded, modest people also cannot contend with the arrogance of the modern academic cloistered in a tax-free campus, clinging to their government stamp of approval, lecturing passive students while flaunting honorifics of “doctor” and “professor” and other titles of elevated stature. (Federal broadcasters come from a similar mold.)

For shameless arrogance, Keynes and his collaborators in central finance purported (and still claim) to comprehend with mathematical precision the intricate relationships between consumer demand, market supply, factory and office utilization, employment rates and wages, pricing, profit and loss, savings, investment and many other variables that contribute to an advanced economy. Whether the topic was agriculture, banking, communications, education, employment, energy, housing or retirement, the answer was remarkably always the same. The solution necessarily involved more central control and less personal freedom. (Since then, we’ve added healthcare, local pollution, marriage and race relations to the authoritarian mix.)

Private and public bank credit—totaling $77.6 trillion as of March 31, 2020 and likely closer to $80 trillion today—helped facilitate most of those interventionist endeavors. Blinded by their own exuberance for power, the “experts” in both parties have no clue what to do about it.

Stimulus snapshot of how the “temporary” debt binge promised by Keynes, Roosevelt, et al became has a permanent addiction. Graphic by Steve St. Angelo of the SRSrocco Report.

No matter how much evidence mounts to the failure of central planning by out-of-touch academics, the public has been trained by mass schooling and public media to be on high alert for their next appointed political savior to come rescue us with painless solutions purchased with other people’s money. If we just do as we’re told, some new polished potentate like Maynard or Franklin or Abe Lincoln or MLK will illuminate the airwaves like a soaring comet in a burst of glory. (Hollywood and broadcast media openly call the entertainment version of these people “stars.”) Then we are carefully admonished to ignore the crashing debris of the ensuing space junk caught in the inescapable laws of physics when their elaborate schemes fail—as they usually do.

Recap on Banking Basics

In a similar way, economics too has its laws of gravity that cannot be resisted indefinitely. In my last essay, I attempted to make the case that: 1) all bank credit is inflationary, 2) all credit inflation involves counterfeiting, and 3) all counterfeiting amounts to organized theft.

Of course, the entire banking industry and its cast of economic advisors insist none of that is true. After all, if any one of those postulates is correct then they would be criminals or con-artists to say the least. These same experts now insist—in so many words—that you can indeed have a free lunch at someone else’s expense with no personal or societal consequences. Thanks to the successful marketing work of J.M. Keynes since the 1920s and many of his subsequent admirers, the war merchants, welfare pimps and corporate sloths who patronize such experts need not fear for potentially missing out on easy bank credit to finance their inflationary spending sprees. At least for now.

Since leashed academics will rarely nibble on the hand that coddles them—and any remotely challenging economic theory breeds loud quarrels among professional squabblers—I won’t waste time taking a vote or waiting for a consensus to emerge. That will likely never happen.

Instead, I will just leave it up to engaged individuals to consider the validity of my three noted conclusions and proceed to build up from there. As mentioned previously, I view the next logical steps in a positive direction to involve recognizing the false option of Big Government or No Government, then rejecting the failed approach of total federal control versus a more balanced state/local government monitoring to ensure that alleged banking reserves are (as much as humanly possible) what they claim to be.

I’ll note again that government monitoring from State Bureaus of Weights and Measures has worked well for over a century in the vastly more volatile and complex energy industry so that a “gallon” of 87 octane gasoline is still 128 fluid ounces of strong-burning petroleum after all these years. No chiseling, skimming or “healthy inflation” has eaten away at those protective standards. Over 300 million Americans—and billions of others around the world—benefit from transparent government monitoring at the point of sale, not manipulative federal control from oil well to refinery to transportation to gas station.

I see no reason to doubt a similar approach would work to reign in reckless fiat banking and their inevitable inflation/boom/bust/mop-up cycles caused by fractional credit counterfeiting. And if any society decides to opt for state/local government monitoring of the money supply, it would seem reasonable to have it backed by something like gold or silver than cannot be conjured out of thin air—as opposed to yielding blind faith to Wall Street tycoons (which failed miserably during the 1800s) or the hyper-legalistic “regulation” of a corrupt system of monetary debasement. With an over 99% loss in U.S. dollar value from 1913 to present, only the most starry-eyed government fundamentalist (or your typical journalist) can defend the status quo as if a few small tweaks from the Central Bank will somehow fix everything.

For those who disagree—and apparently think that “money multipliers” are pure fiction, inflation passively erupts out of nowhere, the $75.5 trillion in total U.S. debt as of 4Q 2019 involved no bank counterfeiting whatsoever and/or that huge debt bubble is somehow caused entirely by the Federal Reserve’s $4.2 trillion balance sheet at that same period—you’re welcome to continue building your happy monetary sandcastles while the tide is still out. The tsunami of federal and personal debt may just vanish, as some insist, when the next monetary wizard waves his or her stimulus wand and utters an incantation about “public banking.”

When you add up all the enslaving debt, life-sucking inflation, financial duplicity and public division, the incompetence of the pandering, partisan, isolated, monologue “expert” community of all political persuasions cannot be overstated.

For the rest of us, a more sober assessment seems appropriate. In financial matters (and much else), a healthy understanding often means filtering out the noise from those who have a vested interest in your extended personal suffering.

The Original Fraud of Modern Banking

Since the “exhibitionistic” and “single-minded” idealists in political affairs are usually too busy fanning their plumage in public courting rituals to bother with anything that matters in the real world, I’ll go back to another important foundational point that is too often overlooked. (Keynes never touched it in his 1936 General Theory. Mainstream economists typically ignore it as well.)

In banking, the first step in ensnaring society in the trap of fiat credit began with the simple act of lying: pretending to store more wealth in a banker’s vault than honest accounting could demonstrate. While this story has been told before by a few diligent banking critics, I’ve decided to quote an expert with some gravitas behind his account. In the exhaustively researched (and pro-banking) book, International Banking in the 19th and 20th Centuries by Karl Born, the author sheds some light on the origins of modern finance:

The bank note came into use in England in the course of the 17th century. At that time wealthy individuals began to leave their money and gold in safe deposit with a money-changer or a goldsmith. Certificates were issued for the money or gold deposited. These notes—they were called a “goldsmith’s note” or a “banker’s note”—represented an instantly realizable claim, and so were used as a convenient means of payment which could easily be carried around.

Since the deposit certificates, i.e. the notes, were never all presented for payment at the same time, the money-changers and goldsmiths were able to issue more notes than they had money or gold in their deposit. The money-changers and goldsmiths obtained credit in this way, but this also enabled them to grant their customers more credit than they had available in cash; for they gave the credits in bank notes. Thus arose the business of “bankers”…

By the end of the 17th century, bankers would come in handy for financing their favorite investment: military conflict between belligerent states. Karl Born’s International Banking adds that “The Bank of England—founded in 1694 by subscribers to the state loan, which was to finance the war against France… likewise issued notes.”

Since then, politically connected banking houses have presumably financed—and handsomely profited from—every Western battle (fought by non-bankers) for nebulous reasons of state aggrandizement. Bank credit manufacturing was also indispensable to funding the U.S. welfare state, which spent a staggering $22 trillion in the half-century from 1964 through 2013, according to the Heritage Foundation. And fiat banking credit—backed with federal “legal tender” mandates to accept their junk notes—now supports America’s roughly $80 trillion in combined government, corporate and household debt.

Luckily for the modern banking clans, our government—despite voluminous mandates on “fair” banking practices triggering a need for 43,000 compliance staff at J.P. Morgan Chase, the nation’s largest bank (WSJ 2016) and countless thousands more internal watchdogs employed elsewhere—allows bankers to issue fiat credit loans with almost zero tangible collateral of their own. Even during the ostensible U.S. “Gold Standard” period of 1792 to 1933, there was never any requirement that every dollar of loans (the modern “bank note”) had a dollar of real gold or silver backing it up. Bankers are fine with this arrangement because defaulting on most loans means the bank ends up owning your house or business. That’s just part of the game.

The basic government role of fixing a “Standard of Weights and Measures,” as noted in the Constitution regarding money, was abandoned within a few years—basically as soon as the ink on the rebel’s 1787 one-sided contract went dry. With frequent monetary boom/bust cycles throughout the 1790s, the 1800s and again in 1901 and 1907, and about 16,000% inflation since 1913, it’s safe to say that the public has been held hostage by a corrupt system of monetary debasement that only favors the financial class and the politicians they select for office. At 16,000% inflation, an item purchased for $100 dollars today would have cost 62 cents back in 1913, the year before Washington “saved” us from reckless banking practices that were indeed chaotic. Inflationary theft—all pocketed by the financial class and their corporate beneficiaries—has eroded the value of money that badly.

(The Feds claim that inflation has “only” been 2,500% since 1913, still a staggering act of incompetence. The 16,000% inflation figure cited above comes from starting with official Consumer Price Index data (far right column) for 1913-1982 (a cumulative 875%) then plugging in historically consistent CPI measures from ShadowStats since 1983, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics began rigging their numbers to under-report inflation and thereby save on entitlement cost of living adjustments. The main reasons why American money has any perceived value whatsoever are thanks to enormous advances in productivity due to technology during that same period and federal mandates that force every American—and most of the financial world—to use Wall Street’s junk paper.)

This alchemy of monopoly money, fiat credit and inflationary theft is the fraud that modern banking is built on. This is the corrupt foundation that nearly all political pundits now accept, notwithstanding so much superficial posturing to the contrary.

The Fickle, Futile and Fanatical Opposition

With such breathtaking evidence of failure, one would think that some opposition might have developed to counter this madness. But that has never happened in anything we can honestly call “effective.”

I can practically hear the loyal liberty gang screaming “what about …” (fill in the blank with your favorite anti-government celebrity: Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul, etc.). I’ll concede that all three men (and many more) have worked tirelessly to promote awareness of federal abuses in other areas such as war-mongering, drug prohibition, racial revenge and welfare dependency.

But in the case of monetary debasement since 1913 (and actually back to the 1790s or even earlier)—the real action has always been on the private side of the ledger. Conservatives and libertarians simply cannot accept this. Admitting any amount of private-sector corruption would imply the need for a government solution (or I would argue, simple monitoring of weights and purity of the gold and silver held in a bank vault, similar to what all 50 states do at gas stations; not rocket science; not a bloated federal bureaucracy). Even that simple administrative oversight is too much for liberty purists—and totally unacceptable for corrupt bankers who love to inflate the money supply with illicit loans.

To wade through so much ideological nonsense, the first step in recognizing academic futility is realizing that writing a book is not a great “accomplishment,” no matter how much time and effort it required of the author. By the same token, writing a bunch of lengthy essays is no major accomplishment either. I get it.

Furthermore, we should remember that the truest test of teaching excellence is not book sales, awards or academic titles, but what is actually accomplished by the teacher’s students. Here is where the monologue droning of classroom teachers, stage preachers and so many book-thumping rent seekers falls flat. And if history is any guide, it probably always will.

While Mises and Rothbard were instrumental in offering some valid critiques of Keynesian “free lunch” foolishness and other statist mythology, the results suggest that the general public is still staggering in the dark. We’re still left in a pit of roughly $80 trillion of total American debt, about 16,000% inflationary theft since 1913 and a monopolized money system that is strangling the 99% of people who don’t work on Wall Street.

And what are the top students of Mises, Rothbard et al doing about it? Nothing useful that I can find. Just cranking out more newsletters, books and speeches railing against their favorite whipping boys: unspecified “liberals,” the personal names of J.M. Keynes and his modern disciples, and that loathsome Creature from Jekyll Island known as the Federal Reserve.

I Hate the Same People You Hate: Please Buy My Newsletter!

The consistent theme I see among professional pundits is to whip up anger in their audience with easy excuses (it’s all the Fed’s fault) and simplistic solutions (abolish the Fed), never challenging the viewer to consider their inherent anti-government bias, and certainly not offering any semblance of a creative solution that might actually work. (The anti-market, anti-choice and pro-government biases of the Left are even more ridiculous.)

The goal from these professional agitators is to get you so angry that you might reflexively make an impulsive decision like subscribing to their newsletter, buying their latest book or attending one of their weekend seminars.

My point is not that every sentence out of the mouths of the corporate mumblers and seminar circus howlers is a complete pack of lies. That would be too easy to spot. Instead, the professional pundits sprinkle in a little common sense (increasingly rare in mass media) then shovel the uncooked red meat to the intellectual sluggards who love to be told: every problem in your life is the fault of your political opponents.

While the pandering is toxic enough, the gaping holes in that message are what concerns me more. I’ll give a few examples of what I mean. And these selections are the best of the conservative and libertarian opposition I can find. If I wanted to quote complete idiots from the anti-government (or pro-government) community, that would be quite easy.

I’ll start with possibly the best economic essay I’ve ever read (when you take into account the strict ban on logic throughout mainstream media and the habitual irrelevancy of leashed academics). This example comes from Reagan’s OMB Director, David Stockman, in an essay that was originally a speech titled “Keynesian Myths, Monetary Central Planning and The Triumph of The Warfare State,” that was published in in 2014.

Mr. Stockman’s speech to The Committee for the Republic contains impressive analyses on economic aspects of World Wars I and II along with fresh insights on the Great Depression. For some reason, he felt a need to keep the crowd aroused with no less than 22 specific references to J.M. Keynes, usually in the undefined pejorative form Keynesian. Yet the former Michigan Congressman couldn’t offer a single word of criticism for the criminal counterfeiters in private-sector banking clans or acknowledge that bankers have anything at all to do with our massive inflation problem.

Then we have three-time presidential candidate and author of eight books, Ron Paul. After bravely standing nearly alone against endless federal warfare, monetary debasement and reckless welfare spending for 12 terms in Congress, Mr. Paul—when he’s not denouncing abstract “Keynesianism”—has now retired to the vaudeville theatrical of Fed bashing for donations. To give just one recent example (among many to choose from) his March essay “Central Banking is Socialism” leads off with a helping of red meat to potential sponsors, since we all know that “ism’s” are really terrible things.

Mr. Paul’s trite 560-word rant managed to squeeze in a total of 16 uses of “Fed” or “Federal Reserve”—all negative—and many misleading. The worst examples were his claims of a pending “Fed-created boom, which is inevitably followed by a Fed-created bust.” Like so many other libertarian ideologues, Ron Paul never addresses the many financial boom/bust cycles from the 1790s up until 1907 which entirely pre-date the Federal Reserve. That would negate his false thesis (and closing sentence) that to secure economic “liberty,” all we need to do is “end the Fed.”

Beyond these two reasonable but drifting economic experts, and a few others of a similar pedigree (always shilling for private banking privileges), competent analysis quickly takes a nosedive. The next group all come from the popular conservative website ZeroHedge.

First we have a right-wing populist in May urging us to “Rage Against” the Fed, resorting to violence if necessary:

The shame of it is that these people have every right to be boiling mad… If these people had a clue—even a clue—about what the likes of Ben Bernanke, Janet Yellen, Lloyd Blankfein, Steve Mnuchin, and Larry Fink had done to them, they would be dragging THEM by their necks down the street and beating them with clubs. Not wrecking the local grocery store. (bold and CAPs in original)

This rabble-rousing writer offers no substance whatsoever addressing what to do about Fed corruption, other than to call its top official a “bureaucratic whore by the name of… who is absolutely thrilled to be stealing trillions of dollars from future generations to create the most overvalued stock market in human history.”

For the next five examples, I’ll just go with their headlines, since that pretty much tells the full (or actually empty) story in each case. I’ll only list the originating sources here, which were all re-published by ZeroHedge.

Bill Fleckenstein On The Fed’s Role In Looting & Rioting – Quoth the Raven, June 4

Mike O’Rourke: ‘The Market Is More Broken Today Than It Was On March 23rd, And It’s Entirely Due To The Fed’ ” – Jones Trading, June 11

It All Comes Back To The Fed: The NWO Is Being Shoved Down Our Throats” – Mac Slavo via SHTFplan, June 17

Martenson: The Fed Is Leading Us Into Darkness– Peak Prosperity, June 27

Peter Schiff: ‘The Fed Is Unleashing An Inflationary Tsunami’ ” – Euro Pacific Capital and Quoth the Raven, July 1

In general among Fed critics, when conservatives and libertarians mention “fiat” money, they falsely assert that this practice was invented by the Fed in 1913, or perhaps only after Nixon took the U.S. off the international gold standard in 1971. They rarely mention that private bankers have been issuing fiat loans (backed a dime on the dollar or often less, with real deposits) for centuries.

Notable Exceptions. With so much sheer lunacy and historical ignorance passing itself off as scholarship, I feel a need to mention a few bright spots peeking out amidst the smog. In the academic community, a good example is U.K. economics professor Richard Werner. His 2016 essay in the International Review of Financial Analysis provides ample evidence that the economics profession has overwhelmingly sowed confusion over the last century on the previously well-understood topic of bank credit creation.

Regular Unz Review commenters RoatanBill and Mefobills are usually well-argued and interesting, without the pretentious posturing common to professional paper tigers. RoatanBill’s comment from July 31 particularly stands out on defining real money versus fake currency:

The characteristics of money are durability, portability, divisibility, uniformity, limited supply, and acceptability. Gold and silver check all the boxes. … When something can be created by edict, fatwa, stroke of a pen, that’s not real. It’s phony from the get go. That the bankers want control of money creation via the fraud of currency is understandable…

Richard Maybury’s book Whatever Happened to Penny Candy excels with simple eloquence and (among other things) exposing the barbaric policy started by Mongolian despot Kublai Khan of monopoly “legal tender” mandates—something FDR aped with his gold confiscation in 1933.

I’m sure there are other sensible financial writers that I’ve overlooked. And, no doubt, thousands of responsible business owners understand real-world economics but are too busy to write books and essays about their adventures.

But these exceptions are, as of yet, rare. At this point in time, the crass demagoguery of profit-bashing and power-worship from the Left or Fed-bashing and anti-government paranoia from the Right is still more common.

And that’s the problem with academic cranks and the subsidized stenographers who rant and slander for a living: why take on a difficult issue (like fiat bank counterfeiting) when you can dance around the periphery, never landing or taking a punch?

A small clique of elite thinkers in conservative and libertarian factions have been floating in their own bubbles of delightful narcissism for decades, regularly saluting themselves as champions of “free-market capitalism” or crowing each other as the grand “Enemy of the State.” It should be clear by now, this approach is not working. The State is winning and humanity is losing.

Left-wing Economic Crack Up

On the other end of our warped political spectrum, liberal economic writers typically begin with the specious Keynesian positions on the wonders of “stimulus” and the evils of financial stability (i.e., any solid monetary backing such as gold or silver). Most of these closet commies and crypto-fascists proceed to insist that inflation is either “good” or doesn’t exist, all problems emanate from “unregulated” private-sector behavior, and the solution to any perceived crisis is always more arbitrary government power (i.e., communism or corporate fascism). Challenging their audience’s instinctive anti-profit, anti-business, anti-growth and pro-government disposition would trigger the wrath of their easily excited followers—something that apparently no present liberal economist of any public stature is willing to do.

Lest anyone think that “hate” is a unique condition of the anti-Fed Right, we have public-banking crusader Ellen Brown managing to demonize, by name, the financial management firm BlackRock Inc. a whopping 37 times in a short 1,900 word essay in June—without providing evidence of any wrongdoing. Stewing in substance-free indignation, Ms. Brown couldn’t say a single word about counterfeiting, money multipliers, or inflation—presumably because liberals enjoy wielding all three powerful tools. But she pandered freely to her zealous followers with rants of a “great vampire squid” with “tentacles… all over the world” acting as a “megalithic private entity” whatever that means. She even stooped to the passive and paranoid charge that:

BlackRock has been called “the most powerful institution in the financial system,” “the most powerful company in the world” and the “secret power.”

Oddly, Ms. “Yellin” Brown would have us believe that the federal government doesn’t have or abuse any “power” whatsoever. And this sampling is culled from just her first 160 words.

At America’s preeminent establishment newspaper, matters are just as bleak. The leading liberal economic writer at the New York Times, Paul Krugman, has abandoned reason and now nurses his Trump Derangement Syndrome while pursuing academic censorship on behalf of Black Lives Matter and promoting bigotry against old white people. He’s a pretty big hater too.

Two of the more nakedly fraudulent liberal economic schemes are the competing Elizabeth Warren/Bernie Sanders plans to reward crooked bankers with $1.2 to $2.2 trillion in tax-funded *bailouts* under the guise of student debt “forgiveness” or “cancellation.” Even the dullest mainstream journalist should be capable of understanding that real debt forgiveness would be essentially free to the public, and paid mostly or entirely by those who conjured fiat credit out of thin air in the first place. Yet for some reason, I can’t find any MSM mouthpiece willing to call B.S. on this latest scam from two scorched-earth demagogues who seek to destroy what’s left of free enterprise.

As usual from Latter-Day Pharisees on the Left, these grandstanding hypocrites of Biblical proportion have abandoned the traditional practice of internal quality control (e.g., the mandate to “purge the evil from among you” described in Deuteronomy chapters 13, 17, 19, etc.) and now focus exclusively on finding easy external scapegoats from the heathen. That deplorable outgroup now includes middle-class taxpayers, all whites, all non-socialist Christians and most productive business owners—but not wealthy bankers who fund relentless social engineering programs through government debt.

The activists and politicians cited above are supposedly among the most thoughtful economic reformers our modern Left has to offer. For more vitriolic scapegoating and simplistic sloganeering, refer to any given evening of CNN/MSNBC cable television, most U.S. colleges and much of the propaganda emanating from Hollywood.

Meanwhile, the establishment Right is busy playing the part of Useful Idiots shilling for the most destructive social and economic force in U.S. history—the wealth-destroying death merchants and financiers of perpetual slavery known as “bankers.” That’s a funny take on “law and order” that mainstream conservatives have going.

I can’t say for sure why millions of reasonable Christians, Jews and atheists put up with such doctrinaire fascism and gutless surrender. But I think conformity, fear and horrific teaching have something to do with it.


The trillions of counterfeit loans cooked up by the banking industry, their incredible inflationary gouging, the predictable credit cycle of boom/bust/feast-on-the-carnage that they’ve always enjoyed and the perpetual welfare-warfare-corporate kleptocracy they’ve nurtured for the last century did not happen solely from the actions of one man.

John Maynard Keynes was certainly an important matinee idol for totalitarian cultivators to rally around for the last 3 or 4 generations—and for his simpering critics to gnash their teeth over while retreating in irrelevancy. But Mr. Keynes had many helpers along the way. And he rode the coattails of some important predecessors like fiat credit swindler John Law (of the 1718–1720 Mississippi Bubble) and free-money crusader Henry George (1839–1897) who are now largely forgotten.

In more civilized times, con-men like John Law were quickly recognized as frauds and publicly renounced. One would hope a similar fate will eventually befall the huckster from Cambridge along with his cheering section at college economics departments. And this is where the general public comes back into the picture.

Behind all the Keynesian/New Deal slogans, speeches and broken promises lies a more embarrassing question. Who is the bigger fool: the man who peddles snake oil, or the person who repeatedly buys it?

In nature, maggots don’t infest a body until it becomes helpless or dies. Vibrant communities can resist the lure of “free lunch” economic policy no matter how neatly it’s packaged. Only societies that have become incapacitated to a lifeless zombie condition fall prey to such transparently harmful advice.

No one should expect the rotting manure of subsidized academia or the pandering rage peddlers of full-time journalism to breathe life into America’s dying culture or come to anyone’s rescue with creative solutions. They simply can’t and they won’t.

If there is ever going to be sustained prosperity again in any city, town or village in America, it will come from average people making some extra efforts and taking a few calculated risks following sound principles to their logical conclusions. Real progress has probably always been that way, and it most likely always will.

Email: [email protected]

Hide 177 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. What hath Keynes wrought? Not our financial profligacy, certainly.

    We have brought ourselves to ruin entirely by our own hand–and by ignoring the three most important elements of Keynes’ advice:

    1. Save in good times
    2. When assessing economic issues, never abandon the moral disposition.
    3. If you allow the dollar to serve as the world’s reserve currency, you will suffer the same fate as Britain because you will be unable to satisfy both your domestic and international constituencies simultaneously.

    Nor was Keynes ‘an archetypical expert with no experience’.

    His first experience, at the ripe age of 25, was resolving the very real, constantly destabilizing Indian Currency Question during a summer at the British Treasury. It was a multi-billion dollar nightmare that had plagued both the British and Indian economies for years. The kid knocked it on the head in a few weeks (and the Treasury–staffed by Britain’s brightest–kept a desk for him until the day he died).

    His next was taking responsibility for the endowment fund of his alma mater, Cambridge, and turning a piggybank into a powerhouse–riding out panics, crashes, booms and busts along the way by making Soros-like bets across cultures and currencies.

    As to his sexual exploits, he both more adventurous and successful than 99% of us. At 30 he fell madly in love with the world’s most famous ballerina, married her and, according to their friends, fucked her brains loose for the next three decades.

  2. @Godfree Roberts

    Keynes and the ballerina had no children. I suspect she was just a “beard” for the degenerate queer and pedophile junk economist. The pervert Keynes has about as much credibility as your hero, the mass murderer Mao.

  3. There are numerous, published accounts of their noisy–and even exhibitionistic–sex.

  4. Layman says:


    Scanned it just in case I spot some coherent argument, to no avail. Maybe it is somewhere there, in between all the name-calling, talk of Keynes’ sexual perversions and other rubbish, I don’t know; it’s not worth the effort.

  5. The trillions of counterfeit loans cooked up by the banking industry…

    I am completely onside with the author’s righteous indignation and with the article more generally – Very well done – but his understanding of process is fatally flawed. Banks do not make loans at all. They are in a completely different business.

    Not money-lenders

    Banks are not what you think. They are not money-lenders – they are credit-reinsurers and they are asset-sinks. When you sign and deliver a promissory note and mortgage you are underwriting and advancing real-estate-secured-credit to the bank. The bank strips-off the financial and real-estate security as a premium for itself, and then returns or reinsures unsecured-credit back to you as an unsecured-deposit-credit that does not cost the bank anything material to produce.

    The money / credit for the alleged or pretended loan does not even exist unless and until you underwrite it by accepting the liability for it by agreeing that you owe it, normally under the promissory note that is secured by the mortgage.

    You then have to add or issue the same amount again in the form of a signed check (drawn on the bank) to the seller of the real estate, who has to endorse it and deliver it back to the bank as a ratification of the otherwise recoverable-loss of their property and legal-title to the bank in exchange for an unsecured deposit credit. Then the bank agrees that it owes the principal amount (selling price) to the seller instead of to you.

    The nominal mortgage is a combination bill of sale that transfers all right, title, and interest in the property to the bank, plus an embedded repurchase option that allows you to buy the property back from the bank by paying it all of the money required under all of the securities. When a bank forecloses it is not foreclosing on the house, because it already owns the house. The foreclosure is of the repurchase option – sometimes referred to as a redemption.

    The banker arrives at the transaction with metaphoric empty pockets, and leaves with all of the financial securities from the pre-qualified lead-underwriter / pretended-borrower in one hand, and the legal-title to the real-estate property (and endorsed check) from the seller in the other. All in exchange for his costless bare agreement that he owes the seller / vendor. And the only way to then get it back out or transfer it is to give the banker another endorsed check.

    From the nominal bankers’ perspective there is only one material reality, and that is that real equity / secured assets come in, and only unsecured liabilities go out. They are asset-sinks and they are unsecured-liability-kiters.

    By total amount, only about 2% of all such financial transactions are money-lending. The other 98% is credit-reinsurance.

    At the next level the most significant fraud is that the nominal securities are systematically falsified.

    For at least the past 120 years the balance of humanity has proved unable to protect itself from the multi-faceted fraud in the following form of terms from a banker or other nominal (pretended) creditor (and even genuine money-lenders):

    I will loan you $100,000 at 10% per annum, provided that you agree to give me a security claiming and swearing that I have loaned you $120,000 at 8%, plus a $20,000 check as a kick-back directly or indirectly drawn against the falsified / inflated principal amount, but by separate side-agreement and not mentioned in the falsified security.

    More generally,

    “I will loan you a certain amount at a certain rate of interest, provided that you agree to falsify the security to claim and swear that I have loaned you a greater amount, and at a lower rate, than in fact; plus an unregistered kick-back equal to the difference to juice my income as well.

    First, while most anyone else can see its obviously criminal and profoundly dangerous substance, bankers, lawyers, and judges have near-pathologically failed to do so. In the western world especially, most judges are former-bank-lawyers (self-styled “commercial, corporate and financial law specialists”) who are themselves often directly appointed by former-bank-lawyers / solicitors, most of whom (on both sides) had spent their legal careers falsifying financial securities and making personal fortunes via fees and percentage kick-backs for so doing.

    As inconceivable as it may seem, for at least the past 120 years no government in the western world appears to have been able to successfully enforce laws requiring securities to state their true and complete terms. They have tried repeatedly to do so, but the bankers and the lawyers always quickly reach a consensus that these civil, accounting, and criminal laws cannot mean what they say – otherwise they would not be able to commit their accounting fraud, while concealing their rake-offs and kick-backs as part of the inflated “principal” amount. The laws are there, but they are ignored – with the positive assistance of the judges who are themselves also guilty of serial-failure to declare their obvious and objective conflicts of interest.

    Above that, it’s all about leverage leverage leverage.

    Even on a genuine money-lending mortgage, a 5% bonus or loan-fee, for example, puts (1) an immediate 5%-inflated asset on the pretended-creditor’s balance sheet, plus (2) another instant 5% unearned interest in the pretended-creditor’s pocket up-front, and then (3) up to 30-years of more interest upon it, and then (4) payment-again or re-payment of the same fee again as pretended principal. Just a 5% loan-fee (double-counting-fee) can quietly leverage the total money-cost of a mortgage by 50% over 30 years. The bankers then and concurrently leverage and re-leverage their gains from it in the domestic and international financial / racketeering / laundering markets in a seemingly endless cycle of wash – rinse – repeat.

    And here again, what makes it especially insidious and systemically dangerous is that it is not possible to tell from the face of a security whether or by how much it has been so front-loaded and falsified. Pretended creditors virtually always stipulate that the loan-fee front-loading be executed or completed via rebates and kick-backs under unregistered side-agreements.

    Any randomly selected registered debt-security in the real world today will be virtually-always materially overstated, and routinely 50% or more complete fiction, as for example a $100,000 loan at 10% being falsified and passed-off / registered as a $200,000 loan at 5% (i.e., even if it were a true money-lending transaction).

    Even before so-called derivatives, there is now more than a quadrillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000,000) of alleged financial assets being traded in the so-called global financial markets, and it is all founded-upon and leveraged and re-leveraged against an egregiously-falsified foundation-portfolio of registered debt-securities worldwide that are ever more approaching pure fiction in equity, and where virtually all of them are false documents and forgeries-in-law. And even that is obtained by the fraud and false pretence of passing-off credit-reinsurance as money-lending.

    One must not confuse the object of a conspiracy [to defraud] with the means by which it is intended to be carried out. Scott v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1974] 60 Cr. App. R. 124 H.L. [House of Lords]

    The world is awash with economists and financial-system commentators who are all fixated and mesmerized to the point of being in a collective trance arguing over the object of the constructive and actual conspiracy that is banking. But we could fix it all overnight just by pausing for a moment to perform a competent examination and audit of the means by which it is carried out.

  6. I’ve always found the work of Irving Fisher both intellectually rigorous and logical, yet understandable to non-PhDs in economics (including me!). Of course the “Austrian” economists dismiss Fisher because he was not a “hard money” acolyte.

    You could fill a decent sized library with critiques of Keynes. He was just a man and of course to err is human. His influence is an accident of history. Consider this: Keynes bridged the gap between an era in which universities were highly exclusive and an era in which millions and millions went to public universities, all staffed with neo-Keynesian economics professors. Is it any wonder that the expansion of university enrollment coincided with an explosion of left-wing, pro-big government college professors? That their hypotheses be correct was irrelevant – the neo-Keynesians like Samuelson predicted a return to the Great Depression after World War II in the absence of the kind of stimulus that the war provided.

    The neo-Keynesians were widely discredited publicly by the mid-1980s – growing employment coincided with falling inflation. The mantra of aggregate demand was replaced with the mantra of economic incentives to produce. Milton Friedman, a monetarist, did his best to popularize anti-Kenynesiansim with his “Free to Choose” TV series. Anti-Keynesianism in popular culture reached its apex in the mid-1990s. Within the universities, the Neo-Classical school grafted certain Keynesian concepts onto classical supply/demand economics.

    Since 2008 Keynesianism has come roaring back. It’s like the chiropractic of public policy: any kind of ills receive the same treatment. In the face of widespread potential bankruptcies among many corporations, the politicians threw money at the problem and since results are never measured against any standards or alternatives in D.C., the solution since then has been to increase aggregate spending no matter what. Keynesianism has become a cover for the defense of crony-capitalism.

    • Thanks: Mark G.
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  7. @Godfree Roberts

    It has always bewildered me that so many of the anti Keynesian cranks appear to be most upset by his apparent bisexuality, to the point of falsely accusing him of paedophilia, of which I defy the resident crank to produce any evidence.
    For me, the great takeaway from Keynes’s prescriptions for remedying depression – inadequately understood and implemented by FDR – is that, in a modern monetary economy, the confidence to spend of those who have money may be so impaired that spending has to be bolstered by either or both of government investment in assets or giving money to those whose necessities will ensure that it is spent. It makes some people very angry that he illustrated his point very cleverly by positing the burying of banknotes and rncouraging unemployed people to go and ig them up.

    He did of course advocate returning to surplus in good times and it would be interesting to know what he would make of QE, MMT and negative interest rates

  8. @mark tapley

    Is there any proof for pedophilia?
    Is there even a hint of it?

    • Replies: @mark tapley
  9. @Godfree Roberts

    Ideologues are vexed horribly by the inconvenient fact that Lord Keynes actually earned money on the markets, which sets him separate from the Mises’ and Hayeks of this world.

    • Agree: Godfree Roberts
    • Replies: @Ugetit
  10. Dear Mr Penfield
    Before I spend a lot of time and mental energy on finishing your very long article and links may I ask you to convince me that uour qualifications, academic and/or practical and experience give you some authority? Your mention of Henry Hazlitt reminds me of the passionate Ray Evans who, in life was founder or co-founder of the Galatians, the Lavoisier Society, the Samuel Griffith Society, the H.R.Nicholls Society and the Bennelong Society none of which persuaded me to waive scepticism about his arguments. Like many anti-Keynesians he got hot under the collar about Keynes’s bisexuality.

    I noted your reference to Keynes’s letter apparently approving FDR’s agricultural restriction policies.
    “I should strongly support in principle [your] … various schemes for agricultural restriction”. you paraphrase.
    So, I looked for the December 1933 letter online. My confidence in your case is not heiped by finding that the whole paragraph reads
    “I do not mean to impugn the social justice and social expediency of the
    redistribution of incomes aimed at by N.I.R.A. and by the various schemes for
    agricultural restriction. The latter, in particular, I should strongly support in
    principle. But too much emphasis on the remedial value of a higher price-level as
    an object in itself may lead to serious misapprehension as to the part which prices
    can play in the technique of recovery. The stimulation of output by increasing
    aggregate purchasing power is the right way to get prices up; and not the other way
    round. ”

    I would count that as tactful criticism more than support.

    There is another problem. Is the whole letter genuine and correctly dated? There are several reference in the letter to the existing NLRA. But the National Labor Relations Act was not passed until 1935 according to my search results. What gives?

    • Thanks: Kali
  11. @Godfree Roberts

    We have brought ourselves to ruin entirely by our own hand–and by ignoring the three most important elements of Keynes’ advice:


    I wonder what are author’s qualifications to take on such a heavy subject?

    Best regards,


    P.S. is becoming a site for quack writers!

    • Replies: @PetrOldSack
    , @karel
    , @Alfred
  12. Scourge says:

    What to say about this pile of excrement of an essay by an economic illiterate? where to start?

    “Stimulus is bad! debt bad! Keynes was a degenerate! He bad!” proclaims the average IQ illiterate in his overlong brain fart of an “essay”

    “Yes! Keynes was a faggot! And he childless! He paedophile!” brays the brain dead rabble back in the comments. A moronic physicist wholeheartedly agrees. He’s got a brain alright but he is too busy to question his own assumptions. Raw IQ is clearly not enough.

    This brain diarrhea of a piece must be US Friedmanites’ rationalisation on why the Keynesian Chinese model is already crushing the free market über alles USAs one, on why US airports and infrastructure are third worldish, and Chinese ones are on par with Japan’s, I suppose?

    Surely the answer is more of what brought the US into the deindustrialised, clear decline position where she is now: less *properly engineered* regulations and gov’t financial activism to favour industrial wealth creation and double down on free market fundamentalism.

    Hopefully eugenics and AI will somehow help the US to pull out of the dive.

    • Troll: Alfred
  13. @Larchmonter420

    Quack writers,

    …may I add that theoretical economics and it´s appendix, finance, as they are defined, and worse thought, defeat the purpose by concept of anything but religion. Then taking out of context Keynes, does it matter? There are no theoretical – historical models out there that fit an eight billion plus population on the size and texture of Planet Earth. Economics is a close second to witchcraft and alchemy. Should be monopolised by Goooogle and Fecesbook, it fits their audience.

    • Agree: PetrOldSack
    • Replies: @Larchmonter420
  14. Alfred says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    At 30 he fell madly in love with the world’s most famous ballerina, married her and, according to their friends, fucked her brains loose for the next three decades.

    Keynes was a homosexual. I thought everyone knew that. These arrangements were common at the time. A homosexual friend told me all about it a long time ago. Sadly, he was one of the first people in the UK to die of what was then an “unknown disease”. I suspect that he passed it on to 50+ others.

    My friend was the first president and founder of the Cambridge University Gay Society. Since he passed away a long time ago, I will tell you his name – “Colin Clark”

    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
  15. Hojer says:

    I got in touch with Keynesian/economy issues first in early postcommunict period in university lessons taught almost entirely by previous marxist economy teachers and academics. Nearly no one else was available then (in Czechia). I was quite a disturbed by that coming from anticomunistic family environment. Now nearly thirty years later I must admit that the time was greatly more open to based political and professional discussions and lessons were free from much of (left/liberast) ideological bias so common in West and EU nowadays infesting even universities. My common argument now btw. is that bolshevism moved from Moscow to the West.
    I remember one point of these postcommies academics important for these discussions: “Much of the disputes betwean keynesians/monetarians/etc. are to large point absurd as governments use and have to use mix of keynesyian and monetarist instruments anyway. These instruments proved to work in some way. The question should rather be what the mix should be to meet the target of the policy and what the policy should be.” In real world it is of course a bit complicated by tactics of banks, world open markets and speculations, concealed influence of covert players, etc.
    So reading the article on Keynes and his students it comes to my mind – perhaps the problem is that the institutions and politics do not even discuss the targets of their policy as they used to in Keynes times. Is there some party concentrating on middle/lower class in USA/Europe? Soc. dems here and Dems in US ceased to take care of their voters prosperity, they discuss fake/gay, globohomo issues only… Their counterparts on the right seems zombified. Will Keynes be assigned with the task he was in his time today? Is this not the problem?

  16. Penfield points out that the fiat bank fraud had been going on long before the FED. That is true. The American Revolution was fought mainly as a consequence of the dictate by the British that the Colonists use the Bank of England’s script and pay interest for the privilege. Governments (the elite) always aggrandize for more power so this situation was greatly aggravated by the Writs of Assistance (illegal searches) as is now authorized under the Zionist Patriot Act. Even though Britain had lost the war, their agent Hamilton convinced Washington to allow them to set up shop in 1791 through the First Bank of The United States. This was also the cause of the war of 1812 when their charter was due too end as confirmed by Nathan Rothschild. Jackson finally got rid of this racket but the sodomite and murderer Lincoln whose whole mission as tool of the Northern Industrialists and Manufacturers was high tariffs, big crony gov. and a Central Bank with fiat money power. This led to a precursor system that resulted in the Rothschild banking cartel in 1913 under the political puppet actor Wilson.

    The founders intended there be a free market gold based system where all banks stood or fell on their own merit. There might have been manias and bubbles but the market would quickly wash them out. With the banking cartel as mandated by Marx (Moses Mordecai Levy) in the Communist Manifesto they control the banks and the issuance of credit through interest rates. Now it is proven as was originally intended that the FED and their Wall St. cronies along with the “to big to fail” mega banks such as Goldman Sachs have Sovereign Immunity from all prosecution as was shown in the 08-09 bailout for billionaires program and now again as more trillions are stolen under the cover of the fake virus, the staged Fake Floyd type events and the staged riots.

    Puppet politicians like FDR (really run by Bernard Baruch) Trump and our shabbos goy sinecures in congress as well as court economists like Keynes are just used by the Zionists to gain total power (for your own good of course) as they make society and the economy work for them. The elite have achieved financial control through the fiat banking fraud in practically all countries of any consequence. This system is interlocked. Now it is just a matter of them creating enough crises (opportunities) such as conflicts, emergencies like the fake medical fraud now being used to induce the goyim to give up the rest of their God given liberties. People that are too stupid to figure out the fake virus are never going to grasp the fiat money scam, and the elite know it.

    • Agree: Alfred, Peripatetic Itch
    • Thanks: Joe Levantine
  17. @TimothyMadden

    The trillions of counterfeit loans cooked up by the banking industry…

    I am completely onside with the author’s righteous indignation

    Lord Keynes, has to do with Fiscal Policy and not Monetary Policy. The Monetary Policy (creating money out of thin air) is Lord Friedman’s domain!

    While the Fiscal Policy is under the control of Federal Government, the Monetary Policy is under Federal Reserve Board a Private Organization, which is not even under the control of Federal Government or any other Government Bodies.

    Monetary Policy is the opposite of Fiscal Policy (controlled by the Federal Government). Whereas, Monetary Policy is The Bullshit of FREE MARKETS!

    Best regards,


    • Agree: animalogic
    • Replies: @Larchmonter420
  18. gotmituns says:

    Keynes didn’t say anything about what’s coming – sex with dolls.

  19. @Larchmonter420

    While the Fiscal Policy is under the control of Federal Government

    Fiscal Policy is the Budget of Federal Government and Spending!

  20. Hayek and the other Austrian economists in his generation haven’t fared much better. American corporations ignored the Austrians’ theoretical arguments against the “impossibility” of centralizing knowledge across an entire economy and solved the problem any way because they had economic incentives to do so. (I’ve seen an estimate that Walmart’s operation compares in size to the economy of the entire Soviet Union circa 1970. Only Walmart with its central planning, unlike the Soviet Union, can competently keep the shelves in its stores full, apart from freak occurrences like the panic shopping earlier this year.)

    I knew the Austrians got this wrong when I got a call from a clerk at my bank because the bank’s software flagged a transaction I just made with my debit card that didn’t fit my usual pattern of spending, and he wanted to confirm that I had, in fact, made that transaction. This kind of fine-grained monitoring of the economy at the individual level will only grow more powerful with time.

  21. @Godfree Roberts

    The disdain of Keynes shows an element of class resentment and envy, not to mention the fact that intelligent men with resources like Keynes can get more out of life than the rest of us.

    • Replies: @TheTrumanShow
  22. Keynes was the only 20th century economist who became wealthy in the stock market by applying his own theories. Keynsian economic principles adopted at the Bretton Woods conference in 1944 ushered in decades of worldwide prosperity and progress. The undoing of these sound practices by the “voodoo economy” pirates of the last 40 years has, in contrast, impoverished our people and brought this nation to the brink of financial chaos.

    • Replies: @Larchmonter420
  23. This long —— long article is firstly an ad hominem against Keynes. It wallows in his sexual deviancy, with finger licking glee, as a premise in the argument that Keynes was economically deviant (ie apparently he hated thrift, morally, not on aggregate demand grounds).
    The author is a “goldbug”.
    Which means he believes in the magical properties of using a finite supplied metal as the basis of exchange, money etc. (Not that I dont agree gold is important — it IS a sound investment. However, it is no longer capable — alone — of being the foundation of international commerce etc).
    You know you are off into the land of frothing obsession early with this priceless observation:
    “and largely to this day, college economics departments cling to his theories as well. Political and institutional supporters of Keynesian principles now control nearly all positions of power in the West, which helps explain the dire financial conditions we now face.”
    Colleges have been teaching variations on neoliberalism for 30-40 years. For many Keynes is a JOKE. (Many of the author’s general observations about education are quite spot on though)
    The author is obsessed with inflation. Which he blames entirely on fiat currency. He completely fails to understand that LABOR, & thus production is the basis of “value”.
    The author hates Unions (& thus, unspoken, working people).
    “Nationalized union furor—with blockades, “sit-down” trespassing and other thuggish activity” Sit-down trespassing is a part of thuggish behaviour ? Er…? Well, workers obviously have no right to defend their interests. And look at this:
    “As for alleged benefits to employment, stimulus “jobs” during the New Deal fiasco were just as much of a fraud. Sure, people had “work” shoveling coal for a Tennessee Valley Authority power plant, tightening bolts on an Army Jeep assembly line, raking leaves at the local park, providing accounting services for government rationing boards, or peeling potatoes for Uncle Sam’s enlisted infantry. But the loss of freedom (and loss of American integrity) was immeasurable and the faux-jobs were often demeaning.” What’s demeaning or fraudulent about shoveling coal for a power plant or doing accounting ? Sounds like work to me — real & valuable work.
    Another hilarious obsession of the author is his belief in the reality of central planning in the US. There’s planning ? Let alone central planning ?
    Oh give me a break — the only planning in the US is done by the deep state,
    & that is NOT planning for the benefit of the USA.

    • Agree: Godfree Roberts
    • Thanks: Layman
  24. sally says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    I would be interested in your comment regards the following.

    two people did get rid of the bankers.. one was Abe Lincoln (1865) and the other was William Mckinley (1901<12 years before the federal reserve act, the income tax, and 26th amendment) , it is unclear why James A. Garfield (1881) was executed, but very clear that and John F. Kennedy…was also executed for considering dropping the fed.. and because he was planning to take out Israel's nuclear facility. Keynes was in my mind a a master international banker; hell bent on increasing the miseries of the victim classes.

    In America there are two groups 1) the Empire Group (about 1 million strong) <=who depend on the USA to maintain by force of law the wealth and power that sets the Oligarchs and their corporations apart from the 2) second group (about 340,000,000 strong), victimized USA governed American group <= members of this second group try as hard a possible to avoid contact with the USA, because if the USA does not want more from the person, it is seek to deny that person of more of their freedoms.. Most events that impact the Empire group favorably, impact the victim group unfavorably and vice a versa.

    The impact of most USA laws, have tended to enslave members of the victim group to the monopoly powers of the empire group. War helps the empire group, and forces the victim group to sacrifice their quality of life and to give the blood of their children to the economic well being of the Empire group who profit unconscionably from war.

    The problem with Keynes ideas is they support the empire group positively and the victim group negatively.

    Keynes ideas support monopoly powers in private hands (as in copyright and patent laws, <=but these laws, have denied those in the victim group hundreds of thousands of backyard businesses and millions of jobs all over America). Copyright and patent laws have allowed the Empire group to remove from America the industries upon Which economic America was built, and those same monopoly powers (copyright and patents) have denied, and still deny, Americans in the victim group competitive access to economic space that government was suppose to prevent monopoly powers to exist in. Keynes rejected capitalism and invited monopoly powered feudal lordships. Keynes supported a virtual level, in which only the few could participate, to participate one must either have been born wealthy, or suffer the propaganda of college degree. Keynes ideas, placed the victim group, at risk for no food to eat, in that all food is transported from foreign food factories and packaging plants to the USA access controlled consumer markets for distribution in Wall Marts around America.

    Millions of acres of Farmland have and still can feed America, if only the USA would be forced to quit paying farmers not to grow stuff, but that would hurt the international markets and the GMO engineers. and the transporters negatively, some which the Empire group would not allow.

    • Thanks: Kali
    • Replies: @mark tapley
  25. In the grand scheme of things, Lord Keynes was only a small-time crook
    Comment on Steve Penfield on ‘Financial Fraud: Lord Keynes, the New Deal and ‘Stimulus’ Mania’

    Keynes realized that the mainstream economics of his time was defective and tried to move the whole thing from microfoundations to macrofoundations. This is called a Paradigm Shift, but unfortunately, Keynes messed it up because he was too stupid for the elementary algebra that underlies macroeconomics.

    The blunder occurred on p. 63 of the General Theory: “Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income − consumption. Therefore saving = investment.”

    This syllogism is conceptually and logically defective because Keynes did not come to grips with profit: “His Collected Writings show that he wrestled to solve the Profit Puzzle up till the semi-final versions of his GT but in the end he gave up and discarded the draft chapter dealing with it.” (Tómasson et al.) Because profit is ill-defined the whole theoretical superstructure of Keynesianism is scientifically worthless.

    So, here you have the real scandal. The economist Keynes NEVER understood what profit is. Worse, since 80+ years neither pro- nor anti-Keynesians spotted the foundational blunder that invalidates ALL of economics.#1

    Economics is a scientific fraud because Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, MMT, and Pluralism are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/ formally inconsistent.

    Because of this, economic policy guidance NEVER had sound scientific foundations.

    At the moment it is Stephanie Kelton, her post-Keynesian fellow academics, and a horde of social media trolls who are pushing deficit-spending/money-creation and are complicit in the greatest distributional fraud of all time.#2

    The fact of the matter is that the correct macroeconomic Profit Law implies Public Deficit = Private Profit. This is why MMT is currently hyped.

    Economists are NOT scientists but have always been the useful idiots of the Oligarchy. Keynes has only been one of the more colorful examples.

    Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

    #1 Wikipedia, economics, scientific knowledge, or political agenda pushing?

    #2 Keynes, Lerner, MMT, Trump and exploding profit

  26. @Alfred

    Colin Clark the geo economist, or another Colin Clark?

    I have bisexual friends who have been lifetime studs on both sides of the bed.

    • Replies: @Alfred
  27. @TimothyMadden

    A very complex & interesting comment.
    “The nominal mortgage is a combination bill of sale that transfers all right, title, and interest in the property to the bank, plus an embedded repurchase option that allows you to buy the property back from the bank by paying it all of the money required under all of the securities.”
    This repurchase option ? I’ve always understood it to be the buyer’s equitable right/ownership of the property. The bank owns the legal rights to the property by the buyer has equitable rights that counterbalance the legal rights (assuming, the buyer pays out the mortgage etc)
    Are kick-backs, front loading & asset inflation by banks now common “retail”means of property transfer ?

    • Agree: ThreeCranes
    • Replies: @TimothyMadden
  28. @PetrOldSack

    …may I add that theoretical economics

    Duh, what do you think Federal Budget and Federal Spending is?


    • Agree: PetrOldSack
  29. @animalogic

    The author is a “goldbug”.
    Which means he believes in the magical properties of using a finite supplied metal as the basis of exchange, money etc. (Not that I dont agree gold is important — it IS a sound investment. However, it is no longer capable — alone — of being the foundation of international commerce etc).

    I suppose a Malthusian “sound money” libertarian could logically exist, but the ones I know of advocate both the gold standard and something like the late Julian L. Simon’s cornucopianism of natural resources. These two ideas make contradictory assumptions about Element 79 in the Periodic Table. What if some combination of technological advances turns gold into a throwaway commodity, like what actually happened to aluminum over the last 200 years?

    • Replies: @animalogic
  30. karel says:

    Agree, as the article seems like randomly compiled pieces of a verbal vomit. Then you have crazies like Mark Tarpley with his corroborating evidence of Keynes’s perversion, whatever he might have thought by that accusation.

    Nowadays numerous revisionists ideas are popping out of every cesspit of this world and I am only waiting till somebody comes up with an evidence that the 1929 crash was caused by Stalin or Mao Tse Tung. Any piece of cretinous writing is today good enough to deserve publishing.

  31. @Observator

    Keynsian economic principles adopted at the Bretton Woods conference in 1944 ushered in decades of worldwide prosperity and progress. The undoing of these sound practices by the “voodoo economy” pirates of the last 40 years has, in contrast, impoverished our people and brought this nation to the brink of financial chaos.


    The Voodoo Economy is the Free Market of Ronald Reagan and Allen Greenspan who is out of the wedlock child of Friedman’s Monetary Policy of Free Market,
    privately owned and privately controlled by the Bankers, called the Federal Reserve System!

    Best regards,


    • Agree: Curmudgeon
  32. Alfred says:

    I wonder what are the author’s qualifications to take on such a heavy subject?

    I suspect he did us a great favour by not going to a university to study Keynesian economics. 🙂

    I once worked for a leading business school in Europe – the #1 MBA according to the FT’s 2018 survey. I was IT manager. I had to deal with many professors. They all believed the data that other economists produced. They wanted me to help them build models that extrapolated the past into the future – they call that econometrics. It was really pathetic how little understanding they had of real business and of society.

    Currently, economists and bankers worldwide have convinced themselves that since lowering interest rates to almost zero has not worked – which it should have according to Keynes – they must go negative. We will all get a grandstand view of the economy blowing up due to this idiocy.

    Here is another beauty, the Phillips Curve. They stopped mentioning it years ago. They won’t even try to find out why it did not work. But it is still standard in all the economics textbooks. 🙂

    • Agree: Peripatetic Itch
  33. Rocha says:

    All this verbiage to distract us from the real source of our problems which are the legalization of usury at the Protestant Reformation and the privatization of the issue of the currency with the establishment of the Bank of England in 1694.
    On the same day they established the Bank of England they instituted limited democracy so that the citizens could not renege on the debts contracted by the government with privately owned bank in their name.
    They also introduced the income tax so that the government would always have the income to pay the debts conjured out of thin air WITH INTEREST.
    Under the cynical guise of promoting democracy, every single war and revolution since then has been to impose this nefarious system on the rest of the world. For Catholics and Muslims usury is a sin.
    It is no coincidence that after 9/11 the only two countries left in the Middle East without a Rothschilds controlled central bank are Iran and Syria.

    • Agree: Mefobills, TheTrumanShow
    • Thanks: Majority of One
  34. At one point I stopped reading.
    In retrospect, I should not even have started reading.
    The choice of opening photo gives all the warning needed.

    If the author seems fit to delve into his subject’s sexuality, more serious sourcing would have been appropriate.

    Without some of the better comments, this would have been an utter waste of time.

  35. The author does not understand the heart of the ‘Keynesian Trap’ which has to do with his misunderstanding of the issue of Parity for Agriculture plays in preventing the need for borrowing money to keep things afloat.

    The problem with the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) is that in taking the marketing rights away from farmers it tried to thus raise prices for farm production upon the ‘supply & demand’ canard.

    No the AAA was not declared unConstitutional in 1936, what the Supreme Court Ruled in the US v. Butler decision was that production quotas could not be levied against agriculture and that in losing their marketing rights farmers needed to be duly compensated per 5th Amendment takings clause.

    This thus set the stage for implementation of parity, per AAA2 under the statutes as 7 USC Sec 602, which is still the law and demands that farmers get paid a 100 cent dollar in relationship to other segments of the population such as manufacturing and service.

    Due to pressure from Nazi U-boats and the war, FDR was forced to implement full 90-110% Parity floor and ceiling prices on what is essential wealth. It was this that was the basis of the post war boom as it was also the basis of the post war boom.

    Few know this story, but it is documented and is a fact, that parity then put earned income into hands of producers who then spent the money in the economy, first locally and that it was the Raw Materials National Council in their analysis of the economic record the understood that every dollar produced in farm raw materials multiplied through the rest of the economy, seen in a raise in national income by a factor of 7. Thus underpay farmer and the entire nation has to borrow money.

    This is thus the heart of the Keynesian Trap, the stealing of our daily bread as a matter of policy, that thus set the conditions that borrowing is required in order to make up for lost Earned Income from Raw Material operations including mining.

    For more information Read Charles Walter’s UNFORGIVEN: The American Economic System SOLD for Debt and War. This is a great book, from 1971, an important, but challenging read that is worth the effort.

    On the Web for free is The Nature of Wealth by Fred Lindgren that has all the charts, in need of updating, but those charts allowed Fred to predict the blowout of 2008 in the mid 1990’s.

    It is the National Organization for Raw Materials that still works on the issue who put out this important chart and later to president in 2017

    This republication from 1941 is very important, especially as Wilken’s ideas were utilized with success for war effort. A historically important presentation:

    Parity was dropped in 1952 as pressure from Banks and General Motors wanted to sell cars on credit and parity was paying people in the economy money thet was a threat to credit games.

    Hopefully this helps your researches and work against the Keynesian Trap.

    • Thanks: Ann Nonny Mouse
  36. Durruti says:
    @mark tapley

    The elite have achieved financial control through the fiat banking fraud in practically all countries of any consequence. This system is interlocked. Now it is just a matter of them creating enough crises (opportunities) such as conflicts, emergencies like the fake medical fraud now being used to induce the goyim to give up the rest of their God given liberties. People that are too stupid to figure out the fake virus are never going to grasp the fiat money scam, and the elite know it.

    Your comment is nicely done. The Political is inextricably connected to the Economy.

    • Agree: PetrOldSack
    • Thanks: mark tapley
  37. @Alfred

    Currently, economists and bankers worldwide have convinced themselves that since lowering interest rates to almost zero has not worked – which it should have according to Keynes – they must go negative.

    The Economist and Bankers are vultures who want to get all the benefits of money created from thin air. This benefit is for the whole population and not few thieves. Just like anything under ground after 2 or 3 meters deep belongs the whole population, such as oil, minerals, metals and so forth. These benefits are for the Federal Government to offset the high taxes.

    The Monetary Policy is controlled by these thieves, under the of Free Market. All the Banks are controlled by them and the Federal Reserve System is under their control, without any Government Body overseeing them. Monetary Policy is a FARCE!

    The Fiscal Policy is the Federal Budget and Actual Spending. Under the “New Deal” of Keynes, America was build, especially the beautiful Interstate Highways build with cement and still standing. After WWII, most Americans were jobless, thus the “New Deal” created jobs and building of USA.

    The only criticism can be levied against Fiscal Policy of Keynes, has to do with corrupt politicians and not against Keynes personally. Once the economy is expanded with massive Federal Budget and Spending, the corrupt politicians and/or governors of State are NOT willing to take Budget Cuts. They keep on wanting more and more!

    Best regards,


    • Replies: @Alfred
  38. Luutzen says:

    Penfield: Too many words.

    In economics you’re either an accountant, holding on to gold and value (Libertarians) or you promote general income growth thru GOV spending (Keynes, China).

    In everlasting war-time since WWI, the US of mass-murdering cowboys deficit spend on their military, resulting in 800+ foreign US bases.

    Even Vietnam Nixon said: we’re all Keynesians now.

  39. haha says:

    An Economics illiterate’s criticism of Keynesian theory. Whatever one’s ideological persuasions, the New Deal was one of the greatest success stories of American public life. Yes, subsequently the New Deal type of public policy may have paved the way to “Big Government”, but to fault the parents for the progeny’s subsequent wayward life is illogical.

    Keynes was the one economist who crafted economic theory for application in the real world. At a time when the world was in the grip of the big depression and all that the economics profession had to say was “leave the markets alone”, Keynes offered a correct analysis of the problem. Yes, the General Theory was subsequently judged to be but a “Special case” of aggregate demand and aggregate supply imbalance, but the Keynesian theory was a correct analysis of the situation then prevailing. A wake up call for the noodleheads in their ivory towers.

    It may be that Keynes had despicable personal attributes. There have been allegations about his rampant homosexuality, his penchant for sex with boy prostitutes from the poor and the exploited classes, and sundry other unsavory matters, but his work in Economics has to be judged on its own, with the judgment to be applied by people with an intelligent understanding of the subject matter of Economics and Public Policy. The article shows no such intelligence or understanding.

  40. Ugetit says:

    Of course, being popular in eyes of the mainstream (highly subsidized) academic community does not in itself make Keynes, his supporters … out to be frauds.

    Oh yeah?! 😉

    Excellent article , BTW, and as soon as I get the time, I’ll be eagerly searching the archives for more from this guy.

  41. TG says:

    Look, here’s the bottom line.

    When Keynesianism was really tried, it worked. The 1940’s and 1950’s in the United States saw the country become the greatest industrial and military power the world had ever seen with the highest standard of living. Following Keynesian principles, Western Europe during this time did not become too shabby either. Ditto Canada and Australia and South Korea and Japan…

    But starting around 1965, governments have moved very strongly into anti-Keynesian territory. Keynes does NOT have any influence today, except perhaps empty lip service. Governments today are practicing ‘austerity’ politics for the working class, but spending massive amounts bailing out and subsidizing the big banks and the super rich. That is the opposite of Keynes. He talked about governments spending on actual tangible investments, NOT subsidizing big finance. And as you might expect, this anti-Keynesianism is having the opposite effect on workers, who are steadily losing ground.

    • Agree: Bardon Kaldian
    • Replies: @Miville
  42. Ugetit says:

    …the New Deal was one of the greatest success stories of American public life.

    From whose point of view?

    Read the article again, please.

    • Replies: @Steve Penfield
  43. Alfred says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    Colin Clark the geo economist, or another Colin Clark?

    Another one. He worked in computers. Last job he had was with the bank of America in London, I believe.

    He had the bright idea of having a “help line” in the gay society. A sort of Samaritan helpline. Any frustrated student could call the number to get someone to fuck him. The members took turn to answer the phone. 🙂

    He told me lots of similar stories. We shared the same office in Tehran for some months. He offered to fuck me but I was not interested. He had met my beautiful Persian girlfriend. But that did not deter him in any way. He had no problem getting working-class Iranians to fuck him, but he complained that they would not let it be the other way. In much of the world, the active partner is not considered to be homosexual. There is no stigma attached.

    I have bisexual friends who have been lifetime studs on both sides of the bed

    These are the guys who pass it on to women – and that is the way heterosexuals in the West get infected. 🙁 I am not discussing the drug-injecting subculture.

  44. @animalogic

    I agree about the author’s fixation with unions. Unionization, in North America, is not something people do naturally. The reason people unionize is that they believe they are being treated unfairly by their employers.
    This author, like most writing on the economy, blame unions for everything, while ignoring the roots of unions lie in the craft guilds systemically dismantled by bankers and the trade guilds through bribing politicians. It was the craft guilds that controlled the means of production, not a banker or shareholder on the other side of the world who has no interest in the well-being of the actual producer of the product, or the local economy.
    Was it the union’s fault that National Cash Register decided to move its plant from Dayton, Ohio to Taiwan, causing a job loss of more than 30,000?
    Was it the unions’ fault that the US auto industry produced crap like the Pinto and Vega to compete with the much greater fuel efficient and reliable Japanese cars during the 70’s fuel crisis?
    Is it the uni0n’s fault that “free trade” was the auto industry’s response to Lee Iacocca’s 1980s warning that the US auto industry was in danger, because every competitor country had some form of universal health care system that cost those countries about 30% less than US manufacturers?
    Take the Volkswagen unionization drive in Tennessee last year. Politicians coming out of the woodwork claiming catastrophe if it happened, while Volkswagen, which is heavily unionized in other countries, saying that it made no difference to them, it wasn’t going to change their business model. There isn’t a union on the planet that is interested in seeing a company go bankrupt and its members unemployed, and there never has been.
    The union bogeyman is as phony as the “invisible hand” of the free market.

    • Agree: Majority of One
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    , @obwandiyag
  45. @haha

    Keynes was the one economist who crafted economic theory for application in the real world.

    Not so, Clifford Douglas developed social credit which was implemented in limited form, due to banking regulations, in 2 Canadian provinces during the 1930s, with a great deal of success.

  46. Anyone else view the credit card system as legal usury?

    The companies all set up shop in South Dakota so they can’t be sued under usury laws.

    A credit card offers low to no interest for a year, then the rate launches to 16% to 25% and no one blinks?

    As George Costanza would query, “Is that wrong?”

    • Thanks: Majority of One
  47. …the real annual inflation rate of 8-10% over the last two decades…

    So prices have on average risen by more than (1.08) to the twentieth power since 2000. This is an increase by a factor of over 4.7. The level of stupidity and/or ignorance exhibited here is entering into tin foil hat territory.

    The first few ranting paragraphs convinced me that I was dealing with a loon. This computation sealed the deal for me. I’m not bothering to waste my time on the rest of this blather. A guy who clearly does not understand compound interest and/or is so utterly disconnected from reality has no business even pretending to understand economics.

    BTW, I think Keynsianism is bad economic thinking and its consequences have been disastrous but writers like this serve only to perpetuate the myth that non-Keynsians are ignorant nutcases.

  48. @animalogic

    Thanks. Yes the legal title is transferred to the bank that then legally owns the property, and the nominal borrower becomes a tenant in fee simple – meaning they get the use-title or equity-title. All it means in practice is that they get to pay the insurance and property taxes on the bank’s newly-acquired legal property until they buy it back or else default, upon which the bank will file a motion to foreclose the nominal borrower’s equity of redemption or repurchase-option. Bear in mind that borrowing money is a wrongful act in law (a sin) and which must be redeemed.

    It is all a function of language that was developed in the days when money-lenders actually loaned and put at risk their own pre-existing money or gold. In those days if a money-lender made a $100,000 loan, then they walked away from the transaction $100,000 poorer – because now the borrower has it and the lender does not.

    But today and since 1913 and the flip to credit-reinsurance, a credit-reinsurer walks away from a $100,000 loan a minimum of $200,000 richer. If the purpose is to buy a $100,000 house and property, for example, then the pretended banker arrives with nothing, and walks away with the lead-underwriter (pretended-borrower) owing them $100,000 now under the promissory note, plus another $100,000 on the maturity date, plus interest in the meantime, plus the legal title to the house, plus an endorsed check from the seller / vendor for $100,000, all in exchange for his bare and unsecured agreement that he owes the seller $100,000.

    On the other question, by total amount, all debt in the world today is comprised of interest on interest that was illegally capitalized in advance in violation of approximately two dozen domestic and international anti-racketeering laws. The leverage is mind-blowing.

    The world’s credit / charge-card issuers alone are skimming the USD-equivalent of about $2 billion a day or about $1 trillion ($1,000,000,000,000) every 18 months in concealed credit charges called Merchant Fees, while telling everyone that they need to keep taking advantage of the banks and their free loan system by running those purchases through their credit card accounts even if they do not need the credit facility (which again is credit-reinsurance).

    The card-issuers don’t even put any of their own money into it. The merchant supplies the real credit by allowing the card-user to leave the store with the merchant’s former merchandise in exchange for a promise to pay by the purchaser’s financial agent. And the financial-credit is supplied by the card-user who issues the signed-or-PIN-authorized payment order.

    The card-company / bank stands in the middle and takes a rake-off from both parties while telling the world that it is providing a financial service – but their real job is hiding the obscene amount of money involved. The $2 billion a day they skim just as pretended Merchant Fees is equal to the gross income of the one-billion poorest humans on Earth. And about 10% of it – or $200 million a day is a direct rake-off from the government sales-taxes that are run through these accounts.

    But on most other and big-ticket transactions the financial solicitors and lawyers appear to receive about a 1/3 kick-back from the kick-backs. So on a $1 million deal with 5% front-loading ($50,000), the bankers would get about a $33,000 kick-back and the lawyers $17,000.

    But most conventional mortgage-broker deals on second-mortgages appear to have between about 15% to 40% front-loading depending on the desperation-level of the nominal borrower.

    • Replies: @animalogic
  49. The key to Americas survival is to abolish the zionist owned private central bank , the FED and return to having the government print debt free currency as it was before 1913 when the zionists fastened their private money creation scheme on the backs of Americans and then came the wars and debt all to the benefit of the zionist banking kabal.

    The Fed is the greatest scam in the world and the 2nd biggest scam is covid-1984 , which is also a zionist driven scam via UN Agenda 2030.

  50. Alfred says:

    The New Deal, as the article above explains, prolonged the depression. That eventually led to a war that FDR initiated by cutting off the oil supply to Japan. Pearl Harbor was essentially a false flag as they Americans had broken the Japanese naval code and knew the disposition of the Japanese fleets. That is why the US aircraft carriers were sent to safety.

    When farmers are paid to destroy their livestock and food, you can be sure that there is something sick going on. An untold number of Americans starved during the depression. But that has been removed from the history books.

    • Agree: mark tapley
  51. Agent76 says:

    Jul 2, 2020 The Next Pandemic Will Be Caused by the National Debt. It Will Crater the Economy

    Debt held by the public equals about 100 percent of GDP. That’s hurting growth and will fuel a major crisis.

    Sep 15, 2020 Debt is the Real Pandemic

    The warfare-welfare state is alive and well.

    Jun 30, 2020 The 2020 Economic Crisis: Global Poverty, Unemployment, Despair – Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

  52. anarchyst says:

    I have a somewhat different “take” on unions, especially the concept of “forced” union membership which is still somewhat prevalent in the USA.

    First, an education on forced union membership and “right to work” laws (USA only).

    Most people are unaware that “right-to-work” legislation does not invalidate any union contract beyond the abolition of the “union security clause” which mandates “forced” union membership as a condition of employment and absolves the employer from liability for following this union “mandate”.

    Every other part of the union contract (collective bargaining agreement) remains in force.

    Unions criticize those who choose not to join (in right-to-work states), but when the National Labor Relations Board attempted to absolve unions of the requirement to represent non-members, the unions fought that decision successfully. You see, numbers DO matter.

    If unions offered good health insurance with reasonable rates, they would gain more members than they would know what to do with. Union purchasing of health insurance across bargaining unit lines would do much to lower the cost. There is indeed “economy in numbers”. Unions should research and exploit this area.

    It is curious to note that abortion supporters promote “the right to choose” for themselves while decrying union members the same “right to choose” whether to join unions (for themselves).

    My experiences with unions:

    I was hired by a major firm to maintain complex electrical and electronic systems. Within 6 months, my employer was able to eliminate the use of contractors. I had brought the repair operations “in-house” thereby saving my employer a considerable amount of money.

    My employer decided to reward me with a substantial “raise”. All went well until my “union” (who I was FORCED to belong to) found out about it.

    My “union’s” position was “if he gets a raise, everyone else in the bargaining unit must get a raise”. My “raise” was promptly rescinded.

    Efforts by my employer to create another “bargaining unit” job classification was met with hostility by my “union”. Here I was, FORCED to pay “union dues”, to a “union” that is keeping me down.

    It took TWO YEARS, upon the expiration of the “contract” , for me to get my “raise”.

    I have NO USE for unions and can stand on my own two feet to get ahead.

    P. S. I know about the “Beck” decision…most unions make it extremely difficult to utilize it…

    “Right-to-work” legislation is the best thing to happen here in the USA. It’s a shame that it cannot be nationwide…

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  53. I highly recommend this 1980 book exposing the fraudulent Federal Reserve:

    The Coming Currency Collapse and What You Can Do About It
    by Jerome F. Smith (Author)

    free to read here:

  54. @Layman


    Scanned it just in case I spot some coherent argument, to no avail. Maybe it is somewhere there, in between all the name-calling, talk of Keynes’ sexual perversions and other rubbish, I don’t know; it’s not worth the effort.

    Just like the previous article which sparked a similar torrent of rebuttals.

    I suspect these controversy-laced posts are designed to increase web traffic. The author knows how to bait UR readers. Incentives drive actions – behavioral economics for beginners.

  55. @Alfred

    Alfred – I agree. I also picked up on the weak excuse you replied to about someone demanding: Show me your credentials… or keep your mouth closed!

    Either the facts and logic speak for themselves or they don’t. People who only listen to officials with established “authority” are really just looking for a cult to join. As in the Cult of Emperor Worship… which is highly in vogue these days.

    In general, I am always amused with ideological extremists (in this case totalitarian socialists) who overlook immense factual evidence of failure–$80 trillion in total U.S. debt, 16,000% inflation since 1913, etc.–and try to shift the focus to empty claims: Don’t listen to him, he’s an ideologue.

    I haven’t heard any reasonable arguments to explain those enormous failures running wild in our economy. Much less, any realistic ways out of that mess.

  56. You’re right. Lord Keynes is just half-ass. Socialism is best, you fucking mooks.

    And I like your phony, false “facts”. You can spin any fact any way, and you spin wrong.

  57. @Ugetit

    Thanks, I Agree. Gotta love those folks who just spew their opinions that the New Deal was “great” etc. with no supporting evidence. I thought I had made it pretty clear with 10 concise points in my essay on why the New Deal was an abject failure. I don’t see anyone attempting to refute those with any substance.

    Also, it’s funny how hyper-sensitive some union sympathizers get over a few critical sentences about their illegal trespassing and other violent goonery. Good grief.

    As noted in my essay, I’m totally fine with private unions. Unions + New Deal national socialism = U.S. version of German Workers Party… always ready to bust some skulls. I don’t support that garbage, and either did FDR’s own V.P. – Jack Garner. Jack was right. FDR was a coward to appease the widespread union thuggery of his day.

    • Replies: @Ugetit
  58. @Layman

    The above article, I believe, is a textbook example of “screed.”

  59. @Curmudgeon

    Every idiot blames the demise of Bethlehem Steel on the goddam unions getting paid too much money (because of course, they are envious: they get paid less money at their job, because of course they have no union), when it is obvious to anyone with half a clue, no economics degree necessary, that Bethlehem Steel executives made very bad speculative investments with the company’s money (not their own), refused to upgrade their outdated physical capital, and just basically asset-stripped like a house afire.

    But these are things that the average person cannot understand, even though it’s not exactly Rocket Science. Some dirty union guy getting twenty dollars an hour and paid vacations when they have to slave away for peanuts, that they can understand.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  60. Ugetit says:
    @Steve Penfield

    …no supporting evidence.

    Welcome to UR where the trolls do that as a matter of course. In fact, I’ve found that’s one helpful way of identifying them.

    I don’t see anyone attempting to refute those with any substance.

    And please don’t hold yer breath while you wait.

    As for the New Deal, I have one point to make which is that there was not only one. There were many, ever changing, variants of them quite akin to Stalin’s various 5 Year Plans. No one knew what they were doing, so the programs were run seat-of-the-pants, and yes, I can provide references for that claim, just not off hand right now.

    Speaking of unions, we don’t hear too much of them any longer, do we? In my mind there can be little doubt that they were mere tools in the hands of the usual suspects to take down goy businesses. Now, since that object’s been pretty much accomplished, it appears that they’re mainly useful for tapping the pockets of the workers and to keep them in line in typical mafia fashion.

    Good article, btw.

    • Replies: @Biff
  61. Ugetit says:
    @but an humble craftsman

    …Lord Keynes actually earned money on the markets

    Sometimes it’s not what you know, but who you know. (Ahem!)

    • Agree: Peripatetic Itch
  62. @TimothyMadden

    Well said. Another viewpoint is that any mortgage is a futures contract whereby the buyer pledges his future income to pay for something he desires in the present time. The finance institution supplies the money which everybody agrees is a storehouse of saved value. That pays for a supplier to provide the buyer the object of his desire. In this sense, all credit is sourced in futures contracts.

    The loan of the money is secured by an agreement between the lender, the buyer, and the state that both the lender and the buyer have interest in the object produced. Should the buyer default on his agreed payment schedule, the entire amount becomes due and the lender can take possesion of the security object in order to sell it and recover the amount of the loan that remains. This is where the state comes in. Contract enforcement.

    Regarding inflation. We should look at inflation as the devaluation of the national money, whatever it’s called. But that devaluation is much like the half life graph of nuclear materials. The half life graph can go on forever. The half life of the dollar seems to be somewhere between ten and twenty years. The rate varies, but it’s always down.

    Devaluation of the money caused by government printing excess money is also an across the board tax on everyone who has anything in the way of savings denominated in that money. It just doesn’t show up right away. It happens in the future. That’s why it’s so popular with governments everywhere.

    • Replies: @Eugene Norman
  63. @but an humble craftsman

    I think this is very good circumstantial evidence. Longer than intended but lots of information:

    By a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some….The process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner that not one man in a million can diagnose.” – John Maynard Keynes Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920

    Convicted Soviet Spy Harry Dexter White
    (left) and John Maynard Keynes (right)
    at the Bretton Woods Conference


    Singing the Red Flag, the highborn sons of the British upper-class lay on the carpeted floor spinning out socialist schemes in homosexual intermission. Sometimes, one of the participants would shout out an obscenity – then, as if on signal, the entire group would join in a frenzied babble of profanity. Here and there individuals would smoke or chew hashish. Most had unkempt long hair, and some sported beards.

    The attitude in such gatherings was anti-establishmentarian. To them the older generation was horribly out of date; even superfluous. The capitalist system was declared obsolete, and revolution was proclaimed as the only solution. Christianity was pronounced an enemy force, and the worst sort of depravities were eulogized as “that love which passes all Christian understanding.”

    The year was 1904, and the participants were destined to become the intellectual and political leaders of the British Empire.

    Chief of this ring of homosexual revolutionaries was John Maynard Keynes, who eventually became the economic architect of English socialism and gravedigger for the British Empire. The chief American Fabians, acting as carriers of the Keynesian sickness, were Felix Frankfurter and Walter Lippmann. Covertly, they mobilized their Leftist comrades to spread this pollution in America also. So successful were they that on January 4, 1971, President Nixon announced: “I am now a Keynesian in economics.” What does that mean?

    Keynes was characterized by his male sweetheart, LyttonStrachey, as “A liberal and a sodomite, an atheist and a statistician.” His particular depravity was the sexual abuse of little boys. In communications to his homosexual friends, Keynes advised that they go to Tunis, “where bed and boy were also not expensive.” As a sodomistic pedophiliac, he ranged throughout the Mediterranean area in search of boys for himself and his fellow socialists. Taking full advantage of the bitter poverty and abysmal ignorance in North Africa, the Middle East, and Italy, he purchased the bodies of children prostituted for English shillings[See Lytton Strachey, A Critical Biography, Michael Holyroyd, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, two volumes].

    Such Leftist hypocrites then, as now, issued loud denunciations against poverty, imperialism, and capitalist immorality. However, for their own degenerate purposes, they eagerly sought out the worst pockets of destitution and backwardness to satisfy their perverted purposes through sexual enslavement of youngsters. While traveling in France and the United States they complained among themselves of the harassment by the police of practicing homosexuals. In degenerate areas of the Mediterranean, on the other hand, they found a pervert’s Utopia where the bodies of children could be purchased as part of a cultured socialist’s holiday.

    These Leftist degenerates began to scheme over sixty years ago to secure public acceptance of their depravity. Havelock Ellis, a founder of the Fabian Society, compiled a massive erotic work entitled, Studies In The Psychology Of Sex. Ellis was a sexual pervert and drug user. He and a group of fellow Leftists even pioneered in the experimental use of hallucinogens in private orgies. Ellis was definitely a pathological case. He drove his wife into Lesbianism and drug addiction, securing additional erotic excitement by urging her to recite her Lesbian experiences. Mrs. Ellis eventually went insane and died in utmost misery after denouncing her husband as a sexual monster.

    The Fabian socialists used the writings of Ellis as a wedge for sex education in the schools. They started in the colleges and gradually eased into the high school level.

    Ellis complained to his fellow socialists fifty-five years ago that he found wider acceptance for his books in the United States than he did in England. In fact, he was arrested and tried for obscenity in England, whereas his books were sold here without serious interference by the authorities. Today, his perversions are standard reference material for the sex educators, and Havelock Ellis is popularly called “the father of social psychology.”

    Keynes and his cohorts seized upon the works of Ellis as justification for their depravities. They were also greatly bolstered in their campaign by the theories of an Austrian Leftist named Sigmund Freud. Dr. Freud acknowledged in private correspondence that he copied the thesis of sex as the central determinant in human action from Havelock Ellis. Echoing Ellis, he laid down the premise that homosexuality and carnal depravities are not a matter of abnormality, but merely a case of personal preference. This, plus his declaration of atheism, overjoyed the socialist Keynesian crowd. John Maynard Keynes audaciously proclaimed, “Sex Questions are about to enter the political arena.” He inveighed against “the treatment of sexual offense and abnormalities,” adding the charge that “the existing state of the Law and of orthodoxy is still Mediaeval – altogether out of touch with civilized opinion and civilized practice and with what individuals, educated and uneducated alike, say to one another in private.”

    During the same period (1925) Keynes struck out against drug control. He laid down the line which has been pursued by Leftists to the present day in demanding that distribution of narcotics be unrestricted. Homosexuals find drugs a useful adjunct in loosening moral inhibitions to perversion. And this ravisher of little boys feigned sympathy for the masses by urging universal rights for users of narcotics. He declared: “how far is bored and suffering humanity to be allowed, from time to time, an escape, an excitement, a stimulus, a possibility of change?”

    Keynes and his conspirators projected homosexuality and drug addiction as an intrinsic part of their collectivist society of the future. His male sweetheart, Lytton Strachey, wrote privately that they would corrupt the whole population, “subtly, through literature, into the bloodstream of the people, and in such a way that they accepted it all naturally, if need be without at first realizing what it was to which they were agreeing.” He boasted that he intended “to seduce his readers to tolerance through laughter and sheer entertainment.” He pointed out that the object was “to write in a way that would contribute to an eventual change in our ethical and sexual mores – a change that couldn’t be done in a minute, but would unobtrusively permeate the more flexible minds of young people.” J. M. Keynes put it in the terms of Marxist economics:

    “When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many pseudo-moral principles which have hagridden us for two hundred years….”

    Keynes and Strachey used their malignant writings to help contaminate the entire English-speaking world. In the United States they both found expression in the New Republic, the New York Times, and the Saturday Review Of Literature.

    In 1939, a comrade of Keynes and Strachey named Bertrand Russell came to America to push their obscenitarian socialism and was (he says in his Autobiography) legally charged as “lecherous, libidinous, lustful, venerous, erotomaniac, aphrodisiac, irreverent, narrow-minded, untruthful, and bereft of moral fiber.” His aborted object had been to permeate the College of the City of New York with the corruption of the British Fabians. Immediately, John Dewey and other American Fabians organized to cry that “Academic Freedom” was under attack. The National Education Association (NEA) and the whole Leftist educational complex began to percolate pervasive degeneracies as being “Liberal” and “progressive.”

    The works of Keynes, Lytton Strachey, and Bertrand Russell have been, and are today, required reading in almost every college and university in the United States and Canada.

    In the spring of 1905 Keynes and his lavender cohorts had been thrilled by a conference of Russian revolutionaries in London. British Fabians and Joseph Fels, an American soap manufacturer who was also a Fabian, had financed the Russian gathering and furnished them a hall in a Christian church. Key revolutionaries at this London conference included Nikolai Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and Joseph Stalin. The future slaughter of fifty million civilians, and the conquest of one-third of the earth’s surface. rested within the shelter of this gathering. Shivers of excitement rippled down the spines of the socialist homosexuals when they heard that Lenin had openly defended the slaughter of bank guards and stealing of bank funds for the bolshevik coffers. During this time Strachey wrote to one of his intimates: “At this moment Keynes is lying on a rug beside me.”

    Keynes and his fellow debauchees became active pacifists and conscientious objectors during World War I. The socialist position against military service dovetailed perfectly with the homosexual aversion to any kind of physical danger and the manly requirements of military training. Yet, in spite of Keynes’ sheltering of “queer conchies,” and his own refusal to serve his country, he was made the head of an important division of the British Treasury. During March of 1917 he confided privately that he supported the bolshevik group among the Russian socialists after the overthrow of Czar Nicholas.

    The seizure of power by the bolsheviks in November of 1917 elated Keynes and the rest of the Fabian coterie. At Leftist parties in London, Keynes and his fellow perverts celebrated by dressing in women’s clothes and performing lewd dances. He had as his consort an eighteen-year-old-boy who was ensconced as his assistant in the Treasury Department.

    Just before the Bolshevik Revolution, Keynes had made a hurried trip to the United States for the British Government. Here he had a chance to make contact with the American Fabians who were similarly entrenched, via the Frankfurter-Lippmann group, in key positions of the Wilson Administration.

    Even the House of Morgan in New York City’s financial district trotted out its sissies to welcome Keynes to this country, and gave him an office just for himself. The international grapevine had established the nature of his proclivities. The urbane air of Keynes sent thrills of excitement through the ranks of the financial “giggle gang.”

    Keynes’ deviate socialist circle was almost completely pro-bolshevik. One month after the Revolution, J.M. Keynes wrote his mother”

    “Well, the only course open to me is to be buoyantly bolshevik; and as I lie in bed in the morning I reflect with a good deal of satisfaction that, because our rulers are as incompetent as they are mad and wicked, one particular era of a particular kind of civilization is very nearly over.”

    On February 22, 1918, Keynes proudly boasted of “being a bolshevik.” Yet the British Government blindly sent Keynes to the Versailles peace talks. There he joined forces with his Fabian American comrade, Walter Lippmann, who was among those representing the equally blind U.S. Government. The ensuing pro-bolshevik and anti-American machinations were largely responsible not only for laying the basis for continuing Red victories, but also for setting off the chain of events that eventually brought Hitler to power.

    In 1919 Keynes authored The Economic Consequences Of The Peace, which was promptly acclaimed from Moscow by Nikolai Lenin, himself. The Red dictator declared: “Nowhere has the Versailles treaty been described so well as in the book by Keynes.” A special edition of The Economic Consequences was printed under the label of the Fabian Society; and, Frankfurter and Lippmann brought the manuscript to the United States and arranged with Harcourt and Brace to publish it here. The volume became required reading among American socialists and Communists.

    However, Keynes’ value as a hidden Red was in danger. The Fabians had developed the posture of “respectability” to a fine art and the value of Keynes’ book as an “impartial work” was in jeopardy. With Keynes’ future usefulness in upper-class circles at stake, Lenin had personally come to the rescue. He pulled the classic Leftist double-twist, praising Keynes’ book as a model for Communist revolutionaries and at the same time covering for Keynes by labeling him as “anti-bolshevik.” Nikolai Lenin rose before the Second Congress of the Communist International and declared:

    “I will quote another economic source which assumes particularly great significance, the British diplomat Keynes, the author of The Economic Consequences Of The Peace, who on the instructions of his government, took part in the Versailles peace negotiations, watched them directly from the purely bourgeois point of view, studied the subject step by step, and took part in the conference as an economist. He arrived at conclusions which are stronger, more striking and more instructive than any a Communist revolutionary could advance, because they are conclusions drawn by an acknowledged bourgeois….”

    Thus was launched the career of Fabian leader Keynes as a “non-Leftist” and “non-Communist.”

    In 1925, John Maynard Keynes was married. It was a bizarre performance. His best “man” was Duncan Grant, his male lover for many years, and initiates swear that Keynes held Duncan’s hand as the marriage vows were spoken. But, the background of the bride was equally odd. She was Lydia Lopokova, the premiere ballerina of the Diaghilev Ballet. She was an habitué of Leftist circles, and had at one time been engaged to Heywood Broun, the well known socialist and confidant of Leon Trotsky, but had broken the engagement to marry a dwarf named Barocchi. In 1917 Lydia had disappeared in Paris with the top Cossack general of the White Army, returning to the ballet when the general returned to lead his troops against the bolsheviks. The bolsheviki had by now, however, acquired advance information and used it to defeat the Cossacks.

    Following the wedding to Comrade Lydia, Mr. and Mrs. Keynes were the special guests of the Soviet Government. He and his Russian wife were allowed free access to the Soviet hinterland, even to the extent of visiting her relatives. This was a privilege unheard of at the time, since even members of the Communist International were not then allowed such unlimited travel. It was a time of mass killing of civilians, and ordinarily a Russian national traveling with an Englishman would have been arrested and shot. But, Soviet officials were effusive in their thanks to Keynes for designing the first Soviet currency for them while he was still a member of the British Treasury.

    The marriage was definitely an “arrangement,” as Keynes continued to enjoy his amours with men. This was often the case with upper-class homosexuals who needed a legal wife as a facade. They both had separate living quarters, and did not interfere with the personal lives of one another. Lydia was very useful as a go-between since Keynes was in frequent contact with Soviet officials both in Britain and the United States.

    Meanwhile, the perversion continued apace. It was quite a pace. As I have noted in the new edition of Keynes At Harvard:

    Keynes had relations with Strachey; Strachey had affairs with Duncan Grant; Keynes stole Grant from Strachey; Lytton’s brother James Strachey adored Rupert Brooks but so did Keynes; Strachey reports to G.E. Moore on seduction of new boys; Keynes steals Edgar Duckworth from Lytton; Keynes and Lytton agree that homosexuality is, “that love which passes all Christian understanding”; Strachey emulates Oscar Wilde with absinthe and drugs; He also declares that, “the whole truth is the Devil”; He predicts that in one hundred years, “everyone will be converted,” to homosexuality; Strachey and Keynes promote obscenitarian talk in colleges; Lytton lives with Dora Carrington, a Lesbian; Carrington solicits homosexual partners for Lytton; Keynes, Lytton and Carrington have orgies involving Lesbian and sodomistic interchanges; Keynes and Strachey dress in women’s clothes and dance; Keynes and Strachey give a sanctuary to homosexual objectors to military service thus frustrating the authorities; Keynes defends the use of drugs and Strachey smokes hashish; Carrington married several men so they could be Strachey’s boy-friends; Lytton stole Sebastian Sprott from Keynes (the tables were turned); Lytton excuses his drug taking as a liberation from, “this wrong world.” Finally, there are engrossments by Keynes and Strachey with sadistic beating of young boys, “compulsive pre-occupation with male reproductive and excretory organs” and voyages to the most depraved dens of perversion throughout Europe, North Africa and Asia.

    The Fabian homosexual circle was incredibly successful in gaining influence and control in a wide area of activity. They staked out the entire British Empire and the United States as well. Lytton Strachey wrote to Keynes:

    “Oh dear me!, when will my heaven be realized? – My Castle in Spain? Rooms, you know, for you, Duncan and Swithin, as fixtures – Woolf of course, too, if we can lure him from Ceylon; and several suites for guests. Can you conceive anything more supreme! I should write tragedies; you would revolutionize political economy, Swithin would compose French poetry, Duncan would paint our portraits in every conceivable combination and permutation, and Woolf would criticize us and our works without remorse.”

    This projection was incredibly prophetic. J. M. Keynes became the mastermind behind the economic structure of British and American socialism. Strachey was responsible for writing books that undermined the Christian ethic of the Nineteenth Century and set the tone for the pornographic and depraved literature of today. Leonard Woolf worked out the details of the socialist drive for World Government. He was not only the architect of the League of Nations but outlined the structure of the United Nations.

    Others of this perverted group of Keynesians have set the tone in art, music, education, and religion. Today [1971], alas, even the President of the United States says: “I am now a Keynesian in economics.” It is disgusting!

    Read more:

  64. This article is utter nonsense. The Keynesian era was post war. The general theory was published in 1936 and had no effect on the new deal. After the war Keynesian theories, strong unions, sound money policies, capital controls etc.

    To quote wiki

    Keynesian economics, as part of the neoclassical synthesis, served as the standard economic model in the developed nations during the later part of the Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war economic expansion (1945–1973),

    Since that was the best era for capitalism and probably the best era for the west ever it should be impossible to argue against it.

    What happened after this ideology was abandoned was the growth of inequality, the destruction of the west’s economic base (based on libertarian ideologies of globalism), the rise of the precariat, the gig economy and the rest. The responsibility lies with the neo liberals, who have been in control in the post Keynesian era.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
  65. @haha

    An Economics illiterate’s criticism of Keynesian theory. Whatever one’s ideological persuasions, the New Deal was one of the greatest success stories of American public life. Yes, subsequently the New Deal type of public policy may have paved the way to “Big Government”, but to fault the parents for the progeny’s subsequent wayward life is illogical.

    The New Deal was objectively speaking a disaster. That would be why the peak of the Depression used to be called the Roosevelt Recession, although that (along with much else) has been toned down in the officially approved histories endorsed by the Council on Foreign Relations and friends.

    The US economy eventually recovered, but only due to international piracy on an unprecedented scale, bombing its competitors flat and stealing all they had that wasn’t bolted down (Germany, Japan) and/or plundering them fiscally in the style of George Soros (Britain), and using the spoils to finance a vast military-industrial complex. It had much less to do with FDR’s failed domestic policies than with his foreign-political thuggery.

    As for Keynes, he was indeed a degenerate in his private life, and his economic theories were flawed at best. Which is not to say that every single thing he advocated was bad, just that his theories as a whole were. However, he does deserve credit for at least one very important positive contribution to his times. His book on the Treaty of Versailles very effectively discredited the said treaty in Britain, which helped a lot in effecting its later constructive revision.

    • Agree: mark tapley
  66. Joe webb says:

    theoretically a bumble bee cannot fly, yet it does so.

    Money buys whatever it can buy. That is its worth. Fiat money can buy lots of things…like the US dollar. The Cuban peso while claimed to be worth something like the US dollar, buys nothing. Hence fiat money is dependent on what it can buy and that is all.

    This is true of gold and silver as well.

    The author of this piece, like his companions in economics science cannot sell theri Wordr product, except to outfits like Unz. empty words, like race equality devalue intellect. Fiat money as fake money is empty … It is the difference between truth as supported by evidence, and fake evidence as in the article here.

    Money casts its spell on us, and should do so but it has to be backed by the basket of goods that it represents.

    Money can be thinned-out of value by givernment policies of backing useless projects or useless people. Joe Webb

  67. Miville says:

    Your argumentation is based on the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. A closer examination shows that the good time so many Americans enjoyed for about 30 years after WWII had nothing to do with Keynesianism but everything to do with… WWII. America, thanks to an ultra-Zionist Messianic government, had just succeeded in plunging the whole world except itself into utter destruction and to buy everything in the world for peanuts. Had there been no Keynes the bonanza would have been even far richer for the modest classes within America.

    The prosperity America enjoyed from 1945 to about 1975 was one of the most undeserved in world history : everything America was manufacturing then was of lower quality than everything produced elsewhere, but America’s industry was alone in the world in having no raw material supply problem and no demand problem as the Breton Woods American dollar (which had nothing to with Keynes : Keynes had the minimal honesty not to recommend that solution of financing one’s domestic economy through the imposing of an imperial currency, as the bonanza thus brought about can last but one single generation, after which your domestic economy has lost all contact with reality for good and becomes unfit for real production and turns 100% speculation together with growing underdevelopment) had become the obligatory currency for all transactions.

    The US under Roosevelt applied a typically Jewish strategy : pretending to be an underweight military player too negligible and too naive and dumb to be provoked in a major real war while making sure everybody else in the arena if fighting to death for his survival or for the triumph of the ideology having been sold to him. All countries destroyed each other, including former big colonies such as India and China, with America proving them with the know-how and the hardware to destroy each other. Just calculating how America dealt with USSR turning into the most absolute police state of the world as if it were a de facto raw material colony of its own shows how satanic was the pact its people was benefitting from. But even then, before WWII, Keynesianism has only extended and deepened the Great 1929 Depression : Europe which had been hit at least as hard was already coming out of the Doldrums about 1933-34 while America seemed installed for good in perpetual stagnation and ever growing revenue inequalities with government dole that was not sufficient at all to prevent masses of farmers from starving literally : things were rosier for little people even in war-torn Mexico and Brazil. Experts such as Burnham were certain that America was transforming into an Asian production mode hydraulic dictatorship, where owners of rare resources to be secured through government-financed mega-projects would decide about all and stifle all innovation for good. America managed to intervene in WWII only from the moment the hardest battles were already being won by others and only in a very modest scale with an utter lack of real military talent in Europe, just to take it all by force from exhausted belligerents.

    America also benefitted from a very special kind of high quality immigration that were fleeing totalitarian regimes but would not make the effort to come to America rather than to some places in the West Indies unless they were guaranteed top notch work and revenue conditions and also a quite good level of public political debate : without that very specific all White top notch immigration that began from about 1933 and lasted up to about 1963 the standard of living would not have risen at all, America was rather bound to follow the model of Argentina at an even faster pace : up to 1933 America had imported a 100% White immigration but of second grade at best, of the kind best used at most stultifying jobs. Though the immigration was White it was low grade and tailored to the needs of cheap interchangeable labour entrepreneurs and that promised for America a quite bleak future, that of a nation condemned to stay behind Europe as a kind of cheap imitation.

    But from 1933 to 1963 America chose the topmost only until LBJ reversed the trend in 1965 by encouraging non-White immigration. That has nothing to do with Keynes. It is that high quality supplementary population that would have fled back to Europe immediately had America not offered a lavish lifestyle that forced the country into general prosperity for a while : actually it was a gigantic bribing operation that unfortunately succeeded beyond all expectations. New immigrants to America are offered better conditions of living, most often better than that of the locals, but they have to renounce to their intelligence hence the incapacity of their descendants to secure as good conditions through hard work or hard political fight. Nothing to do with Keynes.

    The countries that recovered best and fastest in Europe after WWII did not apply Keynesianism, with the exception of course of pre-Thatcher Britain, and Sweden which was actually paid to be a laboratory country for the future NWO values : they applied neo-mercantilism Colbert-style based on state-directed thrift, not state-directed big deficits. Big-deficit-planification, even if that does not show through immediately in actual indebtedness, results in an economy developing along lines making it increasingly dependent on world-wide private finance and expensive raw materials to compete for on the world market only. Thanks to FDR’s New Deal America did away with its whole family agricultural sector in favor of agri-business only : this was of course to the taste of the US power elites as without large scale family agriculture a society looses much resilience in case of military coup or world wide resource crisis and is much more ready to jettison democracy. Actually the USA with Roosevelt succeeded where Stalin missed his target of making all agriculturists into factory workers employed by bid trusts.

    • Replies: @Abdul Alhazred
  68. @sally

    JFK had no intention of dropping the FED. This myth was started by Tex Mars I believe in reference to Kennedy’s ex. order to the Sec of Treasury. All it did was allow this official to authorize the printing of new money as had to be done from time to time. James Corbett has an excellent pod cast on this. The homosexual JFK was under firm control by the Zionist network and did exactly as he was told. He had better things to focus on such as his live in queer partner Lem Billings.

    The sodomite and murdering tyrant Lincoln was a disciple of the Whig party leader Henry Clay. That is why he was chosen to lead the revamped Republican (Whig) party of the wealthy New England Industrialists and Manufactures. Their entire political goal consisted of 3 planks. No. 1 the establishment of a central bank to issue fiat money, hence the greenback scam that not only cheated the public but ended up as a great windfall for the Rothschilds when they bought them all up for a fraction of their face value but redeemed them at full value for gold. N02. Big crony government as in England (called mercantilism) and No3. continuation of the unconstitutional tariffs to damage the southern economy (who were paying 86% of the federal gov.) and increase profits to the radicals Republicans power base.

    Keynes was just intellectual operative for the Zionists. The elite needed someone to package their massive wealth transfer using technical economic jargon. Similar to the way they are managing the current fake virus by using confusing medical sophistry along with the fake test and fake numbers.

  69. @HallParvey

    Inflation also eats away debts. So, provided that wages keep up with inflation, as they did in the post war period mortgages became less of a burden, increasing disposable income. My father got a car loan which was more costly than his mortgage ten years after buying his house. The car wasn’t expensive. My 8 year old mortgage is largely the same as a percentage of my income. Low inflation means low wage inflation.

    Meanwhile most people with limited savings do as well in times of high inflation as they do in times of low inflation as banks give higher interest rates in savings accounts. Not enough to not see some reduction in savings but that’s true in low inflation environments. With inflation at 1.5% savings accounts give less.

    However stock markets tend to not increase as much as inflation when inflation is high. Stock markets grow as they mostly do , but tend not to keep up with inflation.

    This is why ruling classes are hostile to inflation.

  70. Joe webb says:

    currently there is a surplus of money in its various forms. That is why you can rent it real cheap, like at one per cent or less

    OUr fiat US dollar is being cheapened by cheap loans. Keep doing it for long and people start to devalue it and try to buy things, like gold, land or tulip bulbs or stocks and bonds.
    they hope to make a profit and some will do so, for awhile.

    Money is flexlible, as it should be. It is the universal solvent of Value. I have lots of Cuban pesos from about 20 years ago. For Sale, they are a good deal.

    Joe Webb, Trust me.

  71. @NoobSpyBot

    My recollection is that Irving Fisher, after recovering from his famously wrong prediction, was the diagnoser of debt deflation which is, is it not, entirely compatible with Keynes pointing out that when those who can fail to spend governmrnt has to create or stimulate demand.

    • Replies: @Eugene Norman
    , @NoobSpyBot
  72. @Miville

    World War II pushed a variety of innovations into life, but it was not the war that was the basis for the post war boom, but the fact that the war forced the proper monetization of Raw Material Wealth, agriculture, at prices that allowed such producers to buy goods and services of manufacturing and service sectors of the economy.

    Every economist expected a post war recession, but Charles B. Ray an economist with Sears & Roebuck, who was part of the Raw Materials National Council, understood that Parity had allowed Earned Income to build with the producers of wealth that keeps us alive. The Raw Materials National Council understood that the Great Depression was caused by collapse in market prices, and could be easily turned around in one year by setting the value of our dollar through price floors on the major storable commodities. This would increase revenues that would be spent into the economy, being earned income dollars, not borrowed dollars, and that the economy at all levels would benefit, because the data demonstrated this quite precisely. Underpay farmers a dollar and the national economy looses 7 dollars!

    The chart here demonstrates why America was great until the 70’s, because farmers got paid, then they did not have enough, and the collapse was on, masked by various means, like computers, etc…
    and massive money dumps…..with interest….from those whose ‘interest is interest’!

  73. vot tak says:

    “If the stars align just right, each generation may witness one or two radiant figures who achieve such dazzling advances for totalitarian authority that our ruling elites can speak no ill of their personal and public failings, no matter how dramatic. Abe Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and Michael “Martin Luther” King serve as worthy members of that ignoble pantheon,”

    Is that groucho marx? Fitting if is. Garbage in, garbage out. The likud/gay edgar hoover skool of historical (hysterical) horse govno. This site features decent writers, but headlines mostly the govno merchants. A sad waste for humanity, but quite a boon to the zionazi-gay divisive psywar pushed nonestop by the enemies of humanity, and everything else decent.

  74. @Alfred

    Right you are. Jewmerica had all 4 of the Japanese codes in their posessoin and listening stations from Alaska to the East Indies following the Japanese navy. FDR even had a hidden decoding, tracking station only a short distance from Admiral Kimmel. FDR even canceled the morning air patrols Kimmel ordered in event of a surprise attack. All the ships in the harbor were of WW1 vintage to be sacrificed with the men while as you stated the carrier force was moved out of the area.

    FDR had a 10 point plank to provoke the Japanese. At the same time Jewmerica gave 50 battleships to Britain and was supplying huge aid as well as attacking German U boats, and performing reconnaissance all while proclaiming neutrality.

    During the 20’s the new bank cartel in the U.S. doubled the money supply in order to prop up the stagnant British Sterling. Then the policy was switched and the massive depreciation was halted. This led to the depression that was made much worse by the Trotskyite policies enacted by Van Rosenvelt and his 52 Jew advisors. It appears they were doing everything possible to imitate Stalin in their attempts to wreck society and the economy.

    When FDR’s disastrous tenure finally came to an end he was replaced by shabbos goy Truman who let the Jew mob led by Bazelon and Pritzker (read Supermob by Russo) in the new office of Alien Property throw 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent into concentration camps in the desert and steal millions of dollars of their real estate and businesses that were then sold to their Jew buddies for pennies on the dollar. Don’t think this can’t happen again. The Zionists are always formulating a new “crisis”, a new “conflict”, another “emergency” that will allow them to gain more power at everyone elses expense.

    • Agree: Alfred
  75. Thanks Mr. Penfield. This is a good’un; I’m going to have to fire up my printer.

  76. @mark tapley

    Agreed. I would like to know your view point as to who you think was behind JFKs assassination and why.

    • Replies: @Miville
    , @mark tapley
  77. @TimothyMadden

    Interesting explanation of loans vs. credits, etc. Good point on leverage.

    However, once we’ve settled on proper terminology… then what? As I’ve seen before, many academic types (not necessarily you) get distracted with esoteric nuances then manage to avoid ALL of the major issues at hand. For you or any other serious economic observer out there, I’d be curious to get your take on any of the following:

    1. Should a bank with (say) 5,000 oz of gold on deposit be able to issue bank notes or loans claiming to have (say) 10,000 or 20,000 oz of gold? (Substitute “gold” for “dollars” if you prefer.) If that’s not fraudulent and de facto counterfeiting, then what is it?

    2. Should bankers and/or government have the exclusive privilege to write “this is money” on a piece of paper and force everyone (so called “legal tender” mandates) to accept that increasingly worthless paper for financial transactions?

    3. Why do we have any laws against counterfeiting in the first place? I thought most experts now agree that inflation is good, thus a little bit of “healthy” counterfeiting should be good for the economy.

    4. Is some amount of inflation “good?” Where’s the logic or evidence to support that opinion?

    5. If inflation and bank counterfeiting (or “credit reissuing”) are “good,” then why not broaden that right to the general public? (Of course, in a “well regulated” fashion. Only a few thousand dollars of counterfeit bills each month with proper training, tracking and compliance reporting.)

    6. During the 19th century (as the Fed admits) there was no net inflation. In the 20th century, there was about 2,500% inflation using historical accounting measures (rigged since 1983). What caused that massive change?

    7. As of Q4 2019, the Fed’s balance sheet was $4.2T and total U.S. public and private debt was $75T. How did that happen? (Are we still insisting that banks don’t conjure money/loans/credit out of thin air?)

    8. For Fed bashers, how do you explain over a dozen major bank collapses in the U.S. prior to 1913?

    In general (again, not necessarily you) … if people claiming to be economic experts can’t even address these obvious and important questions, why should anyone take them seriously?

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Mark G.
    , @TimothyMadden
  78. My tolerance and attention span is pretty damn good. Having said that, I made it about 4 paragraphs before thinking I could find a better use for my time.

    I’d be interested in reading a final version of this piece if the author finds an editor that can tame his tendency for purple prose saturated with name-calling contempt for seemingly everything.

  79. egram says:

    Another well written article by Mr. Penfield. Spot on.

  80. J. Farmer says:

    Alternative take: nobody knows anything about macroeconomics.

  81. How can an economy go from 23 trillion debt to 0 in 25 years? This should be the question. Negative interest rates?

  82. Miville says:
    @Socratic Truth

    LBJ. If there was an ultra-Zionist Jew at work on a permanent basis, it was him. LBJ knew he would never be able to win an election by the force of his own person, which was just unpalatable by all standards of common decency. He needed the aura of a perfect president saint having died in function, and whose planned work he would just continue. He had thus planned JFK’s death right in 1960. Though not necessarily through assassination : JFK’s real character was most opposite to what the public had been shown on TV. JFK was a real roué and already afflicted with a series of various diseases, each one of them terminal, the pain of which he combated with drugs and ever more debauchery at an industrial pace. If lucky JFK would die by the end of 1963, maybe in 1964-65 by miracle. JFK was a 100% TV-made president, with his image composed by Hollywood specialists. The real guy behind the image was by no means any kind of Tiberius Gracchus (as he was very calculatedly presented by the Masons in charge of his narrative), he had rather nearly everything of a Nero or much worse, because the American empire is actually a replica of the Carthaginian one, not of the Roman one as you are revealed in higher Masonic degrees after having believed the contrary that is taught to the rookies. JFK was given a very specific mission as the first Catholic to have ever been nominated for that purpose : taking utmost care that John XXIII accomplish his own task of transforming the Catholic Church into a perfectly Bnai Brith and ADL compliant religion, which he could not have succeeded without the backing of American secret services executing many special missions under presoidential executive orders. It must never be forgotten that the destruction of Catholicism for Israel’s long hoped for revenge had always been part and parcel of America’s so-called Manifest Destiny : JFK did it. The only thing JFK knew and liked about his own religion was the mafia system of government, of which he was passionately fond of judging by his private correspondence. As for the ordinary Catholic believers he cared for them about like Obama was to care for ordinary Blacks. JFK was also responsible for the launching of the Apollo project which he perfectly knew and avowed in private was right unfeasible given his own conversations with Van Allen : JFK ordered the Apollo project to be performed by the agency of probes and automated chariots, since electronics, not rocket science, was the US’s forte, while the greater public would be told the official narrative. JFK’s idea was that the American greater public enjoyed a far too high standard of living and that the only way to reverse that progression was to make them lose grasp onto reality through collective belief into a fake reality, which idea pleased LBJ to the utmost. What JFK couldn’t imagine is that right at this moment his living person had become a pure liability to the deep state he served lest he repented from having ordered the two biggest acts of mendacity of all human history : neutering the Catholic Church into some kind of Noachide cult (the Jews being exculpated of all responsibility for Jesus’ death, without any symmetrical adjustment on the other’s part, of course) and hiding from the public the sad reality that no living being can go further than Earth’s lower orbit. The guy had undersigned such an horror that he had to be as fast as possible transfigurated into a saint martyr of American politics that was to escape all suspicion even from anti-Americans and extremist dissidents. LBJ chose a proper astrological date and that was it.

    The legend that must be dispelled is that JFK would have been some kind of anti-Zionist. JFK never had the intention to terminate the FED, anyway however abusive was that institution it was the US’ only source of financial privilege in the world as the emitter of imperial currency for the whole West. JFK’s only decision that vaguely resembles was the emission by the American State of bonds payable in metallic silver, which is something completely different, not to say opposite to the State retaking from the FED its right to emit money. Actually it was a sneaky avowal that American currency was steadily devaluating from Breton Woods. It is true that JFK did not sign a warrant for Israel to have the bomb, to sum up the matter very caricaturesquely, but that decision he took after having consulted Henry Kissinger, whom he had already invited in the WH as a permanent guest, and of course the most important person of his own family financially, Edgar Bronfman : these two conservative Zionists judged that Israel was still way too humanistic and idealistic to be entrusted important tools of the empire, and anyway the President’s signature was of no consequence since absolutely everything nuclear developed in the US was Jewish and had to be Jewish by the the terms of the Manhattan Project that still prevailed : you couldn’t engage in nuclear physics study in the US without being a Jew for national security reasons, supposedly because USSR was the new anti Semitic danger. Israel so to speak hadn’t yet been outsourced to the ME and there were still more Jews and more Jewish power in NYC than in all Israel. JFK was the American Jewry’s best asset and most perfect puppet ever, to the point he was elevated as a saint. Had he committed the slightest blunder just consider what happened to Nixon : he was demonized forever for a very minor burglary compared to the murderous mafia war thanks to which JFK won the key states.

    LBJ also disposed of MLK for exactly the same reason : that real beast which JFK had chosen for world-wide celebrity (by preventing any form of Catholic criticism of that utterly dishonest preacher and by assassinating any priest Catholic or otherwise who would set his record straight) has to be transfigurated as a saint so as to install the ideology of political correctness. Make no mistake about it : there was no good guy in charge at any point at any place of US history, this country was founded by virtue of a Satanic Pact penned by Benjamin Franklin and celebrated by Sephardic Rabbis. Contrary to the legend, JFK did want an all out war in Vietnam so as to oust all remaining French influence in that part of the world taking pretext of anti-communism. His political doctrine under sweet clichés was particularly sinister, like his New Frontier concept : the reds had to make way for American civilization throughout the whole world like the redskins had been gradually reduced into ever smaller camps in the Wild West. JFK’s main idea was that the Cold War was a war of propaganda to be won by the most expert liar and that the US had to export less cars and more preachers to the third world. Another proof of the fact that JFK was not a liberal but a totalitarian mind was his fondness for lobotomy as a surgical operation to be generalized for social control, and it was he who took the greatest care to submit his own sister to that treatment and also exerted pressure for the Portuguese doctor who had devised the operation to get the Nobel Prize.

  83. @mark tapley

    Thanks… but I kinda knew already.

    Not saying all British men are queer but “British” is a euphemism for “sodomite”.

  84. @Wizard of Oz

    They are not money-lenders – they are credit-reinsurers and they are asset-sinks. When you sign and deliver a promissory note and mortgage you are underwriting and advancing real-estate-secured-credit to the bank. The bank strips-off the financial and real-estate security as a premium for itself, and then returns or reinsures unsecured-credit back to you as an unsecured-deposit-credit that does not cost the bank anything material to produce


    That’s meaningless gibberish.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  85. Biff says:

    Speaking of unions, we don’t hear too much of them any longer, do we?

    Bill Clinton and the banks gave them such a nice funeral.

  86. @advancedatheist

    “… intelligent men with resources like Keynes can get more out of life than the rest of us.”

    More what?

    • Replies: @advancedatheist
  87. @Eugene Norman

    Who are you replying to? Perhaps agreeing with me?

  88. nsa says:

    Keynes is the Godfather of the modern political economy and towers over the 20th and 21st Centuries as no one else. Usually overlooked is his very British distaste for the jew in general and Marx in particular…..more than ironic as the prevalent western economic system, best described as Joonomics, is based mostly on his ideas.

    “By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of its citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.” John Maynard Keynes from The Economic Consequences of the Peace

  89. @Socratic Truth

    All evidence points to Landslide Lyndon. He was a career criminal that had several people including his sister killed. The Boston Brahman Kennedy’s and “Col Cornpone” as Bobby and JFK referred to LBJ behind his back had a distinct dislike for each other. I believe that the coddled Kennedy’s just underestimated how dangerous LBJ was. The Kennedys were totally corrupt and were good friends with high level mobsters as pointed out by Russo in his book “Supermob”. It is likely that LBJ as a political enemy was a target for indictment since he and his network were involved in lots of criminal activities that could be used against him. Once JFK was out of the way, “no person, no problem” especially when LBJ was now Pres.

    It really makes no difference about JFK because all of the political puppet actors since the syphilitic nervous wreck Wilson was placed in office in 1910 are controlled by the Zionist syndicate. Wilson was practically catatonic for most of his second term. His office was run by Bernard Baruch ( No1. handler for FDR also) Eugene Meyer and live in handler Col. House.

    As proof of my point look at the two candidates put up by the Zionist controlled parties today. The adolescent Trump has always been controlled by the Jews and all four of his top donors in 2016 were Zionist Jews and still are. The self professed Zionist and senile Biden has worked for the syndicate for over 50 years. They are both just puppet actors. The agenda will remain unchanged even though the fake parties try to convey an image of conflict as with the Russian election rigging nonsense or the barely cobbled together impeachment. The British aristocracy has been doing this same tactic for way over 100 years. It is important for the goyim to think they are making a difference when the game is all rigged at the top. Not one Senator will vote against aIPAC and very few in the House. At this point there is no reason to waste time on the presidency since it is in the Zionists bag.

    • Agree: Alfred
    • Replies: @Malla
  90. utu says:
    @Steve Penfield

    You are stuck like a turd in a clogged toilet; just whirling around. Very typical for Misesians and other nutjobs hanging around libertarian sites who rarely look for a genuine knowledge. They find some apparent contradictions and instead of trying to explain them to themselves they get angry and began to rant. Just go back to basics and try to understand. Do not point finger at the world when it is you who is the chief cause of your ignorance.

    “A little learning is a dangerous thing.
    Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring;
    There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
    and drinking largely sobers us again.” – Alexander Pope

    The fact that money is created ab nihilo upsets you comes form a cognitive dissonance that is mainly psychological in nature. There is nothing wrong with money creation from nothing. Mathematically this is a full proof system that has no hidden flaws or logical inconsistencies. All systems can be abused. The system we have can be improved and tweaked but it all depends for whom the improvement is intended.

    • Agree: animalogic
  91. Mefobills says:

    Banks don’t re-insure, nor do they intermediate existing money. They create and destroy.

    You are confusing the Unz readership.

    BOE issued a whitepaper to explain how ledger mechanics works. The idea was to shut-up the people who do not know what they are talking about, which also included many economists.

    Private banks create credit. I agree with Hudson when he says that the very first thing students should do, is to master how double entry balance sheets work.

    I guess Ron Unz is trolling his readers with a Lolbertarian gobbledly-gook author, so he can have a good laugh.

    Real funny Ron.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @TimothyMadden
  92. @mark tapley

    Western “civilization”, so-called, is based on a rude marriage arrangement between the Hebraic jealous father god Old Testicles and the Roman Imperial State as reorganized by creating an artificial Christianity based on the crucifixion of the enemy of the money-lenders, the real historical Jesus and later, by the queer doctrine of “original sin”. The entire edifice was established to deracinate the people of the Empire and to destroy classical civilization and replace it with a monolithic totalitarian regime based on fear. Thus was created the great historical double-cross, combining slavery to the state with slavery to Abrahamic religion.

    We need to consider the context of Keynes and his circle. They were schooled in the classics and had come to the realization that the people of the Victorian era had been enslaved by a vicious system. They had come to believe in the concepts of socialism and many of them in the highly abstract and unnatural concepts propounded by Marx. These people of the fin de siecle were an amalgam of intellectuals and artists. They were also taken in by the precepts of materialism and reasoning abstracted by intellectual theorists. At the same time they came to reject such Western norms as exclusive heterosexuality–a product of that marriage of state and religion–prohibition of mind-altering substances and anti-war attitudes. The latter is quite noble as World War One was cooked up by the ruling bankster plotters centering on City of London, the epicenter of International finance capitalism.

    The Edwardian era, of which these individuals may be viewed as archetypical of that period of history was the earliest stage of a massive historical re-adjustment of time-cycles, itself the final fruition of the Age of Pisces. We are still within that paradigm as the world of human consciousness happens to be shifting on its axis. The ruling financiers represent the apotheosis of the materialistic and the religious perspectives which have been in the saddle since the time of Julius Caesar, the first imperialist of the Western world. The true significance of the time division between B.C. and A.D. is in one dimension conceptualized as “Before Christ” and “Anno Domini” and in another by Before Caesar and Anus Dominated. (they own your ass). I can explore those concepts in further depth but do not wish at this time for my few paragraphs to compete in prolixity with the words of Mr. Penfield.

    • Replies: @mark tapley
  93. Miro23 says:

    Stimulus snapshot of how the “temporary” debt binge promised by Keynes, Roosevelt, et al became has a permanent addiction. Graphic by Steve St. Angelo of the SRSrocco Report.

    So a family in the US comprising of a couple, two children and maybe two elderly parents have on average had 1,406,826 dollars of debt ( 6 x 234,471 dollars) issued in their name?

    It’s also interesting, that turning the graph upside down, gives a nice image of the deindustrialization of the US since 1970 – with the conclusion that the US public have been able to continue their first world level of consumer consumption to 2020 through participation in an enormous credit bubble.

    In a similar way, economics too has its laws of gravity that cannot be resisted indefinitely. In my last essay, I attempted to make the case that: 1) all bank credit is inflationary, 2) all credit inflation involves counterfeiting, and 3) all counterfeiting amounts to organized theft.

    So, how long before we see these again? (minus the gold seal).

    The 100,000 dollar bill is a banknote of the United States that was printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing from 1934 to 1935. it was never publicly circulated and was only used for transactions between Federal Reserve Banks. With a face value of 100,000 dollars it is the highest-denominated piece of paper money ever produced by the United States. The note still technically holds the status of legal tender, but has not been seen in circulation since the 1960’s.

    The note was used as a gold certificate.,000_dollar_banknote

  94. @mark tapley

    Generally, you are well-informed on the role of the banksters and their machinations against the common-weal. You only need to re-read the Constitution to discover that the financial system was not established on the rich-man’s gold, but the average individual’s silver coin. Congress was given the power of the purse, by means of establishing the weights and measure of the dollar–the real one. Off hand I cannot recall the particulars of the weights and measures but off the top the weight of the dollar was measured in a particular number of grains of pure silver–something in excess of 90%.

    It was by means of the Jekyll Island conspirators that on the 23rd of December, 1913, a group of insider senators and Congressmen, which included the Senate majority leader and the Speaker of the House, never officially adjourned the session for the Christmas holiday when the members of both houses traditionally went home for a couple of weeks. So without a quorum, the relative handful of lawmakers passed the Federal Reserve Act, which abjured Congressional control over the money supply and placed it in the hands of the banksters, headed by the Rothschild Crime Clan in City of London and J.P. Morgan (a close associate of that crime clan) on Wall $treet.

    Prior to the action by the rump Congress and Senate, Morgan’s agents had discovered that the chancellor of Princeton University, one Thomas Woodrow Wilson, a Presbyterian preacher from Virginia, happened to have a mistress. In that era sexual peckerdildoes were not socially acceptable, particularly from the likes of that particular mega-hypocrite. Through contacts in the post office, they discovered that the chancellor had written a number of letters to a particular woman to whom he was not married. A Morgan agent called on the “lady” and offered her $50,000 in gold specie for those love letters. In that pre-inflationary day and age one could purchase a house for a Grand. So she accepted the offer.

    Shortly thereafter, another agent called on Princeton’s chancellor and pulled one of the letters out of his vest pocket. The red-faced Wilson was told “we have all of them’. We also want you to run for governor of New Jersey and you WILL win.

    Needless to say, that same day of the vote in the Capitol building, President Wilson signed off on the totally contra-constitutional Federal Reserve Act, which then became law.

    • Replies: @mark tapley
  95. @mark tapley

    Though you are sound on a number of issues, Mr Tapley, you appear to have an obsession with homosexuality. To quote Shakespeare: “Methinks Thou doth protest too much.”

    • Replies: @mark tapley
  96. @Alfred

    “When farmers are paid to destroy their livestock and food, you can be sure that there is something sick going on.”

    Perhaps equally so, when middle class businesses are deliberately destroyed and middle class workers are put out of their jobs by government dictate.

  97. @mark tapley

    “The elite needed someone to package their massive wealth transfer using technical economic jargon. Similar to the way they are managing the current fake virus by using confusing medical sophistry along with the fake test and fake numbers.”

    Excellent observation & very well put.

    • Agree: Mark G., Maowasayali
  98. @TheTrumanShow

    The ordinary man can’t produce a work on the theory of probability as one of his side interests, for one thing.

  99. The author of the article makes two very valid points :
    1- The fiat money creation by private banks in the form of loans.
    2-The prevalence of Keynesianism in the running of most economies post WWII.

    As an student of economics at a US university of the class of 1982, I did wonder more than twenty years after my graduation why we had little to no exposure to the Austrian School of Economics or to such great thinkers as Frederic Bastiat. Finally it dawned on me that higher education in the US is nothing more than higher indoctrination.

    To be fair to the genius of J.M. Keynes, I should repeat what one of our smarter economics professors, a British Cambridge graduate who taught us in his late sixties, having retired as the head of economics department at a multinational company, “ as much as most politicians claim to be Keynesians, the truth of the matter is that what we have is bastard Keynesianism”. What the professor implied was that the perpetuation of constant deficits backed by open credit notwithstanding the state of the economy being in recession or in healthy growth is hardly a Keynesian policy. The runaway debt in the so called ‘free market’ economies cannot be blamed on Keynes but rather on crooked ingnoramuses politicians. Richard Nixon’s proclamation “ everyone of us is a Keynesian at heart” is quite revealing of the zeitgeist if the last seventy five years of economic reality.

    Where the author could have capped the whole thesis was by going further up the chain of financial malfeasance and by exposing the sheer evil of usury which is the cornerstone of the whole finance shenanigans that has afflicted the world.

    Before anyone attacks me as a Christian fanatic, I just like to remind any potential antagonist, that England did live usury free from 1291, when all Jewish bankers were banished from England, until Cromwell’s revolution that brought back the bankers with vengeance to English society. How did English society fair during that period of freedom from usury: English workers could afford to earn their keep for a full year with fourteen weeks of earned salaries, and architectural megastructure jewels like Saint Paul’s Cathedral could be built on volunteer basis ( see Michael Hoffman’s Usury in Christendom”).

    So the question to ask: what’s to replace usury for entrepreneurs with creative ideas who are short of funds? Very simply, to grant a loan against a sharing in the profit from the enterprise. Our Muslim brothers call it Murabaha. Moreover, the German system of financing relies very much on a principle of partnership between the banks and the corporate sectors, where German companies are not held hostage to the whims of stock market investors, which lets German companies concentrate on the long term benefits of the company rather than the quarterly profit the way it is by an large done in the Anglo Saxon market. And what if the venture goes bust. The lender and the borrower would be both losers as opposed to the current crooked system where the lender is using sterile money to make profit by putting all the weight of the risk on the borrower’s shoulders with the lender assuming no risk whatsoever by taking full collateral.

    • Thanks: Majority of One
  100. @Mefobills

    No I don’t think so. If you actually read a nominal security you will find that the issuer unconditionally agrees that they owe the bank, and that constitutes the advancing of credit to the bank. Just as when a bank purports to advance credit to you it merely agrees that it owes you by way of a nominal deposit account credit.

    The reason most people do not understand is because the definition of a promissory note is a fraud by omission.

    On the form and substance of promissory notes

    Consider the nominal promissory note that is the functional or process foundation of the global financial / banking system(s). Promissory notes are most often issued by borrowers and nominal debtors in favour of bankers. The purpose of a mortgage is (nominally) to secure performance on the corresponding promissory note (in Canada and many other countries the promissory note function is often embedded in the mortgage or other nominal security, instead of as a separate document / security (but the result is the same either way as between the issuer and the initial bank)).

    A typical / example U.K. promissory note states: “For value received, I promise to pay [Bank] the Principal Sum of £100,000 on [Maturity Date] and to pay interest monthly after as before maturity at the rate of 6% per annum.”

    We are conditioned and habituated to perceive such a financial instrument as having a face value of £100,000, when in fact / practice it is £200,000, plus the monthly interest.

    There are three separate and distinct legal / financial undertakings defined by and under the nominal promissory note, and which are acted upon as such (nb: until default):

    1. An immediate undertaking of indebtedness to the bank in the amount of £100,000;

    2. An undertaking of liability to the bank for the stipulated interest charges on the amount of indebtedness so assumed / underwritten; and

    3. An undertaking to pay the bank (another) £100,000 in lawful money on the named maturity date.

    In practice, as and when the bank receives the promissory note, does bank management recognise, receive and record the issuer’s undertaking of indebtedness, per se, as an equal increase in the bank’s own cash-equivalent / money assets? Yes it does.

    As and when the periodic interest payments are made, does bank management recognise, receive and record same as an equal increase in the bank’s own cash-equivalent / money assets? Yes it does.

    As and when the note is nominally repaid on the maturity date, does bank management recognise, receive and record the payment as an equal increase in the bank’s own cash-equivalent / money assets? Yes it does.

    That’s it. They’re done. That’s the whole deal. If those three things are true, then the unearned gain is crystallized and capitalized, and everything else reduces to distribution or application of capacity / proceeds. That accounts for roughly half the financial value of all broadly-defined labour (and production) on Earth.

    Upon issuance / delivery of the note, the immediate net financial loss / deprivation to the note-issuer (borrower or nominal debtor) is real and quantifiable, and the immediate unearned / unjust enrichment / gain of the nominal creditor (the bank – or rather its owners) is real and quantifiable.

    Put another way, how does a promissory note differentiate between a case where the bank has already made a loan or advance, and one where it has not? Answer: It doesn’t. That’s the point. In the majority of cases, and virtually always in the case of the original transaction that creates the legal-debt, the words: For value received mean For nothing at all. An unconditional promise to pay is by definition a gratuitous promise to pay.

    The official definition of a promissory note in the Bills of Exchange Act (and / or UCC in the U.S.) is an essential and material element of the fraud, and a typical example of the cogno-linguistic means or process by which the fraud is carried out (emphasis added):

    176. (1) A promissory note is an unconditional promise in writing made by one person to another person, signed by the maker, engaging to pay, on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money to, or to the order of, a specified person or to bearer.

    But that is materially imprecise, and a fraud-by-material-omission. In practice the essential and material elements of a promissory note are:

    [A]n unconditional immediate undertaking, assumption, and / or acknowledgement of indebtedness and an unconditional promise in writing … to pay [another/additional/duplicate/different] sum certain in money at a fixed or determinable future time.

    More precisely, it is literally fraud by definition – an epitaph for humanity.

    The proof that the omission is real and material is to ask: At what time, and on what amount, does the interest begin to accrue?

    The answer is that the interest begins to accrue immediately and on the amount of indebtedness that is undertaken, assumed and / or acknowledged (but which is not mentioned at all in the purported / official definition), and not on the sum certain in money that is payable (again) at some future time or maturity date (and which is the misdirection-based focus of the purported definition).

    Note that the actual, legal, and financial meaning of “…to pay another / duplicate sum certain in money” does not change with the elimination of the words “another / duplicate” – either way the note requires the payment of the named amount on the maturity date. And failure to make it constitutes default.

    The promissory-note-default change-up pitch

    An act of default triggers a kind of transaction-specific-bankruptcy, and constructive crystallization of liabilities and audit to establish the legal claims against the security and / or parties. At this point the constructive fraud against equity would be exposed.

    Assume that I give you a promissory note for $100,000. If I default on the maturity date, then if the note means what it says, then I ought to owe you $200,000. The day before the maturity date I owe you $100,000. If I then default on the $100,000 payment due on the maturity date, then by reason, by the express terms of the note, and 100% consistent with the banker’s treatment of it to that point, my debt ought to go to $200,000.

    But the banker does not, and never would, sue for $200,000, because that would expose the fraud against the note-issuer’s underwriting equity. Instead, by practice or policy, upon default, the banker disappears or constructively abandons the underwriting-credit, and only claims for the payment not made on the maturity date (or vice versa).

    The most common reference to the interest is by the phrase “with interest after as before maturity…”. Note the cogno-linguistic gymnastics in referencing the interest against the amount of debt that is immediately underwritten as “interest… before…maturity” (i.e., literally with interest on a future liability before it exists). The words were carefully chosen to prevent the reader / issuer from being exposed to the fact of, or taking account of, the immediate underwriting-of-liability component. It is important not to poke the cognitive bear with a stick to check if it is sleeping.

    In civil claim Court, the banker wants to avoid at all cost the question: Where did you get the money or credit that you loaned to the borrower?, because the only truthful answer is: From the borrower. If they failed to disappear the underwriting credit / debt upon default, then the answer to that most-damning-question would be obvious to everyone without the question even being asked.

    That two-part and seemingly innocuous combination of cogno-linguistic sleight of mind (to obfuscate or put-out-of-mind the underwriting credit), protected by a physical / reflexive sleight of hand (abandonment upon default by practice / policy – or manual override) has been systemically and systematically pauperising the masses, and channeling the wealth of the world to the possessor class, for several hundred years.

    History is simply a great recording of the aggregate amount of labour / real wealth creation that is systemically and systematically rolled over into the accounts of the bookkeeping class acting on behalf of the possessor class. However much new wealth is produced via private (and costless to produce and unsecured) nominal bank credit has a quietly concealed built-in 50%-of-financial-value-confiscation (plus interest) provision.

    As and when the issuer of the note executes and delivers it to the bank, they are in fact advancing (underwriting) credit to the bank. The bank (management) strips off the nominal security as a premium for itself, and then issues-back (re-insures) (in the form of a deposit liability) either a duplicate or lesser amount of unsecured (but homogenized / assignable) credit to the note-issuer directly, and / or via the merchant or vendor of the property or goods and services being purchased under the commercial transaction.

    The (pre-qualified) note issuer is the lead-underwriter and equity-creditor-in-fact, and the bank is the lead-debtor (gratuitous-beneficiary of the lead-underwriter’s underwriting / assumption of liability) and reinsurer.

    Another way to see the real problem, however, is that often the first thing that a banker gets you to do is to swear under oath and penalty of perjury that the bank has already paid you the principal amount. The instant you do so several felonies are committed (and the receipt is all that the banker ever contributes in fact – it is not just a technicality). From that point on the entire exercise becomes academic – If the falsified receipt does not matter, then the whole thing is fiction.

    I was at the Court of Appeal (in Canada) last year and the lawyer for the financial institution was demanding costs of about $300,000. I had the other party submit a proposal to the judges that if the Court would give us a receipt sworn under oath and penalty of perjury that we had already paid the $300,000 into court, then we would agree to the costs.

    The judges more or less turned white-as-a-ghost and dropped the whole question of costs. On some level they all know what is going on – and it is light-years away from legal or lawful.

    All the economists in the world can debate the economics of a deed from a game of Monopoly – but all it does is to prove they don’t have a proper grasp of reality.

    I can’t understand how so many otherwise intelligent people can choose to make these things so much more complicated than they are.

    If humanity is to survive, then we have to stop apologizing for the bankers – and start prosecuting them.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  101. @Miro23

    Once again Keynes is getting blame for something that happened post Keynes. The Keynesian era and bretton woods era ( which was an era mostly on the hold standard or gold exhange) was an era when debt was relatively low, and bank failures were unheard of. It was also a time of capital controls and tight regulation.

    Since then the right wing has taken over.

  102. @Miro23

    Once again Keynes is getting blame for something that happened post Keynes. The Keynesian era and bretton woods era ( which was an era mostly on the hold standard or gold exhange) was an era when debt was relatively low, and bank failures were unheard of. It was also a time of capital controls and tight regulation.

    Since then the deregulators have taken over. With the consequences we see today.

    By the way the hysteria about inflation here is unwarranted. QE has caused inflation in assets, not the “basket of goods”

    • Replies: @Miro23
  103. @Steve Penfield

    So the increased debt in the US, actually caused by the increase in credit lending (both to government and the private sector) was caused by,(checks notes), “totalitarian socialists”, who have apparently been in power since 1913. At this stage we have to assume that both parties are not just socialist but totalitarian socialists, that trump is the worst of them (check the recent deficit), that bailing out the banks wasn’t a problem caused by loose regulation to begin with, that increase in private debt lent by banks to private citizens is somehow “socialist”, and that the US is more totalitarian socialist than the EU which tries to keep the deficits to 3%, or even North Korea which often has lower budget deficits.

    • Replies: @Miro23
  104. Miro23 says:
    @Eugene Norman

    By the way the hysteria about inflation here is unwarranted. QE has caused inflation in assets, not the “basket of goods”

    True enough that Wall St received the loans and the liquidity has gone into financial speculation. No problem for these people, since the asset inflation just increases the value of their investments.

    The general inflation problem comes later, with loss of confidence in the US dollar. Investors flee financial assets and the “basket of goods” gets a lot more expensive. At that point the general public is very much involved, and the government has to print for them as they anticipate price rises. That’s the endgame since the government can’t raise taxes or interest rates.

  105. Miro23 says:
    @Eugene Norman

    So the increased debt in the US, actually caused by the increase in credit lending (both to government and the private sector) was caused by,(checks notes), “totalitarian socialists”, who have apparently been in power since 1913. At this stage we have to assume that both parties are not just socialist but totalitarian socialists…

    There is an elite who hold power in the US (politics, administration, media, academia, banking, FED) and there’s no question that they are arranging everything in the US for their own benefit. The proof, is the by now enormous wealth inequality between themselves and general population. This spectacular wealth is accompanied by a policy of financializing (turning into debt) everything in sight – real estate, education, healthcare, automobiles, consumer spending etc.

    Their particular brand of “Social Justice Socialism” is BLM/LGBT/open frontiers/”White Guilt”/Antifa/the fight against “White Supremacy” which usefully keeps the focus off their looting. Not explicitly totalitarian but not much different in practice.

    • Replies: @mark tapley
  106. Mark G. says:
    @Steve Penfield

    5. If inflation and bank counterfeiting (or “credit reissuing”) are “good,” then why not broaden that right to the general public? (Of course, in a “well regulated” fashion. Only a few thousand dollars of counterfeit bills each month with proper training, tracking and compliance reporting.)

    This is not really a question most proponents of inflation can answer. Most advocates of inflation really want it because they are either politicians who want the ability to print up money and pass it out to their supporters or the people who are actually receiving the money. Other reasons given for it are usually just attempts to engage in obfuscation to cover up what is going on.

    Inflation really took off after the collapse of the Bretton Woods system and the severing of the last links to gold. It was at that point that we also started running trade deficits. The inflation caused domestic wages to rise, which made American workers unable to compete on the world market. It also raised prices in areas where people couldn’t substitute lower priced foreign goods for higher priced domestic ones like medical care and higher education.

    The white working class was the group most harmed by this. Things got so bad for them that starting around 2000 their average life expectancy started decreasing. The tipping point was the first series of government bailouts after the tech stock crash and the money spent on the neocon instigated wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The crony capitalists and the military-industrial complex benefited from this, minorities were shielded somewhat by welfare and affirmative action, while the costs fell heaviest on the white working class. This resulted in a rejection of the establishment by this group and the rise of outsiders like Sanders and Trump. Trump won but his focus on keeping stock prices up for the ten percent of the population which own ninety percent of the stocks and his continuation of high military spending just continued previous trends.

  107. There are TWO economixes: political economics and theoretical economics. The main differences are: (i) The goal of political economics is to successfully push an agenda, the goal of theoretical economics is to successfully explain how the actual economy works. (ii) In political economics anything goes; in theoretical economics, the scientific standards of material and formal consistency are observed.

    Theoretical economics (= science) had been hijacked from the very beginning by political economists (= agenda pushers). Political economics has produced NOTHING of scientific value in the last 200+ years. Economics is a failed science, or, in Feynman’s term a cargo cult science. The Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is a fraud because there is NO such thing as economic sciences.

    Theoretical economics has to be judged according to the criteria true/false and NOTHING else. Truth, in turn, is well-defined by material/formal consistency. Criteria like good/bad or good/evil or like/dislike or useful/useless or right/left do NOT apply.

    So, for the question of whether Keynes’ General Theory is scientifically true or false, his sex life is IRRELEVANT. It is relevant, though, for politics because argumentation in the political realm consists of not much more than shit-throwing and blackmailing. Steve Penfield’s piece is a telling example of this genre.

    Obviously, Steve Penfield deals with the ‘paradox of thrift’ entirely on the emotional/moralistic level: “Regarding his relentless assault against individual ‘thrift’ — made futile now by ongoing inflationary debasement — the hedonist Keynes loved public adoration and hated anything that required patience and self-control. Accordingly, he championed an ideology that merely reflected his own personal preferences at the expense of everyone else.”

    Now, the fact of the matter is that Keynes happened to be right on this specific point. The (simplified) macroeconomic Profit Law says Q≡(G−T)+(I−S) and in the most elementary case Q≡−S, i.e. the business sector’s loss is equal to the household sector’s saving. We all can agree that such an economy has a short lifespan. On the microeconomic level, the individual saver may be a good and responsible person, on the macroeconomic level, the savers spell doom for the economy.

    There is a way out, though. The saving S of the household sector can be compensated for by deficit-spending of the government sector, i.e. (G−T)>0. If (G−T)>S, the business sector makes a profit. And this is exactly what happened historically.

    The Profit Law implies Public Deficit (G−T) = Private Profit Q, so the policy of deficit-spending/money-creation provides a free lunch for the Oligarchy. Accordingly, the financial assets of the Oligarchy grow in lockstep with the public debt of WeThePeople. The interest on public debt is taxed from WeThePeople and paid to the Oligarchy. This, in a nutshell, is the modus operandi of late capitalism. Picking up momentum in the 1970s, the public debt now stands at ≈ $23 trillion.

    The fact of the matter is that the so-called free-market economy is NOT self-regulating and self-optimizing but already for a long time on the life support of the state. Profit is in the main produced by public deficits. The Oligarchy, in turn, uses the opulent free lunches to corrupt the state’s legislative, executive, judiciary institutions in its favor. This constitutes a self-accelerating positive feedback loop, the very opposite of an equilibrium system.

    Keynes did not really understand how the monetary economy works.#2 However, with his macroeconomic approach, he came closer to the truth than the Austrians of which Steve Penfield is an intellectual heir. Austrianism never rose above the level of gossip and shit-throwing. It’s economics at its worst.

    Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

    #1 The unconditional surrender/sellout of science

    #2 Cross-references Keynesianism

    • Replies: @utu
    , @TheTrumanShow
  108. @Majority of One

    Your quotation is applicable to many people, particularly the Zionist operatives that are busy in many cases creating the very problems of poverty and oppression they are ostensibly against. On the issue of homosexuality between private adult individuals that is their business and not a subject for public discussion as long as they don’t make it a public issue. As far as public figures and especially public officials I agree with Jefferson that they having assumed a public trust should be an open book.

    Keynes was a public official effecting public policy with the tax payers money. We have every right to scrutinize his lascivious, perverted lifestyle. Jesus was not hesitant to condemn the Pharisees that liked to pray on the street corners, as vipers and sons of the devil because of their hypocrisy and false teaching. Neither did the Apostle Paul mince words when he wrote his letters to the seven Churches of Asia Minor.

    Homosexuality is not just an alternate lifestyle that should be condoned and even promoted but the sign of a declining, degenerate society afflicted with people acting out perverse sexual delusions to a dead end. The article I copied to this site earlier shows how Keynes and his entourage including members of the Fabian Socialist Society (latter merged to the Royal Inst. of Int. Affairs of which the CFR is an offshoot) not only wallowed in their depravity but expressly desired to spread this plague throughout society and enlisted the help of other degenerate notables to accomplish this objective, including the pioneer Psychoanalyst charlatan Freud and friend of the Royal Family Bernard Shaw.

    These people in powerful positions will naturally attract and seek out converts. Long time Speaker of the House Denise Hastert was an obscure high school coach until recruited to join high level queerdom where he could journey all over the world at tax payer expense to proselytize for sodomites. Sexual perversion is not limited to the sodomy crowd but is useful for the Zionists to get dirt on many top officials. Trump, Clinton and Prince Andrew and many others have compromised whatever integrity they had (little or none to begin with) and are in the bag.

    I Corinthians 6:9-11 NKJV
    Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

  109. @Majority of One

    The Constitution says money shall be gold and silver. This was referring to the states who had been coining their own money as sovereign entities before the Revolution and it had naturally resulted in rapid depreciation. The federal gov. would also fall in the same category as the states since it also had no authorization to use anything else as per the 10th amendment.

    The move to install the Rothschild banking cartel had been going on since the fabricated panic of 1907. Engineered by Paul Warburg and maneuvered through congress by Nelson Aldrich (maternal grandfather of Nelson Rockefeller) it failed the first time but latter as you state was illegal passed.

    The letters from the syphilitic Wilson held by Zionist Jew Harold Untermeyer were just icing on the cake. The conspirators had to get Taft out of office because he would not go along with the banking scam. They set up Zionist operative Teddy Roosevelt with his 3rd party to pull votes from Taft so they could get their puppet actor Wilson in office. Wilson in his inflamed mind had delusions of grandeur as leader of the League of Nations but in reality at the Treaty of Versilles he was shoved in the background and the show was ran on all sides by the Zionist Jews in order to lay the groundwork for WW2. Wilson was practically catatonic for most of his second term. All of the succeeding Presidential puppets might as well be for they are just front office cheerleaders for the Zionist Agenda.

  110. @Joe Levantine

    The subject of usury often comes up. This originated with the false teachings of the Catholic Church.
    I have copied the Parable of the talents where the master (Jesus) deals with this issue:

    Matthew 25:14-30
    King James Version
    14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.

    15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.

    16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.

    17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.

    18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.

    19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

    20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.

    21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

    22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.

    23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

    24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

    25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

    26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:

    27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.

    28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.

    29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

    30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

    Usury or interest is just the cost of money over time. All capital has a price including money. Governments and banking cartels cause huge maladjustment’s in the market because of manipulating interest rates which adversely effect the time value of money and therefore all business decisions. This is part of the problem with Keynesianism since it not only waters down the existing money stock but distorts the markets actions. A metric cannot be part of what it measures as in a fiat system. If it changes in the economy it cannot be a reliable measurement of the economy. This brings back the importance of gold as a reliable gauge because it does not change.

    Real estate has now been securitized while investment in real production has withered. When the tie to gold was broken in 1971, governments pushed real estate as a financial haven from depreciation. This has contributed greatly into turning the U.S. from an industrial power house to a financial real estate game.

    • Replies: @Joe Levantine
  111. “And what are the top students of Mises, Rothbard et al doing about it? Nothing useful that I can find, and certainly not offering any semblance of a creative solution that might actually work.”

    David Stockman, Ron Paul. To the contrary of you those people did sacrifice their time, their money, their career, to get elected and tried to do something.
    And I am sure that Dr Ron Paul knows that bank credit creation is counterfeiting. Like all the people writting on Zerohedge. Because they aim at the head, you just allow yourself to presume that they don’t know. Either you don’t understand political or your ego is overblow.

    By the way, you don’t need gouvernement to verify every once in every vault of every bank. You just need to cancel the banking licence that allow this counterfeiting. Then jail every trespasser. That is the way smallgov works.

    As for those who explain that currency is counterfeit credit, you have Keith Weiner a student of Antal Fekete

  112. Mefobills says:

    In civil claim Court, the banker wants to avoid at all cost the question: Where did you get the money or credit that you loaned to the borrower?, because the only truthful answer is: From the borrower.


    They create it at debt. All of the legalize you spout doesn’t change reality of ledger mechanics.

    Here is Werner explaining it in simple terms. The bank creates the credit and it “appears” in your account. They scrupulously avoid the term “deposit,” to avoid legal complications.

    Here is an actual case study of how it works. This is the first time in history that the experiment was run and data collected. The idea is to silence critics who make things up out of ignorance.

    • Replies: @utu
  113. @Mark G.

    Good points. I suspected as much. Thanks

  114. @Joe Levantine

    Good info, thanks. On the overall “evil of usury” (and the distortions it brings) I’ll be addressing that more in Part 3 in a couple months.

    You mentioned that: “England did live usury free from 1291, when all … bankers were banished from England, until Cromwell’s revolution that brought back the bankers…”

    I’d like to learn more about that period. Any good references you can point to?

  115. Malla says:
    @mark tapley

    Was Criminal President Lyndon Johnson’s wife Jewish? She looked Jewish and many claim she was Jewish or crypto.

  116. @Wizard of Oz

    Hey Wizard,

    Yes, Fisher developed a theory of debt deflation to explain the severity of the Great Depression that was unfolding. It demonstrated the downward spiral that occurs when inventories must be liquidated in a depression to pay debts, leading to deflation and bankruptcies. Fisher believed that the debt was the product of boom-time speculation, which was correct. His solution was to dramatically increase reserve requirements at banks, I believe up to 100% although I don’t have the book handy. There was no FDIC then, and Fed policy was relatively restrained to by today’s standards – I believe largely limited to the re-discount rate – and Fisher’s concern was the safety of deposits.

    I cannot comment on the compatibility of their views, since it’s been several years since reading Keynes, although I believe that they both held each other in esteem. I think Fisher’s concern was shoring up the rapidly deteriorating balance sheets of private citizens, and if I recall he did advocate using the powers of the federal government to do so. He was no anti-government conservative, which is probably why the ideologues on the economic right ignore him or insult him.

    I believe many theoretical problems arose in Keynesianism not from Keynes himself, but from the more ideological followers like Sameuelson and Heller. I believe their theories provided left-wing politicians the ammunition to unintentionally perpetuate the stagflation of the 1970s. These same ideas have crept back into mainstream economics since 2008.

  117. @Steve Penfield

    Hi and thanks! I will work on the questions but it will take a little while. I finally got sprung last night from six months of this wretched lockdown in Africa and am on my way home (currently at Heathrow) to the west coast of Canada.

    You are regardless correct in it being all about terminology. We humans are cogno-linguistic and we perceive reality largely as a function of the language that we use to describe it. Tim.

  118. @mark tapley

    Thank you for your spot on analysis. Though we have to caution that the parable of the talent does not imply approval of usury. Making profit from trading is not against Christian tenets as long as both trading parties are incurring the same risk of nature, such as a farmer of cucumbers bartering with a farmer of tomatoes, according to Saint Thomas Aquinas.

    Luke 6:35 but love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High…

    While I admit my knowledge of the New Testament is way from perfect, my point about usury is that it is the tool that allows the parasitical banking class to claim way more than their fare share of the economic pie. When bank loans create money out if thin air through fractional banking, the advantage is by and large with the lender. A fairer system is where a banker is brokering a loan between the depositor and the borrower on terms that are fair to both parties while claiming a commission in return. This would cut out fractional banking and restrict any financial loss from loan defaulting to the specific depositor who is privy of the loan’s risks and rewards.

    • Replies: @mark tapley
  119. @Steve Penfield

    Michael Hoffman mentions it briefly in his book “ Usury in Christendom”. Unfortunately, I have no other reference for the time being. I would be delighted if any commentator would suggest a good book about this particular era of English history.

  120. @Majority of One

    The coming of Christ and his new covenant is the focal point of the Bible and was prophesied in Genesis long before the Roman Empire even began. Jesus was not an enemy of money lenders as is shown by the Parable of the Talents but just the crooked racket run by the Sanhedrin with their money changers.

    The doctrine of Original Sin was an Augustinian doctrine that stated that man was inherently evil. This is not taught in the New Testament. Instead the Bible teaches that we are born sinless and are in a safe condition since young children have no accountability. The Bible also says that all have sinned (that have reached the necessary accountability) and fallen short of the glory of God. That is why those who are followers of Christ have an advocate to the Father.

    The philosophy of Christianity even if rejected as our good news for salvation has done far more to instill the virtues and moral character required for civilization than any other. From the individual, to the basic family unit to the organization of our rule of law and western culture, Christianity has been critical to this process and the benefits of this philosophy have spread all over the world.

    Keynes and his crew of perverts were privileged elites similar to the Rich Man spoken of in the parable. They will be judged accordingly.

    Luke 12:48
    But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

    Matthew 7:13-14
    13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

    14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

    • Replies: @Joe Levantine
    , @Mefobills
  121. @mark tapley

    “ The philosophy of Christianity even if rejected as our good news for salvation has done far more to instill the virtues and moral character required for civilization than any other. From the individual, to the basic family unit to the organization of our rule of law and western culture, Christianity has been critical to this process and the benefits of this philosophy have spread all over the world.”

    Maybe that is why with the death of Christianity we are witnessing the suicide of the West, both phenomenons pushed by the money lenders.

    Thanks again for a great post.

    • Thanks: mark tapley
  122. @mark tapley

    “ With the banking cartel as mandated by Marx (Moses Mordecai Levy) in the Communist Manifesto they control the banks and the issuance of credit through interest rates.”

    A quote from Mikhail Bakunin’s “Etude sur les Allemands Juifs”:

    Marx is a Jew and is surrounded by a crowd of little, more or less intelligent, scheming, agile, speculating Jews, just as Jews are everywhere, commercial and banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers of all shades; in short, literary brokers, just as they are financial brokers, with one foot in the bank and the other in the socialist movement, and their arses sitting upon the German press. They have grabbed hold of all newspapers, and you can imagine what a nauseating literature is the outcome of it.Now this entire Jewish world, which constitutes an exploiting sect, a people of leeches, a voracious parasite, Marx feels an instinctive inclination and a great respect for the Rothschilds. This may seem strange. What could there be in common between communism and high finance? Ho ho! The communism of Marx seeks a strong state centralization, and where this exists there must inevitably exist a state central bank, and where this exists, there the parasitic Jewish nation, which speculates upon the labor of the people, will always find the means for its existence.
    In reality, this would be for the proletariat a barrack regime, under which the workingmen and the working closely and intimately connected with one another, regarless not only of frontiers but of political differences as well – this Jewish world is today largely at the disposal of Marx or Rothschild. I am sure that, on the one hand, the Rothschilds appreciate the merits of Marx, and that on the other hand, women, converted into a uniform mass, would rise, fall asleep, work and live at the beat of the drum; the privilege of ruling would be in the hands of the skilled and the learned, with a wide scope left for profitable crooked deals carried on by the Jews, who would be attracted by the enormous extension of the international speculations of the national banks.”

    • Thanks: mark tapley
    • Replies: @mark tapley
  123. @TimothyMadden

    Thanks for your very detailed & illuminating answer.
    I think I get most of it but this part I don’t think I understand:
    “If the purpose is to buy a $100,000 house and property, for example, then the pretended banker arrives with nothing, and walks away with the lead-underwriter (pretended-borrower) owing them $100,000 now under the promissory note, plus another $100,000 on the maturity date, plus interest in the meantime, plus the legal title to the house, plus an endorsed check from the seller / vendor for $100,000, all in exchange for his bare and unsecured agreement that he owes the seller $100,000.”
    Perhaps being Australian things are different here, but doesn’t the reinsurers $ 100,00 only become into play if the borrower defaults ? Doesn’t the lender’s $100,000 go straight to the vendor ? (via the intermediary banks etc Minus fees etc).
    I do get the pretended banker “arrives with nothing”. But I also don’t get the “plus another $100,000 on the maturity date,”. Where does that 100,000 come from ?
    Thanks for your patience.

  124. @advancedatheist

    “What if some combination of technological advances turns gold into a throwaway commodity, like what actually happened to aluminum over the last 200 years?”
    I think we both know the answer to that question: assuming gold became effectively supply unlimited, good old supply & demand would really take over & we’d see a “decline” in the value of that precious metal. (it would still retain its technological & cosmetic demand … to some degree)

  125. @Steve Penfield

    Alfred – I agree. I also picked up on the weak excuse you replied to about someone demanding: Show me your credentials… or keep your mouth closed!

    You don’t seem to know 101 of Economics. Fiscal Policy is under the control of Federal Government which is the Federal Budget and Actual Spending. This is the only tool.

    The Monetary Policy is under Private Banks, under Federal Reserve System, which sometimes is called, Feds, which is controlled by greedy Bankers with three tools.
    1. Printing Money
    2. Interest Rate
    3. Deposit to Loan Ratio

    Your article is titled Fiscal Policy but the article itself is mambo, jumbo of both Fiscal Policy and Monetary Policy and then it is put in the grinder of Politics, Greed and so forth.

    I haven’t heard any reasonable arguments to explain those enormous failures running wild in our economy. Much less, any realistic ways out of that mess.

    It is been supposedly the Democrats who want big Federal Budget and supposedly the Republicans who want a Balanced Budget. When is the last time any politician has mentioned Balanced Budget?

    So, there is more to it than you can even perceive!

    Best regards,


  126. @Steve Penfield

    I haven’t heard any reasonable arguments to explain those enormous failures running wild in our economy. Much less, any realistic ways out of that mess.

    Federal Reserve System (fed) sounds like a government body, owned and managed by Federal Government, rather than a private body owned by the Greedy Bankers.

    Must have heard, “State Bank of ……”; or “National Bank of …..” or “Federal Bank of …..” and so forth and so forth.

    With trillions of USD in Federal Deficit the Fiscal Policy is out of the window. And, with Bubba Clinton’s creation of Banks, too big to fail (Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citibank) the Monetary Policy is out the window too!

    And, you want someone to tell you how to get out this mess, when there is no Political Will.

    Best regards,


  127. The most difficult thing associated with a financial stimulus, is how to allocate the stimulus and who subsequently would benefit from it. Whereas the rentier class of stocks, bonds and real estate owners benefited handsomely from QE’s, its trickle down effect to the lower strata of society was practically nil. This is in direct contrast to the Keynesian stimulus that was carried out in Germany in 1933 which managed to reduce unemployment from 25% to 3% in two years by making sure the money flowed into infrastructure and industrial projects, hence the subordination of finance to industry.

    The continued use of QE’s ad infinitum for the sake of keeping the stock market from correcting in a significant way, is akin to the old tactic of extinguishing forest fires be they man made or nature made. This fire control strategy caused all kind of dead wood to cumulate to the point when the big fire finally starts, it is impossible to extinguish it. For how long can constant and bigger fiscal deficits (Keynesian) coupled with monetary juicing of the markets ( neo Freedman monetarism) keep the stock market afloat is anybody’s guess. One thing is for sure: the end will be tragic.

  128. @Steve Penfield

    The banking cartel will always use scams such as Keynesianism, stimulus, quantitive easing or whatever current term to cover up the continuous wealth transfer to the top. In a free market economy as you are proposing two things are required to stop this theft and also gain a real measure of the monetary system. First we have to have a metric that is not part of what it is measuring. A gauge that is outside of the turmoil of the markets as George Gilder states it. Gold has always been the standard for this for thousands of years. Then we must also have free market interest rates or the time value of money. The banking cartels always manipulate interest rates to their favor and therefore distort the real market and create maladjustments in long term economic planning. Interest rates are being kept low in order to benefit the FIRE sector as opposed to real production.

    Usury or interest is a critical part of the free market that you propose. Financial control through the central banking cartel is the number 1 weapon of the globalists. Gold redeemable currency and free market interest rates would create a system of economic prosperity where everyone would benefit from increases in productivity, not just the fiat bankers and their Wall St. cronies.

  129. @Joe Levantine

    In your excellent post Bakunin exposes who is really behind the so called communists. That is why Bakunin spent most of his time in prison while the highly connected Marx got a free pass. Most people don’t know that Marx (Levy) was from a family of wealthy Rabbis and that he was funded his entire life by his uncle Lyon Philips, the wealthy founder of the early industrial corporation, Philips. His mother’s sister was married to a Rothschild and Marx wife Jenny Von Westphalen was from royalty on both sides.

    Communism (Judaism) was an entirely Jewish enterprise and Marx was a family operative used to help keep the Proletariat dividend and weak against the emerging industrialists. He also created dissension between the low class workers and their natural allies the Bourgeoisie. The monarchies were also targeted as in the big revolts of 1848 in order to establish “democracies” or as was commonly termed, governments run by Jews. Bakunin could be describing Jewmerica with its shabbos goy politicians and Israeli foreign legion (U.S. military).

    • Thanks: Joe Levantine
  130. @Joe Levantine

    Fractional reserve banking was created in sin from it’s inception. When a centraly controlled group is put on top of it then it becomes a banking cartel as was established in Britain in 1694 and here in 1913 although we had a precursor lead in to it all the back from the sodomite and murderer A. Lincoln. The present system was designed to give control to a private cartel, to transfer the money through insidious depreciation to the top and therefore eliminate their biggest enemy, the middle class and also to become financially sovereign so its “to big to fail” cartel members could get trillions in payoffs for their wealthy Wall St. cronies.

    On the issue of usury. The passage from Luke is a general admonition to not take advantage of people, even our enemies. You have to realize that money has a price like any other capital. Jesus confirms this in the parable when he tells the 1 talent servant that all he had to do was put it with the money lenders (bankers of the day) and they would have paid him for the use of his money (talent was a unit of money). The false conception of usury was started by the Catholic church. The Jews having been thrown out of 109 countries due in large part to their predatory financial practices, certainly did not help the situation. The Muslims supposedly avoid usury with up front or back loaded payments or what could be called commissions but all of this is just a subterfuge. Interest is an honest cost for the use of financial capitol. Fractional reserve banking and fiat money monopolies are inherently fraudulent.

  131. utu says:

    This TimothyMadden guy was here several years ago under a different name. He seems to be in some sort of psychosis.

  132. utu says:
    @Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

    I sometimes wonder whether the Austrians were not some kind of a psy-op to pervert and capture the impressionable minds of not too bright youth and turn them into the useful idiots for life for the oligarchy. In America nobody defends the right of the rich to be rich more than libertarians who are poor.

  133. @Mark G.

    Hello Mark G. You bring out a lot of good points that deserve commenting on. Politicians like an inflationary system as you state because it allows them to use a form of hidden tax to fund the big gov. agenda of permanent wars and the giant military, huge social transfer payments and massive bureaucracy of unconstitutional programs by using deficit spending from the central banking cartel. If not for that they would have to tax directly or issue bonds (debt plus interest). Since shabbos goy LBJ’s Great society programs began in the 60’s, over 15 trillion has been thrown down the rat hole on welfare programs. Just think how many real jobs would have been created and how much productivity would have been generated if this money would have been left in the producers pocket.

    The modern socialist state would not be possible without the communist plank of a banking cartel either private or run by the gov. in order to fund all the “free programs” and pass the cost on down to citizens that are not even born yet. In our present Rothschild engineered (Paul Warburg) system all of this predation was designed in at the begining. The cartel gained financial control over all the banks. It was set up to create constant monetary depreciation in order to transfer the wealth to the top and wipe out the middle class as Keynes attested too. The provisions for the multi-trillion dollar bailouts were built in from the start.

    The Bretton Woods pact allowed there U.S. to export much of it’s inflation overseas while Jewmerica continued to pour out more money on wars and social programs. For some however the dollar wasn’t enough and they still demanded redemption in gold so then the game was over and Rockefeller puppet Nixon slammed the window shut.

    After WW2 much of Europe and all of Japan was in shambles so Jewmerica had a big advantage in manufacturing output. Over time as other countries improved their capital equipment they naturally became more competitive. The Japanese following the teachings of D. Edward Dimming just out competed the U.S. in many areas especially when G.M. had the attitude of “to hell with em, if we make it they will buy it.” Medical care and education were very affordable here until the government got involved. In then 60’s you could buy full medical coverage for very little per month. Once medicare started the medical industry saw a cash cow on the way. Same thing for higher ed. Not until the government backed the banks with student loan guarantees did the investment companies (I mean Universities) get their hand in the till.

    1973 was the peak year for regular people in Jewmerica since there had been so much wealth built up by the labor of productive individuals for 200 years. A prosperous society of contented goyim does nothing for the Zionist syndicate. In order to make progress they have to have war, hatred, and conflicts of all types. Jewmerica’s middle class must be wiped out and the standard of living lowered so we can to be comfortably merged with 3rd world rat holes.

    All the wars you mention are just part of the long term Zionist plan including the current phony “War On Terror” fabricated to balkanize the Arab countries for Greater Israel. As Hillery said “the best way we can help Israel is to attack Syria.

    The theft operations by the Sovereign Rothschild banking cartel are getting worse and more frequent. In 08 we had the bailout for billionaires for trillions to pay off the super rich bond holders and now our shabbos goy congress has approved another multi-trillion theft for the cartel and its Wall St. cronies under the cover of the fake virus and the staged fake Floyd riots.

    You mention the low class as being shielded. They have been cultivated on the governments welfare plantation and propagandized by the race baiters ever since Jacob Schiff (funder of the Bolsheviks) founded the NAACP in 1907 and supercharged by the Jew run “civil rights mov.” and the general attack on white culture. This is known as pressure from above and below. The Zionists (socialists) need a dependent lower class in order to syphon wealth from the productive segment of society and create class warfare as with the staged riots.

    The real problem here Mark is in the comment about the Zionist operatives, Bernie Kibbutz Sanders and shabbos goy Netanyahu cheerleader, Trump. I won’t go into detail here but they are both just puppet actors for The syndicate. Trump’s top 4 donors in 2016 were and still are the Zionist Jews. They are the main donors for both the fake Dem. and Rep. parties. The Presidency has been controlled since Wilson was placed in office by the Zionists in 1910.

    Lots of corporations in Jewmerica were facing serious difficulties due to the need to pay off bondholders so in March the long planned fake virus was sprung so trillions more has gone to the clique at the top while at the same time bankrupting millions of people that were in the middle class as well millions of businesses. Much more real estate will now be picked up by the Jews at Black Rock as was done in 08. The fake virus with the goys and their face diapers has been a huge success for the Zionists and their operatives. Just as they made millions off the short sales before 911, the coming fake vaccine scam will rake in billions for all those elites in the syndicate.

    • Thanks: Mark G.
  134. @Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

    Profligacy/waste & needless /expenditure-consumption are beneficial nowhere in nature.

    Conservancy, the opposite of profligacy, is everywhere the demonstrable law of nature and corroborated by the conservation of energy laws of physics.

    That which is beneficial for the parts cannot by definition be detrimental to the whole, and vis-versa, regardless of the skillfulness of the argument.

  135. Steve Penfield maintains “1) all bank credit is inflationary, 2) all credit inflation involves counterfeiting, and 3) all counterfeiting amounts to organized theft.” And “In banking, the first step in ensnaring society in the trap of fiat credit began with the simple act of lying: pretending to store more wealth in a banker’s vault than honest accounting could demonstrate.”

    Keynes is known to have been pro-fiat-money and anti-gold-standard. The fact that fiat money is created ‘out of nothing’ upsets many people because it reminds them of the alchemists’ fraudulent claim of being able to turn shit into gold. To this day, the Austrians cannot get over the replacement of gold by fiat money as a transaction medium and blame Keynes for inflation and other economic ills as a result of the original monetary sin.

    The fact of the matter is that there is nothing wrong with the central bank’s creation of money out of nothing as long as the money is injected on the supply side, i.e. for financing a growing wage bill that results from increasing employment. Problems arise if the money is spent on the demand side. In this case, it has the same effects as counterfeit money.#1

    The fiat money system has indeed a weak point that can easily be exploited for political purposes. In our days, it is the MMTers that push Wall Street’s agenda in their lectures and on social media and push with the propagation of deficit-spending/money-creation the central bank in the role of a counterfeiter.

    • The counterfeiter never runs out of money.
    • The counterfeiter never stops stealing stuff from the rest of society.
    • The counterfeiter increases the profit of the business sector with his additional monetary demand. The Profit Law implies Public Deficit = Private Profit.
    • The counterfeiter causes merely an almost imperceptible one-off price-hike (NO inflation).
    • The counterfeiter poses as a good guy and boasts that he promotes growth and employment.
    • The counterfeiter ‘solves’ any problem from unemployment to pandemics to global warming with deficit-spending/money-creation.
    • The counterfeiter continuously increases the public debt but says that it does not matter.

    While Steve Penfield repeats the old rants about banks and bankers, MMTers/Wall Street/Trump pull off the greatest profit explosion of all time before his very eyes.#2

    Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

    #1 Criminals and the monetary order

    #2 Keynes, Lerner, MMT, Trump and exploding profit

  136. @haha

    “Keynes was the one economist who crafted economic theory for application in the real world.”

    What other (useful) reason would there be for such a “crafting.?”

    There is no “theory”, let alone an economic theory, “capable for (sic) application in (sic) the real world.”

    Theories are just unproven hunches. Not to mention that there are far too many incalculable and unknown variables at play in an economy for it to be genuinely mathematically determined..

  137. @TheTrumanShow

    You say “Theories are just unproven hunches.”

    Obviously, you do not know the difference between hypothesis and theory. Sit up and take notice.

    1. “In order to tell the politicians and practitioners something about causes and best means, the economist needs the true theory or else he has not much more to offer than educated common sense or his personal opinion.” (Stigum)

    2. Science manifests itself in the form of the true theory.

    3. Truth is well-defined by material and formal consistency.

    4. Logical consistency is secured by applying the axiomatic-deductive method and material consistency is secured by applying state-of-the-art testing.

    5. The true theory/model is the humanly best mental representation of reality.

    6. The main approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, MMT ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent and all got the foundational economic concept of profit wrong.

    7. Because the foundations are false the analytical superstructure is false.

    8. Economics is scientifically worthless.

    9. Economic policy guidance (left/center/right does not matter) NEVER had sound scientific foundations. It’s just opinion and blather.

    Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

  138. @Miro23

    Balzac said: Behind every great fortune there is a great crime. Government has it’s hand in everything now and the elite who control the government intend for society to work for them. Madison recognized this problem long ago when he said that if the people gain too much power they will get their hand in the till and ruin the gov. If the aristocracy (the rich) gain too much power they will enslave everyone else.

    The whole banking structure is under the Rothschild banking cartel. Not just in Jewmerica but in practically all countries of any consequence. This system was engineered to gradually reduce the middle and lower classes into debt peonage as the wealth is transferred to the top. Keynes stated it:

    By a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some….The process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner that not one man in a million can diagnose.” – John Maynard Keynes Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920

    We have experienced an inflation rate since the cartel was instigated in 1913 of an avg. 50% every 17 years. It has not been as noticeable as normally would be the case because the U.S. has had such a large and dynamic economy. That is changing. This depreciation process will always wipe out the middle class and that is what the Zionists want. It will also get worse now since the criminal syndicate did the bailout for billionaire program in 08 and is now stealing trillions more under cover of the fake virus and staged riots.

    This is not just a case of insatiable greed but rather a carefully crafted generational plan to destroy all the countries and replace them with a global Neo-feudal totalitarian system, region by region. Even though the Jew controlled MSM doesn’t advertise this coming technocratic system it is not a secret and has even been laid out in the U.N.’s documents as the Sustainable Development Initiative or Agenda 2030-21. China is the NWO model with it’s Social Credit Total Surveillance and Control System.

    The long planned fake virus, fake test and fake numbers similar to the fake AIDS “epidemic” and all the other fake flu viruses is designed to condition the goyim to give up their natural rights over a hoax that has never been isolated or identified by any scientific method. We laugh at people from the Middle Ages who believed in vapors coming up to get them in the night or spontaneous generation but are the cucks today any different just because Bill Gates criminals with The WHO-CDC use more sophisticated jargon. All part of the same program from the same Zionists that instigate the wars, global warming (now on the back burner), 911, WMD’s , fake shootings such as Los Vegas, fake Floyd and staged riots. The process begins in the financial realm but the goal is total control.

    • Agree: Joe Levantine
  139. @anarchyst

    Construction trade unions do, in fact, sponsor their own pension and benefit plans. It may surprise you, but many employers are opposed to giving unions that authority, exactly for the reason you suggest, it would create more loyalty to the union than employer.

    I am no expert on the various right to work laws in different states, but the notion of a “closed shop” outside construction trade unions, which are also hiring halls for unionized construction companies, is rare. What is more common is the “modified closed shop” where those covered by the Collective Agreement are required to pay dues, but not be members. The union was obligated to represent them, because these people received the benefits of the C/A. This was in place long before right to work laws were passed.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  140. @obwandiyag

    What you describe is the horseshit of “shareholder rights” i.e. share value taking precedence over a sound business plan.

  141. anarchyst says:

    The “modified closed shop” that you describe is called an “agency shop” for union purposes. Within a certain time frame, employees are required to “join” the union, or pay an equivalent in “agency shop” fees in order to keep their jobs.

    Some states have always been “right to work” states while other are still “agency shop” states.

    “Right to work” legislation gives workers the choice whether or not to join a union. “Right to work” legislation merely negates the “union security clause” which mandates union membership as a condition of employment–nothing more. Every other part of the union contract remains in force.

    If unions were smart (they’re not) they would contract with the major health insurers to provide health insurance across bargaining unit lines. You would see workers clamor for union membership just for the health benefits. This “safety in numbers” already gives the unions great clout.

    While the “right to work” debate goes on state-by-state, the National Labor Relations Board gave unions an “out” which they refused. The NLRB proposed that unions could deny representation to non-union members. The unions fought this, as irregardless of union dues paying members (or the lack of), there are still advantages to having all members of a “bargaining unit” represented by unions, whether dues-paying union members or otherwise.

    I have been on both sides of the union debate, being a committee representative (union steward) as well as being an employer.

  142. @mark tapley

    “We believe that any comprehensive analysis of Christ’s teachings on money must include a commentary on His “Parable of the Talents,” and “Parable of the Unjust Steward,” and the “Mammon of the Unrighteousness. The misunderstandings of these discourses has been used to portray Our Redeemer as a usury advocate, or at least an apologist”. Usury In Christendom, pp. 50-58 by Michael Hoffman.

    Here I admit that before reading this life changing book, I understood the Parable of the Talents to be an advocacy for interest on money. Unfortunately, I am geographically too far away from my library to be able to refresh my mind about Dr. Hoffman’s full interpretation of the Parable, which at the time of reading it, managed to totally refute the principle of interest payment. Here, Dr. Hoffman did a scholarly analysis of the way the Catholic Church strayed from its traditional stance on charging interest and his critique of the Papal connivance over usury is solid like the rock that was meant to be the foundation of the Church.

    If I manage to get hold of the book, I will make sure to relay Dr. Hoffman’s ideas. Sensing from your comments that you are a principled man of truth, I strongly recommend that you read this book which would make any economist reassess the notion of ‘ earned interest’ and the true meaning of usury.

    • Replies: @mark tapley
  143. @mark tapley

    Usury in Christendom: interpretation of the Parable of the Talents:

    Bible scholar Ted Weiland: … Note first that in addition to accusing the nobleman of being an austere or hard man, the wicked servant also accused him of taking up what he had not lain down, and reaping what he had not sown. In other words, he has accused his master of being a thief. … the master responds, ‘ Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down…Wherefore then gavest no thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?’

    “ in other words, if as a servant, he considered his own master a thief, then as a servant of a thief, the very least that he could have done was steal for his master in a way that could have not put him at risk- by PUTTING HIS MONEY IN A BANK THAT PAID USURY.

    We have to accept that this is an interpretation that could be deemed subjective, though I personally find it very convincing and coherent.

  144. @Mark G.

    “ The white working class was the group most harmed by this. Things got so bad for them that starting around 2000 their average life expectancy started decreasing.”

    Here you hit the nail on the head about the decline of the American Empire. Emmanuel Todd, a French writer who authored the book ‘ Apres L’Empire’ about the USA around 2003, predicted the financial collapse of 2008 and stated that during the military heydays of the Soviet Union, their worst indicator of a declining empire was the longevity statistics that was showing a downtrend since the sixties, when in the West, the USSR was used as the bogeyman to justify higher military spending. The falling longevity of the White Middle classes in America was heralded on many occasions during the past decade with marked glee in the toilet paper of record, The New York Slimes. The erosion within White society will continue unabated no matter who occupies the White House.

  145. Mefobills says:
    @mark tapley

    Jesus was an enemy of the money lenders. You should read Hudson’s latest book, “and forgive them their debts.”

    • Replies: @mark tapley
  146. @Joe Levantine

    Economics claims to be a science, but it is NOT. This has to be kept in mind when in the next days the “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” is awarded.#1 Economists are NOT scientists but clowns and useful idiots in the political Circus Maximus. Since Adam Smith/Karl Marx, economics has never been anything else than political propaganda in the garb of science.

    Needless to emphasize that the general public has no real chance to figure out that economics is fake science: “They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. … But it doesn’t work. … So I call these things cargo cult science because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential.” (Feynman)

    What is missing for 200+ years is the true theory. However, as political agenda pushers, economists do not suffer from their scientific incompetence but, in fact, enjoy their life in the swamp between true and false where “nothing is clear and everything is possible” (Keynes). Like everybody else in the disinformation business, economists apply the idea of scientific truth not as a guiding principle for their work but as a Potemkin façade.

    Economics is in the main storytelling without scientific content. People who have been educated by the entertainment industry like this junk.#2, #3

    A pretty obvious case of brain-dead agenda-pushing is when the discussion turns to history or even to stories from the bible. Time to realize that the bible is a literary forgery from the first to the last page.#4

    Economics cannot be based on history because it is well-known that history is for the most part a literary construct.#5 So, always when the argument becomes historical or psychological or biblical it is pretty obvious that some troll is trying to lead a clueless public deeper into the swamp.

    Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


    #1 The real problem with the economics Nobel

    #2 Psychologism: how morons explain the world

    #3 Economics as storytelling and entertainment for the masses

    #4 The First Millennium Revisionist, How Fake Is Roman Antiquity?

    #5 Links on History and Economics

    • Replies: @Joe Levantine
  147. @Mefobills

    I have not read Hudson’s book yet but I am somewhat familiar with his thesis. As I have pointed out in the parable of the Talents (money) we see that the master (Jesus) comends the two servants who have doubled their talents. The other one was condemned for doing nothing and the owner tells him that all he had to do was put his money with the money lenders (bankers). We are admonished to treat others fairly in all dealings, but I find no problem with collecting interest on the time value of money. This fallacy is the result of Catholicism which appeared on the scene over 200 years after the first century Church was established on the day of Pentecost.

    From reading Hudson’s interviews on Unz, he focuses on the debt Jubilee as practiced in ancient Mesopotamia. I think most of the population were serfs in this big grain growing region and this was a method used in order to keep them tied to the ruling elite rather than falling into debt peonage to someone else. Hudson also discusses the Hebrews. They were under the Law of Moses and they had to comply with I believe over 600 edicts in this theocracy where everything was strictly regulated. The 10 northern tribes were carried off by the Assyrians and probably ended up at the Euphrates working the irrigation ditches with the first group.

    My biggest problem with Hudson is that he favors confiscatory taxation on the land owners and the so called rent seekers. Property ownership is one of the key elements of a free market system and is necessary for capital formation. The worst thing that can be done is to tax producers and land owners and give it to the dead hand corrupt government. The 15 trillion dollars thrown away in welfare spending since LBJ’s Great Society programs is a prime example. the 11 million per day just in “defense” spending for the thugs of Israel is another one.

    The steady depreciation of the dollar (backed by nothing) since the banking cartel began has resulted in a real estate Casino type economy in order to compensate for this steady theft that has wiped out the middle class. If we had retained our limited republic of sovereign states and a very limited national gov. then taxes would be so low as to not be an issue for anyone. There is nothing worse than giving money to the government since they will waste it or apply it to some kind of racket like the present fake virus to benefit all their cronies.

    The Zionist syndicate is plundering us all in order to establish a Neo-feudalist totalitarian system. Interest rates or the time value of money is critical for the millions of decisions needed every day in a complex economy. When they are manipulated by a cartel of criminals instead of the market it causes serious maladjustment. The other problem is that in a fiat system there is no measurement of the real economy. You can’t have a metric that is part of what it measures. If it is changing all the time in response to the economy, it is not a reliable measuring tool. That is why gold has been used for thousands of years.

    • Agree: werpor
  148. @Joe Levantine

    Hello Joe: The name Micheal Hoffman sounded familiar so when I checked I see he wrote the book “Adolf Hitler Enemy of the German People.” Hitler bent over backwards to avoid this Zionist contrived conflict but that is another story. The first problem here is that you and Hoffman are referencing everything to the Catholic Church.

    The Catholics did not begin until over 200 years after the founding of the New Testament Church of the first Century. If you study the text you will see that Christ is our advocate and mediator with the father, not an earthly priest as under the Law of Moses for rolling the sins forward for another year. The congregations of the Lords Church are autonomous entities with no central authority because none is authorized in the N.T. Elders (or Bishops) are authorized for each local congregation with very specific requirements. The subversion of this office is how the Catholics got started. Peter was a married Jew and the keys of the kingdom referred to are the gospel of the Lords Church.

    The only question as with all Bible issues is not what Hoffman or me or you or what anyone else says but only what does the Bible say. The term usury in some cases refers to excessive interest. I am just citing it as it was used in the parable of the talents. The master simply stated that all the wicked servant had to do was put the money up to collect interest. Usury was forbidden for the Jews to charge other Jews under the Law of Moses and this is no doubt were this idea comes from. Today no one is under the Law of Moses therefore this edict does not apply. It is very important to rightly divide the New Testament from the old.

    best regards


    • Replies: @Joe Levantine
  149. @mark tapley

    My post #149 ended with “Economics cannot be based on history because it is well-known that history is for the most part a literary construct. So, always when the argument becomes historical or psychological or biblical it is pretty obvious that some troll is trying to lead a clueless public deeper into the swamp.”

    Mark Tapley’s post #150 begins with the bible story of the Talents and then goes further back to Moses.

    From this alone one can safely conclude that Mark Tapley is an agenda pusher and it is not too hard to see that he pushes the agenda of Uncle Scrooge.


    Uncle Scrooge is known for sitting on a huge pile of gold/money, for lending large sums to the state as the most attractive borrower, charging a risk-free long-term fixed interest, and also to be heavily invested in real estate, which has the known property of steadily increasing in value in a growing economy.

    As it happens, Uncle Scrooge and Adam Smith started their careers about the same time: “Adam Smith, when he wrote his Wealth of Nations, and Burke, when he produced his famous speech on economic reform, understood by ‘political economy’ a ‘branch of the science of the statesman or legislator’, a theory of practice, the science of the prudent management of the public finances. The growth of the huge debts which weighed on the great military nations would end in proving their ruin. This was especially true of England, which had become immensely in debt through the conquest of her colonial Empire.” (Halévy)

    When gold was the transaction medium, Uncle Scrooge was the gatekeeper and at the height of his economic and political influence. This changed with the introduction of fiat money and the technical possibility of commercial banks to create the additional money that was needed for the steady growth of the stock of real capital.

    So, the argumentation of Mark Tapley is easy to understand.

    Uncle Scrooge

    • is pro-bible because the story of the Talents justifies interest, and anti-catholic because the early church condemned usury,

    • hates the fiat-money bankers because they ended his gold supply monopoly and with it the rich and steady source of risk-free interest income as well as political power,

    • is less than enthusiastic about the revival of the ancient idea of debt jubilees,

    • fears inflation because it devalues his huge stock of government bonds,

    • cautions against new debt because this increases the risk for old debt,

    • hates the state when it levies taxes for welfare spending on top of the absolutely necessary interest payments,

    • warns against confiscatory taxation on the landowners because “property ownership is … necessary for capital formation” well knowing that capital formation does no longer depend on the landowners.

    Mark Tapley covers his agenda-pushing for the Oligarchy with cheap Tea Party populism: “There is nothing worse than giving money to the government since they will waste it or apply it to some kind of racket like the present fake virus to benefit all their cronies.”

    This is a bit ungrateful because the Oligarchy thrives since the Napoleonic wars on the government’s deficit spending and the steadily growing public debt. It holds Financial assets of the Oligarchy ≈ Public debt of WeThePeople.

    Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

    • Replies: @mark tapley
  150. @mark tapley

    While an admirer of Michael Hoffman, his book about Hitler I have not read nor I am inclined to read it anytime. The only credible reference to the true events of WWII I managed to get through the writings of David Irving and Mike King.

    “ The only question as with all Bible issues is not what Hoffman or me or you or what anyone else says but only what does the Bible say”

    Here we are tackling an age old problem, which has been a knotty bone of contention between Protestants and Catholic’s, with Protestants more inclined towards a literal interpretation of the Gospel, at the risk of being erratic such as when they claim that salvation comes from believing in Jesus Christ notwithstanding the actual worldly deeds of the believer, while on the other hand Catholics overindulge in interpreting the Gospel to the point the Jesuits consider that if there is a conflict between the promulgations of the Pope and the texts of the Gospels, their allegiance will go to the Pope. The same problem exists between Sunni and Shia Islam.

    I did followed up with comment 146 that interprets the Parable of the Talents in ‘Usury in Christendom’ which I hope you have read, even though suspect that it is a Catholic interpretation. While Hoffman’s research about what constitutes usury draws heavily on the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, I would tend to agree with him that usury is simply the charging of interest as there is no objective scale that would determine what interest level constitutes usury. The famous Catholic scholar E. Michael Jones concurs with Hoffman about the principle of sterility of money in the sense that it is a metaphysical impossibility to defend the concept of money breeding money.

    Many thanks for your valuable contribution and best regards.

    • Agree: mark tapley
  151. @Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

    In my post 102, I mentioned an ex economics professor who was a Cambridge graduate and who worked for a multinational company before joining academia. This was the most remarkable economics professor I ever had because he was always challenging the major tenets of economics and had a total dislike to economic charts. He would pull some article clipping from the Economist from the 1930’s that did advocate Free Trade only to trash the theory as being cult like.

    While I agree with you that economics is not a science, I would still classify it as an art. Science is based on observable facts of nature whereas economics is based on the changing, erratic and subjective assumptions related to human nature.

    Bypassing the issue of whether economics is science or not, I would rather ask myself the question: is the world better off without economists? Here, I say that there has been many destructive economic theories such as Marxism, but overall I think that the many economic theories of the Austrian School and of Keynes, even though contradictory in so many respects, did contribute to a better management of human welfare in general. Any economic theory can be a double edged sword such as Keynesian applications in Germany in 1933 which by and large was for the benefit of the working class versus current day Federal Reserve Keynesian economics for the benefit of the ultra wealthy.

    Here we should not forget that calling economics a science is not the only aberration since we have had many scientific announcements such as Einstein’s theory of relativity that had been declared total quackery by the most prominent scientist of the 20th century, the formidable Nicolas Tesla.

  152. @Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

    My only agenda is for more liberty and less government. In order to clarify things we need to determine the purpose of government. Is its primary purpose is to serve the agenda of the elite Zionist criminal syndicate? From contriving all the wars (including the phony Cold War) to 911 and the permanent “War On Terror” for Greater Israel with the massive military expenditures. The Zionists who are disciples of Leo Strauss and his Hegelian philosophy, always use the thesis-antithesis to maximize damage, profits and societal control.

    From fake moon walks to the new ice age to we’re running out of oil to overpopulation and the Great Lakes are dying. Depleted ozone to mercury is ruining the oceans and The Club of Rome’s global warming hysteria. H1N1, H5N1, SARS, West Nile, Ebola, Bird Flu, Swine Flu, the phony AID’s “epidemic and now the Zionists long planned Covid 19 fake virus, fake test and more fake numbers and soon to be fake vaccine. Lets not forget the many fakes shootings such as Los Vegas or the fake Floyd staged riots used in conjunction with the fake virus as a cover for the looting of more trillions as in the bailout for billionaires program of 08. This is just a sampling of our governments activities.

    There is no gold supply monopoly in a free market. Gold is merely the metric in which the economic progress is measured. A metric that is that is independent of the economy it gauges. That is why the banking cartel always moves to get rid of it to be replaced with fiat entries. As we look back since the cartel’s official inception in 1913 the average depreciation rate has been about 50% every 17 years. You seem to think this is a good monetary program. Note what Keynes said about it:

    By a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some….The process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner that not one man in a million can diagnose.” – John Maynard Keynes Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920

    Fiat banking is the financial arm of the Zionists global conspiracy. Just as the other items I mentioned are also integral parts in their goal. Had we been on a gold based free market currency then yes everyones money instead of depreciating to nothing would have increased over what would have been the greatest era of human progress and efficiency in history. Instead the wealth has been pilfered to the top as Keynes states openly. Instead of lifting all boats this swindle has sunk the middle class and vastly expanded the lowest tiers.

    I do not believe people should be taxed on their property because as Washington stated “the power to tax is the power to destroy.” When we look at history it is clear that where everyones property rights were best protected is where the country is the most prosperous. Rome’s success is to a large extent due to it’s protection of property rights. When we look at the Muslim countries where all the property was controlled by the mucky mucks at the top we see a long history of stagnation and backwardness. Why do you think Marx (Moses Mordecai Levy) chose as his no. 1 plank, the abolition of all property? Could it be because the Zionists have long known that when people lose their property rights, they will lose all their rights? The other planks in his manifesto are really just there in order to accomplish No.1.

    Now we come back to the original question. What is the function of government? Since all governments are inherently inefficient, wasteful and corrupt then I believe Jefferson’s axiom “that government that governs least governs best.” This is especially relevant when we realize that government produces nothing but merely transfers the wealth from producers, while wasting or stealing most of it in the process. That doesn’t leave much that fall within the scope of what are truly proper functions for a legitimate government. It seems to me that the whole purpose of it then is to protect our Natural or God given rights and nothing else. That means Enforcing property rights, providing for national defense (as opposed to operating the Israeli Foreign Legion) maintaining a court system, and local law enforcement. We would all be more free, more wealthy, more satisfied.

    • Replies: @Joe Levantine
  153. You say: “My only agenda is for more liberty and less government.”

    You certainly agree that this is a political agenda. Everyone is, of course, entitled to climb on a soapbox and to spread his opinion. As a result, the world is drowning in shitty opinions. The fact is that nobody needs opinions, what is needed is knowledge: scientific knowledge.

    The ancient Greeks realized this long ago: “There are always many different opinions and conventions concerning any one problem or subject-matter … This shows that they are not all true. For if they conflict, then at best only one of them can be true. Thus it appears that Parmenides … was the first to distinguish clearly between truth or reality on the one hand, and convention or conventional opinion (hearsay, plausible myth) on the other …” (Popper)


    This insight, obviously, has not yet arrived under the rock where you live.

    Economics is about how the economic system works. It is NOT about the sex life of Keynes, nor about liberty, nor about fake moonwalks, nor about global warming. True, economists are relentlessly blathering about all these things but this only proves that they are stupid/corrupt agenda pushers that have NO idea what science is all about.

    Science is about knowledge, politics is about opinion and belief. The plain fact about economics is: Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, MMT, and Pluralism are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/ formally inconsistent, and ALL get the foundational concept of profit wrong.

    Let this sink in: economists do not know to this day what profit is because they are too stupid for the elementary algebra that underlies macroeconomics.#1 And this means that economics from Adam Smith to Marx to the Austrians to Keynes and beyond is proto-scientific garbage.

    Economists have NO idea of how the actual monetary economy works. Economics is NOT a science but the natural habitat of morons, agenda pushers, confused confusers, blatherers, fraudsters, trolls, disinformants, and fake scientists.

    This thread deals with financial fraud and Keynesianism. Now, the absurdity of the situation is that while you are waffling about property rights in ancient Rome#1 the greatest financial fraud is pulled off right before your eyes.

    The correct macroeconomic Profit Law implies Public Deficit = Private Profit and this means that the current explosion of deficit-spending/money-creation will result in the largest profit explosion the world has ever seen. And it is academic economists, MMTers more specifically, who provide the ‘scientific’ cover for this plain distributional fraud and sell it as a benefit for WeThePeople.#3

    Economists are once again the agenda pushers for the Oligarchy. Adam Smith was in this business, Karl Marx also, Keynes too, Hayek and Friedman too, and, of course, the brain-dead opinion spreader Mark Tapley.

    Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

    #1 Profit

    #2 How Fake Is Roman Antiquity?

    #3 Very busy these days: Wall Street’s agents

  154. @mark tapley

    Wonderful wrap up of the sorry state of affairs that is ailing the world.

    With respect to Mr. Egmont Kakarot-Handtke’s emphasis on science as the way for real advancement, I would only comment that a lot of what we have learned in the way if survival came through trial and error and empirical science which as humans gave us the instinct of survival that allowed us to replicate our genes for millennia while science and philosophy empowered us to transcend our quest for longevity to engaging into the higher truth. Yes science is part of the process of elevating the human soul beyond the mundane endeavours, but science is hardly an accurate pursuit of the truth as it is bound to evolve most of the time into new concepts that totally demolish its previous findings. Meanwhile, the abandonment of truth and fair play by the ruling elite through the crooked vehicle of government is human beings’ assured road to self destruction.

  155. @Joe Levantine

    You and Mark Tapley are propagating obsolete Austrianism. The Austrian core assertion is that Laissez-faire would result in a stable economy with overall optimal outcomes. This assertion has NEVER been proven. The provable fact of the matter is that the market economy is inherently unstable.

    So, the very premise of Austrian economics is false and because of this, the whole verbal superstructure is false. Austrian economics is scientifically worthless and Austrian pro-liberty and anti-state rhetoric is just political agenda pushing.

    Reality is at odds with the popular ideas of a free-market economy and Laissez-faire.

    The axiomatically correct macroeconomic Profit Law states Q=(G-T)-S and this means that the greater part of the profit in the United States is actually produced by the state. The US economy hangs for a long time already on the state ventilator for its survival.

    The policy of deficit-spending/money-creation is ultimately a means of postponing the breakdown of the US economy. It is a free lunch for the Oligarchy. Financial wealth of the Oligarchy grows in lockstep with public debt of WeThePeople. Take the state away and Capitalism as we know it breaks down. Laissez-faire is a pipe dream.

    There is nothing more mendacious than the populist anti-statism of the Austrian school.

    Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

  156. @Joe Levantine

    Egmont propounds that his opinions are science based while all the rest just push a certain agenda. I do believe that most people (and economists) have an agenda and we just have to examine the evidence for the truth as best we can. Keynes admitted his program was a fraud as my quote by him demonstrated. I see no difference in the MMTers. I believe Adam Smith provided valuable insights into the nature of how economies should work and the effect of government maladjustment.

    Science is used more than anything else to drive an agenda. By shrouding issues in scientific jargon the average person is many times duped as we see now in the fake virus, fake test, fake numbers and soon to be fake virus. Most people look at issues at a very superficial level as with this medical fraud. They don’t focus on things hard enough to gain the necessary understanding. Another good example is the whole vaccine scam from the beginning. Another widely promoted theory that is part of the Zionist agenda is evolution. All the top scientists with all their expensive laboratories cannot even create the simplest protein or even begin to show how an inanimate object can generate into a living organism in which even the simplest ones require the input of complex information that can only come from an intelligent being.

    God created man with the intelligence and provided the tools for mankind to prosper. In the Old Testament the Jews for almost their entire history were under tyrannical rule from their own people or under a foreign yoke. Their sin resulted in the destruction of their priesthood, sacrifice and temple. Today because of their ignorance and apathy people are oppressed by those who desire to use the power of government to make society work for them.

    You mention David Irving. By not being a good court historian he has been subjected to lots of persecution from the Zionists. He does a very good job of exposing the Zionist shill and con man Churchill. Another very informative book is “Hidden History” The Secret Origins of the First World War” by Gerry Docherty. He starts with the Boer War then goes into the extensive planning required by the Anglo Zionists to initiate WW1.

    As you state the situation with the ruling elite is ominous. Never before has the entire world faced a global criminal cartel. And one that is far along in their objectives of achieving a Neo-feudalist system of total control. This Zionist syndicate make Julius Caesar or Napoleon look like neighbor hood hoodlums. Thanks for the kind remarks and look forward to corresponding again.

    • Agree: Joe Levantine
    • Replies: @Joe Levantine
  157. @Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

    The free market economy by it’s very nature would result in stability and prosperity for everyone except the cartels that control the gov. for their own benefit. You are well aware of the swindle performed by the Rothschild agents including the Rockefeller, Morgan interests and financial engineered by Paul Warburg with the help Senator Aldrich. This scheme was not put in place as an improvement but to distort the market for the cartels own purposes. They hate a gold based system because gold would be a metric to gauge their thefts. A true indicator of the economy, not a Keynesian fraud to syphon off the wealth of producers into the pockets of the elite and their friends.

    Government produces nothing except debt and maladjustment of the real economy. I guess you think LBJ’s great society boondoggles or the phony wars helped the average person in this country. These socialist frauds only helped the politically connected at everyone elses expense. That was the reason for them in the first place. A real Laissez-faire economy would have instead directed capitol to the most efficient areas of production and investment. You sound like one of Stalin’s Apparatchiks.

    Wealth of the elite does grow with the power of the state as is evident from the massive thefts in 08 and again now under the fake virus. The more power the Sovereign Bankers have, the worst it will be. If all this extortion money collected by the corrupt state was left in the hands of the producers not only would we still have a vibrant middle class but millions more would have pulled themselves out of poverty and dependency by real jobs in a real free market economy that lifts all boats rather than being pushed down the economic ladder to the bottom of a socialist rat hole.

    There is a free lunch for the oligarchy. It’s called big government. Thats why they could never compete in a real competitive free market economy.

    • Agree: Joe Levantine
  158. @mark tapley

    Today the “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” is awarded. Each year, economics ceremoniously claims to be sciences.

    Science is well-defined for 2300 years: “Research is in fact a continuous discussion of the consistency of theories: formal consistency insofar as the discussion relates to the logical cohesion of what is asserted in joint theories; material consistency insofar as the agreement of observations with theories is concerned.” (Klant)

    The fact is that the main approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, MMT ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent, and all get the foundational economic concept of profit wrong.#1 Because economists lack the true theory their economic policy guidance has NO sound scientific foundation since Adam Smith/Karl Marx.

    Economists are a hazard to their fellow citizens: “Late in life, …, he [Napoleon] claimed that he had always believed that if an empire were made of granite the ideas of economists if listened to, would suffice to reduce it to dust.” (Viner) Economists bear the intellectual responsibility for the enormous social devastation of mass unemployment since the Great Depression. Right policy depends on true theory.

    Economics is vacuous political drivel. In order to prove this, you need merely read your own stuff.

    The EconNobel is the widely visible landmark of economists’ scientific fraud. On the street level, this fraud is perpetuated with populist slogans by social media trolls like you.

    Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

    #1 Wikipedia, economics, scientific knowledge, or political agenda pushing?

    • Replies: @James Charles
  159. @Steve Penfield

    “Inflation can and does occur in a perfectly healthy economy. In fact, since 1913 when the Fed
    was founded inflation in the USA has consistently risen at 3.5% per year on average.3 One might
    assume that this means the country has experienced some great injustice, but the truth is that the
    1900’s were characterized by the greatest economic expansion and wealth creation the world has
    ever seen. Despite the common citation that “the $USD has lost 9x% of its value” Americans
    experienced an unprecedented period of prosperity during this inflation. In fact, the prosperity
    became so gross in the 1990’s that Americans felt entitled to second homes, second cars, and
    just about every other luxury good known to man. What has not occurred is hyperinflation, which
    is a very different animal than inflation.”

  160. @Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

    “This paper has suggested a simple model that can account for the key anomalies of the traditional monetary approach. It disaggregates the quantity of credit into a ‘real’ and a financial circulation. In time periods, when the ratio of credit in the financial circulation to credit in the real circulation rises, the simple quantity theory must be expected to disappoint, as it is a special case of the more general quantity theorem of disaggregated credit. In such time periods, a financial boom is likely, as asset prices are driven up by speculative borrowing on the back of collateralised assets. This explains why the traditional monetary quantity theory was not popular in the 1920s and 1930s, and again in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Then the traditionally defined velocity of money declines and excess credit creation can ‘spill over’ as foreign investment. However, during time periods such as the 1950s, when in many countries credit was mainly channeled into the real economy, asset prices remained stable and the traditional quantity theory could be expected to hold. The fact that the model can account for the major anomalies observed in many countries over many time periods demonstrates generality and robustness.
    The empirical results for the Japanese case have been unambiguously supportive. The Japanese asset bubble of the 1980s was due to excess credit creation by banks for speculative purposes, largely in the real estate market. The apparent velocity decline is shown to be due to a rise in credit money employed for financial transactions, while the correctly defined velocity of the real circulation is found to be very stable“

  161. @Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

    “ The policy of deficit-spending/money-creation is ultimately a means of postponing the breakdown of the US economy. It is a free lunch for the Oligarchy. Financial wealth of the Oligarchy grows in lockstep with public debt of WeThePeople. Take the state away and Capitalism as we know it breaks down. Laissez-faire is a pipe dream.”

    Yes, very much true. Though notice here that you are putting under the spotlight the dichotomy of an economic system that cannot be classified as laissez faire, nor as a command economy. It is a hybrid system ever since the Federal Reserve came into being where the price of money is centrally controlled while the free market is allowed some leeway, taking into consideration the labyrinth of red tape, at the microeconomic level. This is just fraudulent economics where we have seen lately the massive monetarist intervention by the Fed and a fiscal policy by the US government that are designed to benefit the ultra rich by juicing the markets. It is a system that combines Milton Freedman with Keynes with the usual shenanigans that would ensue from such an impossible union.

    I agree with you that Austrian economics is not fail proof, but judging by experience, I would say one country which in the sixties applied laissez faire to a very large decree was Lebanon with stunning economic results leading to growth rates of between 10 to 15 %. Basically, the central bank would only supervise banking activities while avoiding any involvement in underwriting the government’s debts as the policy of the government at that time was to stick to balanced budgets while avoiding the trap of an elaborate welfare state. The system was not perfect and had some major deficiencies such as giving the power of monopoly to many businesses involved in imports, but the downfall came because of mainly political reasons related to a multicultural society.

    Small government means small mistakes, whereas bid government means big mistakes like LBJ’s Great Society, disastrous wars like Vietnam and Iraq led by a voracious MIC, and a self serving bureaucracy that is no more confined to the public sector but the private sector as well such as the Diversity Department of Michigan University with a budget of 11 million Dollars.

    Laissez faire might not be perfect, but it sure can protect the interests of the middle class more than other forms of governance from extreme capitalism to extreme socialism.

    • Agree: mark tapley
  162. @James Charles

    You say: “However, during time periods such as the 1950s, when in many countries credit was mainly channeled into the real economy, asset prices remained stable and the traditional quantity theory could be expected to hold.”

    The traditional quantity theory has been summarized as: “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” (Milton Friedman, quoted in @James Charles’ link above)

    Now, the traditional quantity theory is proto-scientific garbage, like everything else from Milton Friedman.

    The macroeconomic Law of Supply and Demand states for the case of an elementary production-consumption economy P=ρ W/R with ρ>1 meaning deficit-spending, W wage rate, and R productivity.#1 The point is that the quantity of money is NOT among the price determinants, meaning that the traditional quantity theory is false.

    So, a fiat money system as such is NOT the cause of inflation. To put the blame for creeping inflation on Keynes as pro-fiat/anti-gold advocate is just Austrian shit-throwing.

    Creeping inflation happens, of course, and it is mainly a problem for the holders of government bonds, i.e. the coupon-clipping rentiers. It can be said that Austrianism is not a scientific thought collective but rather the public relations arm of the rentier class.

    Note that Austrians never formally refuted Keynes’ General Theory and replaced it with something better, instead Murray Rothbard wrote a biography with extensive details about Keynes’ sex life.

    Economists are scientifically incompetent, but Austrians never rose above the level of lobbying and shit-throwing.

    Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

    #1 Links on Inflation

    (Link to paper did not work when I tried)

  163. @mark tapley

    “ Science is used more than anything else to drive an agenda.”

    Unfortunately, the science that Nicolas Tesla tried to advance for the good of mankind is as extinct as interrogative journalism. Though, I would add to your list of fake agenda driven science the most extensive fraud perpetrated over the past thirty years and that is the science of global warming and geo-engineering.

    “ Never before has the entire world faced a global criminal cartel. And one that is far along in their objectives of achieving a Neo-feudalist system of total control. ”

    Indeed, notice how all the major central banks communicate with each other and how the Federal Reserve is becoming more like a world bank than an American central bank. The combination of financial control with the much ballyhooed communication technology is the worst nightmare for any freedom and dignity loving human being.

    I think that the impetus of any new economic or social ideology should center first and foremost on human dignity as a value in itself given the tragic control that the Covid hoax has allowed the technocracy to exercise over our daily lives.

  164. @Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

    “Economists are scientifically incompetent, . . . ”

    Here: is an economist who uses inductive reasoning and econometrics to explain that the main determinant of econ0mic ‘growth’ {necessary and sufficient conditions} is an expansion in credit creation used for GDP transactions.

  165. @Joe Levantine

    I used to think that the Club of Rome’s global warming fraud was the biggest Zionist scam (next to fiat banking) but now this medical fraud has proven to be lots worse because instead of being an abstract specter on the horizon (always just another ten years) like the elephant in the distance, the fake virus brings fear to a personal level.

    It is well known that at least a third of people who go to the doctor really are suffering from a psychogenic condition and will tend to believe any treatment is effective. They have even (after 10 years to finally get approval) have performed pretend knee surgery (just put a little incision in the skin) on people who were convinced they had a very serious knee problem. After the sham surgery, many of them wanted the doctor to do the other leg too. Many people subconsciously convince themselves they have covid. That is also why the CDC has put just about every possible symptom on the list.

    The fake virus is a very potent propaganda tool also because it is reinforced by the fake PCR test and the fake numbers thrown out every week. And last but most important it is conditioned in the livestocks minds with the use of the masks and social isolation so as the people of medieval times thought that vapors were likely to sweep in at night and envelope them with a plague, or primitive natives think that the witch doctors can ward off evil spirits, the cucks today think the “covid” is going to drop out of the sky at any time and get them.

    We know that during the bailout for billionaires program of 08 that the FED applied money to some foreign banks but Bernanke refused to disclose amounts to congress. The banking cartel is a sovereign entity now and our shabbos goy congress does not oppose them. The Zionists have financial control over just about all the countries as Quigley stated 50 years ago. It is now just a matter of weakening national sovereignty and merging all of the regions. This will be done through another manufactured crisis in order to induce the goyim to hand over the rest of their liberties. From the success we see from the fake virus that won’t be hard to accomplish:

    The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank . . . sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.”
    ––Prof. Carroll Quigley, Georgetown historian, mentor of former President Clinton, and author of Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, 1966, p. 324.

    “The impetus of any new economic ideology should center first and foremost on human dignity.” Here you bring out the basis for the Zionist -socialist ideology. And that is the reason for the theory of evolution that has permeated education, media and films. Evolution denies God, and mankind as his highest creation but rather portrays humanity as just another livestock to be managed on the global plantation.

    • Replies: @Joe Levantine
  166. @James Charles

    Tried the link again, does not work (Server-IP-Adress not found)

    • Replies: @James Charles
  167. @mark tapley

    Thanks for the effort, the substance and the style.

    About Bernanke’s shenanigans like financing foreign banks, I have read an interesting book by Joseph Stiglitz “ Le Triomphe de la cupidite “. Though Stiglitz is not a model renegade technocrat, he exposes quite some gems about the big fraud of 2008.

  168. @Joe Levantine

    You say: “I think that the impetus of any new economic or social ideology should center first and foremost on human dignity as a value in itself.”

    Obviously, you do not understand. Social ideology is not the point at issue. Humanity has more than enough of ideology. You can flush ideology/religion/history down the toilet. The longevity of this sociopathological storytelling proves only one thing: people can be made to believe any bullshit for any length of time.

    Every time you board an airplane with the expectation of landing safely 10 hours later in some foreign country, the idea should pop up in your head that this has not been made possible by politicians, priests, ideologues, journalists, or any other member of the blathering class but by scientists/engineers/mathematicians.

    To this day, economics is ideology and not science. Economics is provably false and the blunder lies at the level of elementary algebra.#1 This scientific disgrace is bad enough but the whole thing turns into fraud when economists award themselves a prize for sciences, i.e. the “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”.

    Your talk about social ideology and human dignity tells one that you do not understand the difference between politics and science. Politics is an issue for the 99% of stupid/corrupt agenda pushers, science is an issue for the 1% that has preserved some human dignity, i.e. is committed to science/knowledge/truth. It is of utmost importance to secure the separation of these two spheres because science cannot improve politics but politics can corrupt science. In the political sphere, there is NO human dignity.

    Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

    #1 Wikipedia, economics, scientific knowledge, or political agenda pushing?

    • Replies: @Joe Levantine
  169. @Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

    You think Friedman didn’t know what he was talking about? After the big bailout of o8, Warren Buffet also predicted for inflation to excelerate. Is everything he says and does also garbage? All countries on a fiat money system (which is all of them) will depreciate the value of the currency. When banks extend credit into the system or the central bank covers the treasurys yearly deficits (many billions) this new money will lower the value of the existing currency. Some will say that the stimulus will increase productivity to offset the depreciation but this is just a temporary fix that causes a maladjustment in the market.

    Governments and the private banking cartels as expounded by Marx (Levy) will always depreciate the currency. That is why they created the cartel in the first place. It’s no wonder the degenerate pedophile and sodomite Keynes was so highly acclaimed by the Zionists who needed someone of their own moral standards to promote the deficit spending scam. One thing I have noticed however is somewhere along the line they will usually tell you what they are really doing as does Keynes:

    By a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some….The process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner that not one man in a million can diagnose.” – John Maynard Keynes Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920

    Without a stable economic system that encourages savings and capital formation, science and technological advancement would be very limited. The history of most of Africa is a good example of this.

  170. @Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

    “ To this day, economics is ideology and not science“


    “ Politics is an issue for the 99% of stupid/corrupt agenda pushers, science is an issue for the 1% that has preserved some human dignity, i.e. is committed to science/knowledge/truth. ”

    Agree to this very powerful statement.

    Though you clearly state along science 1-knowledge 2-truth.

    Here I ask you if you consider the works of Greek philosophers to have been as vain as the rest of human ideology that you correctly criticise. While I have never been a fan of Plato, who looks like the darling of the Renaissance and the New Age ideologues, I still think that human scientific endeavours without the compass of philosophy of the likes of Aristotle and Socrates could have made of humans technological barbarians. Science untangled from ideology is the labor of hard, honest and intelligent work which is pure of any subjective and utilitarian human factors. Unfortunately, even a pure approach to science has fallen victim to ideology, human greed, and the unquenchable human desire for control, hence we witnessed the unparalleled career of Nicolas Tesla cut short by the Powers That Be whereas the careers of charlatans and plagiarisers of the Einstein and Darwin types promoted to the highest levels of academia.

    So the basic question is: are humans capable of devoting science to knowledge and truth with the betterment of the human soul as the primary objective without the compass of philosophy thereby untangling science from ideology? I am afraid that is akin to wishing that all kinds of parasites would duly and voluntarily refrain from what they were created to do without the countervailing mechanisms of the resistance of the host. Here I assume that a well intentioned ideology is the resistance to the freeloaders who always manage to subjugate science for their nefarious ends; the technology of the internet that was transformed from a tool for free unrestrained communication to a means of human control through monopoly power and censorship is a case in point.

    I acknowledge that the answer to this question could be beyond my scope of analysis.

  171. @mark tapley

    You say: “You think Friedman didn’t know what he was talking about?”

    This is a proven fact.#1, #2 Friedman was the archetypical political economist, i.e. an agenda pusher for the Oligarchy. First of all, he did not realize that the mainstream supply-demand-equilibrium approach was proto-scientific garbage and he never understood what profit is. So, he was a scientific zero.

    Friedman’s mission was not science but propaganda. As a member of Mont Pelerin, his task was to defend and promote U.S. capitalism and to roll back Keynesianism/Socialism. This he did eloquently with his AEA Presidential Address in Dec 1967. The American Economic Association is the politburo of the profession and defines what mainstream economics is.

    As a representative of the Chicago School Friedman was practically on the payroll of the Oligarchy. And he did a good job. Rockefeller called the university ‘the best investment’ he ever made.

    For abusing academia as a platform for political agenda pushing this fake scientist was awarded the fake Nobel.

    Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

    #1 Forget Friedman, forget the Quantity Theory

    #2 Milton Friedman, fake scientist

  172. @James Charles

    THX for the link. Richard Werner’s piece is far superior to anything the quantity theory folks in general and Steve Penfield, Mark Tapley, and Joe Levantine have ever brought to the table.

  173. Mr. Penfield:

    You use 12,100 words to describe all of the occurrences that have taken place in the United States, which caused our country to be in its current condition. I did not see any “solution” that you propose to get the United States back to being a SOLVENT country which produces useful things that people can purchase and actually use, and in doing that, to be gainfully employed in the production of those things.

    I entered the work force full-time in 1973 and began my first worthwhile job as an industrial electrician in 1974. It was very fortunate that I had learned a skilled trade and have managed my money wisely, during my 40+ years as an industrial electrician.

    You mention “union fascism” – allow me to explain a few things about union membership and what it has done for our country. I was a member of the United Auto Workers Union, having become a Journeyman Electrician through their auspices. When Walter Reuther was president of the United Autoworkers Union, there was absolutely NO corruption in that union. He would not allow it. Next to John F. Kennedy, Walter Reuther was the most respected American in all of Europe. That was because the citizens of the various countries of Europe knew what he did to benefit union workers (and ALL other American workers) and they knew that his honesty was beyond reproach. But “they” KILLED HIM – the “they” being the truly fascist elements of the United States who did the bidding of the financial interests and those of the large corporations.

    Likewise, Jimmy Hoffa did everything that he could to benefit the members of the Teamsters Union (and non-union truck drivers, as well). Jimmy Hoffa was very highly RESPECTED by the companies that he dealt with. He knew what was in the contracts, because he wrote them. As with Walter Reuther of the United Workers Union, “they” killed Jimmy Hoffa.

    You need to do some research on the REAL American economic conditions that began just before World War II and into the 1960s, when American unions were at their strongest. It was in THAT TIME PERIOD that the Americans’ REAL standards of living were rising, unlike that of the 1970s and beyond. If it was not for the unions, Americans would not have paid vacations, sick leave and other benefits. Do some research – educate yourself!


    Bradley R. Anbro

    retired U.A.W. Journeyman Electrician

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Penfield Comments via RSS
From the Leo Frank Case to the Present Day
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement