Totalitarian journalists

As explained in Fear the Boom and Bust Rap there is dispute between Keynes and Hayek. Keynes want to stear markets, Hayek want them set free.

But the Austrian perspective is unknown to the public. The receptionist did not know Hayek.

I made a search in main Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten for leading Austrian economists and proponents with the following results:

Friedrich Hayek 3 hits (none by journalists)
Peter Schiff 0 hits
Mises 0 hits
Hernando de soto 1 hit

Compare this with results for leading Keynesians:
Keynes: 42 hits
Paul Krugman 36 hits

The Austrians are simply non existent in the press. These facts reminds me on «Tormod Valakers 0»Litt fascisme hr statsminister»  the disgracing story about the consistent symphaties with the totalitarian Fascists and Nazi’s in the 30’s by the Norwegian press.

Interesting facts were that during the 30’s 10 years the Italian anti fascist opposition was never mentioned in the norwegian press. Similarely the refuges from Nazi Germany living in Norway was never mentioned. Dead silence. Like the austrian economists they were non existent for the norwegian journalists.

Now this might seem like unrelated events. But there is a second link: In the foreword to the German editon of the general theory in 1936 Keynes wrote the following:

«The theory of aggregated production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state [eines totalen Staates] than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire.»

Keynes is for totalitarians. Central banking is for totalitarians. Journalists are (for a large part) totalitarians.

They did not see the tsunami coming

The economic forecasts from the Central bank hub BIS preceeding the economic tsunami now ravaging the world is interesting reading.

The consensus view for 2005 is for further robust global growth and generally subdued inflation.

The consensus forecast for 2006 is for a continuation of strong growth and low inflation worldwide.

The consensus view for the current year is for a continuation of the broad-based economic expansion


The current consensus view is still that the global economy will slow only modestly further in 2008.

Only in the 2009 wich was published in june it appears that they have noticed the serious impact of the crises.

Similarely the forecasting of the NBER is lagging 12-15 months. Only last monday did the announce that the recession ended in june 2009. Warren buffet is disputing this claiming what everybody except the keynesian *economists* knows: The US and the world is still in a crises.

The planners are looking in the mirror. And they don’t understand what they see there.

These facts should promt any man valueing his own welfare taking the steering wheel from the money wizards. They are, beyond dispute, proven incapable of steering the ship.

Who should take the wheel?

The people should take the wheel.

Society works, by far, best if people manage their own lives. Money is a far to important matter to be left to economic high priests.

  • Being a part in all transactions money is the most important commodity. The production should be left to free competition so we get the best money man can make. The governments monopoly of issuing currencies should be ended.
  • Interest is the fee paid for lending a sum of money a certain time. The interest should be decided be mutual agreement between between the saver and the lender. In this way everybody saving or lending will part in the decision of the interest.

The economic high priest of the country

Robert Murphy made me aware that the Keynesian economic forecasting is lagging some 12-15 months . National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) last monday, 15 months late, announced that the recession ended in july 2009 . Similarely NBER detected the recession 12 months later in 2008. So even if you believe the money wizards know how to stear the economy it is evident that they are steering looking in the mirror.

Arch Keynesian Ola Storeng in Aftenposten has to the point comment on the non scientific religious aspects of the activities of the Central Bank calling the CEO of the central Bank the «economic high priest of the country«

Here is the background for the decision. A lot of very different data’s mingled together and the result is somehow 2%. Amen! In my vocabularily interest is the mutually agreed fee for lending an amount of money a period of time. How are the wizards going to decide that for all of us? Give me a break!

I half listened to the press conferende following the announcement of the decisions. There is a lot of Keynesian nonsens:

  • They are talking about overcapacity. They are telling us that we have to much means of production. The keynesians are telling us we are poor because we are rich! (The correct analyses is that there are malinvestments because of the Central Bank led credit expansion)
  • Norges bank is steering towards a rice in the prices of 2,5%. Magic. Why not 1,5% or 3,5%? Why not let the economy manage itself and let the prices fall slightly because of economic improvement?
  • They see private consumtion as dragging the economy. This is keynesian bulshit. Consumtion is the destruction of wealth. It makes you poorer. All sensible peoples know that they get poorer if they spend away their money. Only brain dead keynesians belive it makes you rich.
  • One of the journalists is fearing av devaluation race. Also the american governemnts mercantilist economists are complaining the yuan is to low. The purpose of trade is to exchange your goods for as much other goods as possible. This means it is benificial to keep your currency as strong as possible. The keynesian economic inside out upside down ignorants wants to get as little goods as possible in return for our exports.

The roots of Holocaust

Richard Evans is investigating the roots of Nazism in his book «The coming of the Third Reich«.  The hatred of the jews is old.  They have been blamed for mishaps like bad harvests, diseases and wars forcenturies. But Richard traces the modern secular form back to the 1870’s when Germany was hit by an economic depression. Many lost their jobs and business and people began searching for scapegoats for their misfortunes.

This provided fertile soil for demagoges like Herman Ahlwardt and Wilhelm Marr who in 1873 published an influental «The victory of jewdom over Germandom viewed from a Non-Confessional Standpoint».

The idea that the jews where the cause of all misfortunes where planted in the germans and *normalized* so that in f.ex in 1893 antisemitsm where incorporated in the mainstream Conservative parti at the so called Tivoli conference.

But what was the real cause of the depression in the 1870’s? What can possibly cause economy wide loss of profits? If you understand but a little economy you know where to look. In desember 1871 silver was demonetized by law in Germany. The same were done in other countries in the early 1870’s to pave way for central banking and the goldstandard.

The effect of the demonetizing was a sudden contraction in the volume of money with the ineviteble. outcome of a depression. The real cause of the depression was (as always) the governements medling with the economy. The jews got the blame. This was one of many unfortunate steps that led to Holocaust.

Forced money

Forced money or legal tender is (unfortunately) a key tenet of modern economics I’ll explain the idea for those of you who are new to this;

The government is giving themselves the monopoly of issuing money in a very subtle way by making their money «legal tender«. In Norwegian «tvunget betalingsmiddel». It means that in any transaction you have to accept the governments money if you are offered it. The cruical paragraph in Norway is § 14 in the Central Bank law. You will find the same law in any country.

( This same paragraph also states that government will NOT enforce contracts in gold ( enforcing contracts is one of the essential tasks of a government). If people are left to organize themselves they use some goods as money. Metals like gold, silver and copper are particularily suitable. So the government outlaw this to avoid any alternative to their paper)

In a division of labour economy money is 50% of any transaction wich is
Money -> Goods or services
Goods or services -> Money.

Both parties in a deal want to go as cheap as possible. Consequently the holder of the money wants to go as cheap as possible. Now if you pause a bit you’ll see that all the government needs to do to get their money monopoly is making the worst money in the country. Any attempt to make better money will fail because nobody will use them as payment. Why pay with good money like gold when you are entitled to get away with the governments shit?

Some people see the government as beneficial institutiuon with competent officials laboring ceaselessly for your welfare. But what to say of this making the governements products the maximum best & impossible for anyone to provide better? Add to it the governments motiviation to create more money to buy their debt thereby diluting the currency. Follow the news about the consequences of the finance (=money) crises.

Do you really believe the governments monopoly of currency is for the betterment of the people?

Søknad på stillingen som sentralbanksjef

Da er jeg tilnærmet ferdig med min stillingssøknad. Min søknad er ingen hemmelighet så jeg offentliggjør den like gjerne med den samme. Søkadsfristen er først den 23 så hvis noen har noen gode tips til forbedringer mottar jeg dem gjerne.

Here we go:

Jeg viser til annonse hos Mercuri Urval og tillater meg med dette å søke den ledige stillingen som sentralbanksjef.

Jeg god til konsentrere meg, er å ta de riktige kortsiktige grepene for å nå langsiktige mål. Jeg har en sunn faglig økonomisk grunnforståelse og er flink til å finne faglige ressurspersoner og rådføre meg med disse på mine mindre sterke områder.

Verdens pengesystem, organisert av sentralbankene, under sentralbanknavet BIS, er i alvorlig krise. Jeg søker stillingen for å redde Norge fra den ulykke det er om politikken videreføres.

Krisen har utviklet seg velsignelse fra det etablerte økonomiske miljø innenfor den merkantilistiske \ keynesianske retning. Vitenskapen utviklet av Østeriske og neoklassiske økonomer som Ludvig von Mises, Friedrich von Hayek, Hernando Soto m.fl. har blitt ignorert. Jeg stiller som kandidat fra den Østerrikske skole. Jeg vil, innenfor de politiske rammer, begrense skadevirkningene av virksomheten så langt som mulig.

Hensikten med Norges Bank er å finansiere statsutgiftene ved å svekke valutaen og trekke på pensjonsfondet. Banken vil under min ledelse bli langt mer åpen om dette. Vi har de politikere vi fortjener. Jeg vil arbeide for å bedre den almenne økonomiske interesse og forståelse.

Målene om finansiell og økonomisk stabilitet oppnås best ved et pengesystem basert på kontraktsfrihet og eiendomsrett uten sentralbank og tvungne betalingsmidler. Jeg vil utnytte min posisjon og mine kontakter nasjonalt og internasjonalt til arbeide for et globalt fritt markedsbasert, finansvesen. Jeg håper at min virksomhet i Norge vil være en ledestjerne og til inspirasjon for resten av verden.

Om ønskelig møter jeg gjerne til intervju, og kan kontaktes på adressen oppgitt ovenfor.
Vennlig Hilsen
Thomas Kenworthy

Jeg har laget en Facebook cause her:!/pages/Thomas-Kenworthy-som-sentralbanksjef/156105881069237

War economy

The american civil war is an interesting case study for war socialism
Google is my friend. Here is a link and a comment.

But first a comment about the cause of the war. How could the country of freedom be engulfed in a civil war? I give the word to Bastiat ( who died in 1850 11 years before the war):

Perverted Law Causes Conflict

As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose — that it may violate property instead of protecting it — then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious. To know this, it is hardly necessary to examine what transpires in the French and English legislatures; merely to understand the issue is to know the answer.

Is there any need to offer proof that this odious perversion of the law is a perpetual source of hatred and discord; that it tends to destroy society itself? If such proof is needed, look at the United States [in 1850]. There is no country in the world where the law is kept more within its proper domain: the protection of every person’s liberty and property. As a consequence of this, there appears to be no country in the world where the social order rests on a firmer foundation. But even in the United States, there are two issues — and only two — that have always endangered the public peace.

Slavery and Tariffs Are Plunder

What are these two issues? They are slavery and tariffs. These are the only two issues where, contrary to the general spirit of the republic of the United States, law has assumed the character of a plunderer.

Slavery is a violation, by law, of liberty. The protective tariff is a violation, by law, of property.

It is a most remarkable fact that this double legal crime — a sorrowful inheritance from the Old World — should be the only issue which can, and perhaps will, lead to the ruin of the Union. It is indeed impossible to imagine, at the very heart of a society, a more astounding fact than this: The law has come to be an instrument of injustice. And if this fact brings terrible consequences to the United States — where the proper purpose of the law has been perverted only in the instances of slavery and tariffs —

Typical economic pattern of modern war

Back to the financing. The war starts happily. People at entusiastic and are willing to buy government bonds to finance the war the expect a short victorious war. Then some three months later when the government issues more bonds and the coffins with conscripts returns in increasing numbers people are less enthusiastic.

The wonder if they will get their money back, they gets tired of the war and refuses lend more money or they simply have no more money to spend.

So how to continue the war against the will of the people? An easy way to finance the war is to simply print the money and pay the bills. But this leads to quicly rising prices and serious economic distortiouns so the governemnts tries to issue more bonds. To make people able to buy the bonds they insert cheap credit via the banking system

And so the killings goes merily on for some two years then finally the credit money results in rising prices anyway. People starts complaining and the government start with price controls wich leads to shortages to be met with rationing and production control spreading to the whole economy.
The war in continually financed by new bonds and new credit from the banking system until at least one of the economies and populations are completely exchausted.


To prevent people wanting to fight each others; Make just laws!

To stop the wars. Get credit control. Abandon the central bank.

Central Banking and war

The 20th century will be remembered for it’s messy war’s. Mass produced machine guns, artillery, tanks airplanes slaughtered millions of conscript soldiers and civilians in prolonged wars. But how where these wars financed? By the governments printing press. Most historicans don’t care about economics. But I challenge you to find any prolonged war that has not for the largest part been financed out of the governments monopoly on issuing currency.

The point can be seen in the Guns Versus Butter model. Most people prefer butter for guns. But as Hermann Göring announced in a speech: «Guns will make us powerful; butter will only make us fat«. How to give people guns when they really want guns? Use the Central Bank!

So the Nazi’s did. You can read the history of the MEFO bills here. The Nazi’s created a fake company which issued bills convertible into reichmark upon demand. In short the armament industri got paid out of the printing press. Put the other way. If there were no German Central bank there would be no guns and no world war two.

These payment of course came at a cost. By diluting the currency the workers got less for their wages and the entrepeneurs got less for their profits. The Nazi’s used the Cental Bank to give the germans guns instead of butter.

This histroical example goes straight to the core of the idea og giving the state a monopoly of issuing currencies: It is s tool for taxing the population against their will.

If you oppose war and mass killings you should oppose the central bank and its monopoly on issuing currency.