Ron Paul Reacts to Ben Bernanke as TIME Person of the Year

Show: Morning Joe
Channel: MSNBC
Date: 12/16/2009


Joe Scarborough: If I could pick someone to follow up Rick Stingle’s person of the year, Ben Bernanke, seriously, it would be our next guest. Introduce him.

Mika Brzezinsk: Republican representative from Texas and member of the Financial Services Committee, Congressman Paul joining us on the set of Morning Joe, nice to have you on sir.

Ron Paul: Thank you.

Joe Scarborough: You actually just wrote a book about the Fed. I mean, by God, tell us? Off camera you were telling me that you think that Ben Bernanke probably deserves to be person of the year because of the power he has.

Ron Paul: Yes, he’s the most powerful man in the world; I believe a case could be made for that. Because he controls the supply of money, which is the dollar, which is the reserve currency of the world. He can create a trillion dollars in secret without any monitoring of the Congress. So, there is no transparency. And I think he’s more powerful than the president.

Joe Scarborough: The president we are talking of here, again the president has all these checks and balances. Bernanke and every other Fed chief operate in secrecy. Like you said, he can create a trillion dollars out of thin air.

Ron Paul: Right. The big question is: has he used that power for good, or for evil? And, of course, my side of the argument is the system is evil, and the chairman, whether it’s Greenspan or Bernanke, they can do no good. They cause our troubles, they cause the inflation, they cause the bubbles. And, therefore, the bust, the correction, is always their fault. So the problems that we have and because this is such a worldwide phenomenon, you know, since 1971 everything has become worldwide and global economy. There is no backing of any currency. And yet our Federal Reserve controls the gold, so to speak, the paper gold. And therefore this whole mess that we’re in, which has a long way to go, has been caused by the Federal Reserve.

Pat Buchanan: Alright, that’s exactly what I was going to ask you. We just heard Rick Stingle say [Bernanke] saved us from a great depression.

Mika Brzezinsk: From the brink.

Pat Buchanan: He pumped 3 trillion dollars into the economy. Who was responsible, if you name one, two, three people or institutions, to take this country, the greatest country on earth, to the brink of a depression?

Ron Paul: Well, the Federal Reserve.

Joe Scarborough: How?

Ron Paul: By creating money out of thin air, causing interest rates to be low, causing the malinvestment and causing an artificial economic expansion that has to correct. Like if you build too many houses, eventually it crashes.

Joe Scarborough: Bernanke gave us the disease and cured it, both.

Ron Paul: Yeah, but there are other things that contributed to it; like Congress having laws that say you must make bad loans and give money to people who don’t qualify.

Joe Scarborough: I got to interrupt you, Pat. You read my book?

Pat Buchanan: Right.

Joe Scarborough: That quote by Ron Paul, and I remember the date: September 10th, 2003. And buy my book or just google “September 10th 2003, Ron Paul“. In September of 2003 you predicted in the banking committee exactly what was going to happen in 2008.

Mika Brzezinsk: Word for word.

Joe Scarborough: Word for word. And I read that and people always say, “Are you making that up?” You knew in 2003 what was going to happen.

Ron Paul: You’re better than I am, I can’t remember the dates. I knew that was the position I’ve taken for years and years. And, matter of fact, I was motivated to go into Congress and run for political office in the 1970s because I understood the principles of malinvestment. But I didn’t come up with these ideas. It’s the Austrian economists and the sound-money people that said this would happen; and they were correct. Matter of fact, when the Bretton Woods System collapsed in 1971, that was the confirmation that Austrian economists were on the right track.

Joe Scarborough: Buchanan, didn’t you want to […] some Austrian economist?

Pat Buchanan: I said something about dead Austrian economists during one of my […]. Murray Rothbard… They were gone.

Ron Paul: He was your friend.

Pat Buchanan: He was always my great friend, but we slam-shut the gold window in 1971. I was with Nixon in August. That’s what you’re talking about.

Ron Paul: That’s your fault.

Pat Buchanan: But look, what were you going to do? They had all that money abroad and if you ask me… the Brits wanted to come in and clean out Fort Knox. What would you have done?

Ron Paul: Well, you should have done a lot more a lot sooner. That is don’t print so much money.

Pat Buchanan: It was LBJ’s guns and butter. But what do you on that day? I mean, my friends tell me you should have let them clean it out. You can’t do that.

Ron Paul: No, I would say that was only half the thing. If you’re going to quit, what you have to quit is printing the money. So we quit handing out the gold, but then we said we’re just going to print money and there is no restraint. So what you ushered in was a system in 1971 which created this huge, huge bubble and that’s where the real problem was.

Mika Brzezinsk: But congressman, given the bubble and given restraint, where would you stand now on regulation? Would somebody like you say less regulation or off to the crisis? Or would you say actually we do need tight regulations?

Ron Paul: Well, I want more regulations of different things. I want more regulations on Treasury, on the Congress, and on the Fed. But I want to have less mischief by bureaucrats because they do a great deal of harm. We introduced a lot of regulations in the 1930s and it just prolonged the depression. When we had Enron fail we had Sarbanes Oxley. That did harm because our businesses left our country. I don’t like those kinds of regulations. But you have to enforce regulations like contracts and bankruptcies. We ignore that. We don’t follow the contract of money, so the government does everything opposite. They violate contracts and they don’t use bankruptcies. They bail out people. So yes, you want the market to regulate, you want to get rid of bad investments and people who are bankrupt.

Joe Scarborough: Ron, really quickly, we’re coming up on a hard break. But I’ve got to ask you about Afghanistan. Pat Bucanan, myself and other conservatives are very concerned about the so-called surge. We’re concerned we’re going to be in Afghanistan for another decade. What do you think?

Ron Paul: Well, we’ll be there for a decade or longer if the money holds out. But because we are doing exactly what Osama Bin Laden wanted us to do, that is get ourselves bogged down, spend a lot of money, and get people discouraged about being bogged down. At the same time have an incentive to build up the Al-Qaida. So we’re doing exactly the same.

Joe Scarborough: The thing is Al-Qaida is not even there.

Ron Paul: Yeah, but there are a lot of people who hate our guts and they do it because we bomb them, invade them and occupy them and steal their oil and all these things. So that’s going to continue.

Joe Scarborough: What would President Ron Paul do?

Ron Paul: The troops would have been home by now. I’d bring them home. You know the famous saying, “Declare victory and come home”. There is not much victory to declare. But just come home. I’d come home from Korea and Germany. Save the money. This country needs the money, we’re all broke. Quit printing the money; save the money.

Joe Scarborough: Alright. […]

  • Jay Giallombardo


    On review, the Hamilton information had some typos that I couldn’t edit, but it was clear enough…so I will not use up space with a reprint. If you’d like to read it (or did so anyway), it is good information.

    My browser editor kept jumping around and I could not edit my note. Has anybody else experienced that? I guess for a longer note I should edit off line, that might be the wiser approach.

    Joseph G.

  • JayGBardo1

    Sorry folks,

    the message on hamilton..the editor messed up and I was not allowed to edit.

    please disregard it.

    I will send a corrected version

  • JayGBardo1


    Very good. I am glad that I am worthy again, despite Mr Rice’s reservations (ha).


    Hamilton was highly respected by his peers. He was also trusted by Washington as the First Treasury Secretary of the new USA.
    He had an uncanny integrity except two notable lapses in discretion, that I will mention later.

    He was hated by Aaron Burr and the Manhattan Banking Crowd. There were two major NY City Banks at the time. The Bank of Manhattan, leaning toward London and FREE-TRADE. The NY City Bank was a commerical bank actually run by FDRs grandfather who was a “Hamiltonian”. (There is a lot of history between Burr and Hamilton. I’ll leave that for your to investigate).

    The mistake that some make is assuming that Hamilton was tied to London and was a British-like aristocrat, snobbish, looking down on the common man. These were lies and falsehoods by his detractors, probably disseminated by Aaron Burr, who was tried but not convicted for treason, and was a general low-life, scumbag. Any quote about Hamilton is betrayed by the mutual animosity, probabably traceable to Burr should not be believed.
    Burr shot Hamilton in a duel in 1804. Hamilton fired his gun into the air, like a gentlemen would do, and Burr not know the tradition, just shot him; tragic senseless death.

    Hamilton argued for the American economy by increasing the productivity of labor to increase wealth and welfare of the citizen. He knew the virtues of agriculture, but wished to also add manufacturing to the economic mix. Jefferson, being the agrarian he was, distrusted this. But, Hamilton had the genius to see that manufacturing was of great boon to any economy and wrote profusely on the subject of manufacturing. In that view he was quite modern for the late 18th century.

    Hamilton’s philosophical view was just the opposite of the negative view of humankind delinated by Descartes including the British philosphers: Malthus, Hobbs, Locke and other degenerate types. Hamilton saw productive labor as wealth and that National Sovereignty of America was our only protection against British (foreign) colonial explotation or intervention.

    Hamilton was born in the Caribbean, saw slavery first hand, and was orphaned at very early age. He learned accounting at the age of 10. He was a genius and prodigy and eventually went to Kings College in NY. General George Washington spotted Hamilton’s leadership qualities immediately and made him an officer who proved to be quite a courageous tactician and fighter in the war.
    There are some fine stories of his battle exploits.

    This is a very different view of the foppish aristocrat that was painted by his detractors to discredit his ideas. He did make a political error publishing negative phamplet on John Adams and had a scandalous marital affair. But he is probably most famous for his “Federalist Papers” where he outlines his view of the nation, banking, and economy.

    It was a unique American economic model that Hamilton espoused in the Federalist Papers. And the first national bank of the USA was created in 1971 to assume the debts of the states to strengthen the national prestige of the budding nation, to make it “credit worthy”. Some of the states wanted to just “throw off” their debts after the war. And Hamilton said, “No, we must honor them or we will never be credit worthy nation” And he was right.

    Hamilton was a great figure in early American Society. At his death there was a huge gathering of people to pay honor and respects. He differences with Jefferson and Adams is well documented and it is somewhat the basis of our two-party system today.

    Jefferson was mostly fearful of a strong central government because of the oppession it typically leads to. But it was shown that without a stronger central government of the American kind, we were very vulnerable to attack frorm the British Empire. After the congress let the 1st central bank charter expire in 1811, we immediately went to war with Britain in 1812.

    We fought the British to a standstill again by 1815 and Madison and the congress immediatey rechartered a 2nd National bank in 1816. What does tell you? A stronger national government was needed to thwart attacks from the British. This gave the US another 20 years of strong economic growth, particulary the Erie Canal under JQ Adams.

    I could go on…but I hope that settles the issue that Hamilton was a great US figure not to be demonized by Americans or anyone.
    Washington, JQ Adams, Lincoln, Grant, Garfield, McKinley, and FDR and JFK in part where ALL Hamiltonians and presided over periods of unprecendented ecomonic growth in the United states.

    If we look at the economic growth during the those periods of time, we find a general increase of productive labor and advancing scientific discovery and technology. I cite the Erie Canal in 1827, Westward Expansion in 1870-1890s, FDR (slow but eventually) economic recovery in 1930s and industrial expansion in the 1940s including the development of Nuclear energy, and finally the Moon Mission of JFK.

    My next note will be on how the current FED differs from a true “Hamiltonian” National Bank.

    Joseph Giallombardo
    Credit for this information (which is stated in my own words) goes to:
    PBS production: Hamilton

  • Ted O’Connor

    Any questions? I’ll answer them the best I can

    • Jay Giallombardo


      What is the scientific definition of economic value?

      Joseph J.

    • Jay Giallombardo


      So, how does a dam get build under Austrian Economics?

      How do you deal with the political argument that one region (or state) gets a dam because ‘they can afford’ it, and another area, that could use the dam doesn’t get one, because it has no money, or no education to see the advantage that such infrastructure brings.

      Your thoughts?

      Joseph G.

  • Ted O’Connor

    Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name.


  • Ted O’Connor

    I’ve never worked for anybody but myself. Contractor since I was 15. RU arging that servitude is better than no job? When hindsight is 20/20 everone knows, any 20/20 going forward? I respect all the ancient architects of our economic and physical well-being. But How about this. Before the world was created there existed angleic beings that flew up and down tirelessly in God’s wonderful creation. One angel saw that they were getting tired so he beseeched God for a place to put his and his fellows feet. 4 times over a period of 100,000 years he asked. Still nothing. The only reason something happened was when he declared war. Now, hell is a lack of a place to put your feet – do we need to protect this gift? Seriously. What I say is true and it’s before creation. Over riding principle is “don’t screw up this gift”

  • Ted O’Connor

    America does not produce or export anything but inflation. I wouldn’t buy your debt. Ohh, the welfare housing market? No one is going to buy the MBS’s. Bair already said. So how about argue about the here and now?


    • Lawrence Rice

      One action that should be taken by the Federal government in the ‘here and now’ is to sell off most, if not all, it’s “hard assets” (e.g., real estate/land), privatize many of its operations and then use the proceeds to pay down the debt.

      • JayGBardo1

        Mr. Rice,

        No…it is exactly the hard assets that must be protected through bankruptcy proceeding of a “Glass-Steagall” standard.

        All the derivative debt is wiped off the books, 25 trillion or so. And then every one can go…”ah…doesn’t that feel good.”

        I believe that is called bankruptcy and the speculators, who gambled, lost!

        McCain has already introduced legislation for the “re-enactment” of Glass-Steagall.

        Joseph Giallombardo

      • THAT is an EXCELLENT idea, Mr. Rice! The private sector would
        then build our economy, hire American workers and PRODUCE GOODS
        not shuffle papers that are only a burden on ALL of us,

        • Sean

          nobody wants to buy real estate that is devaluing. You have to wait till the economy gets better after the prices bottom out, and then they will sell off the assets..

          • Lawrence Rice

            Jay and Sean,
            Bull! The Federally owned land in this country is worth a fortune and, in my opinion, the Federal government has a duty and responsibility to its people and its creditors to help “clear up” the mess it has created. This is a sure way of accomplishing that to a sizable degree. However, I do agree that this should be done as shrewdly as possible.

    • JayGBardo1


      In arguing about the here and now, you make a good point.

      The way ahead is with the 4-Powers Initiative. It is a new economic “credit” system with fixed international rates of exchange along the lines of Brettonwood.

      These 4 Powers: Russia, China, India and the USA are strong enough economically to break the British Empire which is in the throes of collapse right now. Under the Larouche Plan, Sovereign Nations maintain their own currency and would operate on fixed international rate of exchange.

      China is NOW using the USA debt (about $1 Trillon in US Treasuries) as credit to finance Russian infrastructure development which would extend from Sibera down into China.
      Russian President Medvedev has stated that Russia is going rethink its development away from exportation of natural resources and intends to re-focus on science and internal development. (This is very Hamiltonian and Larouche has their ears!)

      India is on board along with Italy, Brazil, and Sudan Some meetings took place in Copenhagen aligning against the “nazi” tactics of the environmentalist hoaxsters. The fraudulent science of “Climate gate” has been exposed as a hoax, doctoring and fudging the data to attempt to prove their case. Scientists across the global are rejecting these lies. As a result, Copenhagen was a total failure for the British, a major defeat. They got nothing despite the involvement of the Queen, Philip, Charles, Blair, Brown, and Obama..Failures, all!

      A lot depends on what the US does now. As of now, Obama is through politically. The majority of Americans reject his direction of higher taxes, British imposed austerity, Nazi-healthcare, assault on industry and agriculture, and high unemployment. He is the worst first-term president in the history of America.

      This opens the door for a new US President in 2012. The 2010 mid-term elections will be telling. But the American people have to keep Tea Parties and MASS STRIKE going strong until we get the right person into the oval office.

      Ron Paul seems to be a front runner.
      Joseph Giallombardo

  • Ted O’Connor

    Credit grows debt

  • Ted O’Connor

    The Constitution is on the side of Jefferson and not Hamilton. Those rules weren’t made for extrapolation or interpretation as to likes or dislikes or convenience. Money is not transient as it’s Constitutionally decreed. It’s law and it’s being violated. Why aren’t we going back to Vietnam? No money? Use your heads – hey guys, can i float a debt with you? Sure, not working and have no intention of paying it back – but hey, I’m good for it

    • JayGBardo1


      Well, sort of, Jefferson distrusted big government, but also conceded in his later years, that with the continued onslaught of the british empire, a stronger national government was probably necessary. Theory is one thing, but when the enemy burns down your capitol, you have to fight back, which takes “capital”.

      It is a question of balance. If you assert that real wealth is in physical production of labor and not on “monetary” derivatives, people benefit from the surplus that they can create..that is wealth.

      Hamilton assumed the debts of the states to build the strength of the national government, mostly to provide a sense of “creditability”…which translates into credit. You have to invest in the infrastructure and scientific research and discovery in order to create the technologies that help to increase productive labor. Thus under JQ Adams and the 2nd National Bank, the Erie canal was developed which was boon to commerce. Under Lincoln and through Henry Carey (Lincoln’s treasury secretary), the US went from a maritime economy of the east to a continental ecomony of the west, epitomized by the inter-continental rail-road. Of course that too was eventually corrupted by British financial interests. ( I won’t go in to the history here)…

      At the Ron Paul Site, we are all agreed that the FED is not the kind of “National” bank that Hamilton conceived…it is but a tool of the RothChild Banking Cartel (what Larouche labels the “British Empire”).

      A few great Presidents practiced the Hamiltonian model of infrastructure investment…if we do so again, we can return America’s industries, jobs, and move ahead with science, technology, and continued economic progress.

      But a true Hamiltonian style of credit is based on the principles of increasing the productive of labor through proper investment….Not trillons of bailout dollars to prop up speculative institutions.

      Joseph Giallombardo

      • Sean

        Thomas Jefferson went behind the back of the congress to make the Louisiana purchase. Many say that was the biggest leap of executive power in american history. That would be like George Bush signing mexico and canada into america, like what everyone believed he did.

      • Nate Y

        “At the Ron Paul Site, we are all agreed that the FED is not the kind of “National” bank that Hamilton conceived…it is but a tool of the RothChild Banking Cartel (what Larouche labels the “British Empire”).”

        No we are not all agreed on this assertion. There are those here, myself among them, who despise Hamilton and his idea of a “National Bank”. And there are those, myself among them, who do not see the Fed as a tool of the Rothschild Banking Cartel or whatever you want to call it.

        • Sean

          Not to be a jackass about it, but the treasury is our national bank which a government must have.. The fed is a central bank, which is totally different.

          • Sean

            Hamilton’s motive was to take responsibility for the bankrupt states. The reason why Jefferson opposed this was because his state already paid back half of their debt… but we can’t have some states fail. We rise and fall as one country.

          • JayGBardo1



            …somebody else that supports a national bank vs what the the FED is doing. Is that a fair assumption?

            Joseph G.

          • Sean

            ya i agree.

          • Nate Y

            If the Treasury is our national bank, why did Hamilton argue for, and eventually establish, The First Bank of The United States (national bank)? The US already had the Treasury department. Why establish another national bank?

            You’re very good at making absolutely no sense.

          • Sean

            The treasury prints the money, collects the taxes, pays off the debt, and pays everything else. The treasury funds national banks like citi, bank of america, and wells fargo. The federal reserve is a totally different structure. It taxes banks, borrows money overseas for the government and is lender of last resort.. We don’t need the fed, only a national bank.

          • Sean

            i was just talking to you in general, i wasn’t talking about alexander hamilton.

        • JayGBardo1


          Then what do you see the FED as…what is their interest?
          Why do you despise Hamilton? Washington thought very highly of him. The Wall Street crowd hated Hamilton, particular Aaron Burr and Van Buren. So there seems to be a disconnect here somewhere? Was it because Hamilton’s National Bank was actually in opposition to the WALL STREET FREE-TRADERS of the British Empire?

          Why do the Global Warming nuts want to de-industrial the world?

          There is a distinct relationship between the bankrupting of America and the “Global Warming” agenda of “Population Control” which comes DIRECTLY from the British Empire.

          Didn’t we hear directly from the Queen of England, Charles and Philip about the importance of an agreement out of Copenhagen. What seems to be their interest in this?

          So let’s hear what you have to say.

          Joseph Giallombardo

        • Dear Nate,

          As a History teacher and voracious reader for over 60
          years, you are quite wrong both about Alexander Hamilton AND the Fed.
          Do some research and check them carefully for truth.

          • Nate Y

            How about you enlighten me? Be warned, I’m not impressed with the argument from authority. I don’t care if you’ve been a history teacher and a voracious reader for 10000 years. I haven’t even said anything controversial about Hamilton in this thread. All I’ve said is that I despise him and his ideas. Come to think of it, I haven’t even said much about the Fed in this thread. I believe I mentioned it once in passing. For the most part, I’ve been only talking about the virtues of freedom, the Austrian School, and countering Jay’s nonsense.

            Anyway, two can play at this game…

          • Loki


            How dare you question Nate Y’s posts? I have a PhD in both History and Economics and have read a book a day for the past 40 years. I can guarantee that everything he says is correct. In fact, here’s a little known secret. Nate Y is actually Odin and he is master of all he surveys.

          • Sean

            lol loki needs a life.

  • Ted O’Connor

    It’s not a financial crisis, it’s a moral crisis. Who is saying gold is just a pretty antique and not worth value that’s been given it for thousands of years? I really lose you guys in your dissection of worth and history into archaic references. Why don’t you go for the most obvious? Floating currency is a confidence game, a scam. All this talk of Aristolean and Platoistic, Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian, it all comes down to sublime simplicity – anything that dilutes the rights of man reduces man. It’s as simple as having a soul and moral compass. Can we force banksters to have a soul when they don’t? I look around and I’m ashamed.

    • Lawrence Rice

      You have spoken rightly: America’s problem is not financial, it is moral. American culture is suffering from a moral problem and until we are willing to admit this and deal with it we are deluding ourselves. I’m glad to see someone state it so plainly.
      Americans, generally speaking, are illiterate in many ways. We fail to recognize the inescapable fact that throughout the history of civilization there have been, and can only be, two “powerhouses” of meaning in any society; Religion and the State. Without going into an extensive discourse as to the “Why’s?”, suffice it to say that we have allowed the State to become the dominant source of meaning in our society and culture and what we are witnessing are the effects of this fact.

      • Lawrence Rice

        Ted, (or anyone else who may be interested),
        Although it does not deal with economics specifically, I highly recommend the book “The Gagging of God” by D.A. Carson for a broader overview of why we are where we are.

    • JayGBardo1


      You are right. We try to justify with examples of history and the interpretation of the history gets us bogged down at times.

      I would contend that the “Fixed” view of the world of Aristotle vs the Platonic view of a “Dynamic” world is critical in the discussion. The Renaissance was the confrontation of the old Aristotlean world (the Earth centered) vs the new science of discovery rooted in Plato. And the debate continues to rage today.

      There is a wonderful painting by Rafael entitled the “School of Athens”…in the center is Aristotle and Plato. Plato’s arm and hand points up to “God”, the creator. Aristotle’s hand reaches forward as if to control a world from the perspective of empiricism. Interesting reading is the interpretation of this great painting and the others in the picture.

      I would simply say that “RothChild Banking Cartel (British Empire) is Aristotlean…and AMERICA as the founding father’s intended followed Plato, particularly Jefferson and his writing of “inalienable rights” of man endowed by the Creator. If you look at all arguments on these issues, they tend to fall on either side of this long historic debate.

      Here is a great short documentary about the first 1620 colony.

      Joseph Giallombardo

      • Sean

        Thats crazy! I’m related to william brewster. I have a thing about him on my wall.

  • Robert



    and listen to it

    END THE FED if you want america to be free


    not when they are all DEAD

    obama is a muslim LIAR and you can take that to the BANK


  • Ted O’Connor

    Welcome to Kleptocracy.

    Government of the elite, by the elite, for the elite.

    You probably have all seen this? ZEITGEIST:

  • Lawrence Rice says:
    December 19, 2009 at 12:01 am

    As an American citizen who is sick and tired of seeing and hearing our officials use lofty rhetoric as the pretext for their spending sprees on war and death, I assure you, there are MANY, MANY Americans who do not like what is done in our name and wish we could bring the young men and women who volunteer for our military home to their families and friends. It is long overdue.

    Hi there Lawrence,
    – Your present President’s lofty rhetoric is not HIS, but that of your shadow government the “Rothschild Clan”. Hence those MANY Americans must wake up and face reality. Explain your sons and daughters what the warmongers call them; “useful idiots”.
    – ATTACK the men, the organization behind your politicians, the shadow government. Take away from them their astronomical profit on all the wars. Stop their screwing around with other peoples countries.
    – Wishing, hoping and praying will however not bring any end to the “Rothschild Clan’s” perpetual looting of you and the still potential coming generations, nor the countries they terrorize!
    (With the horror of Viet Nam and Cambodia just some thirty years behind us, it appears to me as if Americans suffer from a common absolute amnesia.)
    – What the “Rothschild Clan” dragged you into in Viet Nam, was also a “war” about oil… I KNOW, I was there. (If you don’t believe me, google “South China Sea+oil”) And! the rhetoric used back then was identical to the one used today… “domino effect”, “prevent communism from spreading” verses teh Bush/Obama “prevent spreading” and “al-Qaida-Taliban-Islamic terrorists”.
    – And by the way, when talking about “radical Islamic terrorist groups”, what can be more radical than issuing a fiat money with “In God We Trust” printed on it, and having some 800 military bases spread around the world? That is nothing but pure modern day colonialism… or global terrorism to phrase it differently.
    – But again, the global terrorism by the “Rothschild Clan”, in the name of America, cannot be ended with hope nor prayers nor “lofty rhetorics”. Neither is Ron Paul good enough, as he doesn’t offer a detailed viable plan on how to cope with the major “economical amputation” he is fronting. To suggest “gold standard” and “Austrian economy” is fine, but what are the “crutches” offered to the patient when he regains conscience?

    • Jones

      1-Work with salary in industry that produces something needed, and trading where competition is fair (salaries in china yield higher profit that in turn bring down home industries).

      2-Regulation and accountability

      3-Less innovation for war and war profit, and making unfavorable the monopolies to crush emerging new, small and medium, businesses. But for real.

      4-Redesign of benefits: it will improve the whole health care sector, the work environment, and the real family values, and the real personal values.

      5-Freedom with responsability

      Etc. Little changes that if implemented will go a long way into officially declaring a new economic system that will stand the test of time (actual currency can never be the people or their knowledge, that is a deformed slavery system)

  • JayGBardo1

    I understand why those who think Austrian Economics is the “cat’s meow” would necesarily criticize FDR as failure. Re-emergence of Austrian Economics with Mises was a reaction by Rothchild/HaapsBurg tradition against Otto Von Bismarck who had adopted American Style Economics of Abraham Lincoln for Germany in 1879. Through the British conspiracy Bismarck was ousted by 1890 but warned of the impending 7 years war with Britain which ultimately came in the form of WWI.

    FDR was not a FREE-TRADER and therefore by the AusEco perspective must therefore be condemned for his socialistic ways. FDR did a lot of good with Hospitals, infrastructure, rural electricy development. If you had let the market decide, Mississippi would probably still be run on kerosene. Market’s don’t have minds; people do.

    Austrian Economics main axiom of “non-government intervention” would then necessarily preclude FDR from presidential greatness.

    Yet, by the American People FDR is considered the Greatest President perhaps surpassing Washington and Lincoln, certainly the greatest of the 20th century. Elected to office 4 times.

    For those of you holding to your anti-FDR beliefs here is a link to a contrary view which will probably not change the view of the rigid…but it’s worth a try.

    By Eric Rauchway

    Thanks for listening

    Joseph Giallombardo
    PS Don’t get me wrong…I am Ron Paul fan. I hope he is PRESIDENT in 2012. But Austrian Economics plays right into the hands of the British Empire. Mr. Paul needs some continuing education on that matter.

    • Lawrence Rice

      Just out of curiosity, how old are you and where do you get your information?

      • JayGBardo1

        I’m 59 years old…and as you may have deduced this information, the history, is from Lyndon Larouche.

        In a way, Mr. Rice, I express these view, which are different than the AusEco crowd is used to hearing 1) to get your reaction and viewpoint and 2) to use your rebuttals to validate my information. AusEco perspective changed with the influence of Milton Friedman and the introduction of the metaphysical aspects (which are platonic in origin vs the typical Aristotlean view that predominated up until 1950. I learned that in one of the lecture video by one of the Austria fellows that gives lectures on the subject.

        But it is important that you know the history and not just accept axioms given.

        Joseph Giallombardo

        • Lawrence Rice

          Yes and no. To be honest, as I read through your earlier statements I found myself wanting to attribute some of them to youthfulness due to their incoherence and lack of clarity and cogency, but, I see I cannot do that; You are 59 yrs. old.
          I don’t want to use this space to shame you or anything else since Nate is doing quite well at pointing some of this out. However, I would recommend putting down much of the Larouche stuff and getting your mind around something much more intellectually rigorous and, in the end, satisfying and productive. This is just my opinion though.

    • Nate Y

      Your arrogance is wearing thin. You say “markets don’t have minds. People do”. Such childish platitudes might work on others but they will convince no one here. If you can reject the market with such flimsy logic, you must necessarily reject any form of social organization (including government) on the same grounds. But you’re obviously a big fan of big government. So cut the bs.

      I once held FDR in high regard. It’s tough not to when you are constantly told by your US history teachers that he saved the US with the New Deal. However, like many others, I have come to hold him in a negative light as a result of learning real (Austrian) economics. Almost everything he did served to benefit wall street and Washington at the expense of the common man. He even went so far as to steal the people’s gold with Executive Order 6102. This disgrace wasn’t even mentioned during my schooling. And I imagine for good reason. After all, who can support a person who steals from the common person on the street in order to enrich a select few in Washington and New York?

      Seriously dude, stop with this “British Empire” nonsense. You must clearly see how confusing that phrase is. It is constantly misunderstood. Just use the more accurate “Rothschild baking cartel” if you want to describe the conspiracy you believe has taken/is taking place.

      Actually, I think I’m just wasting my time. Your posts are so off the wall, littered with complete fabrications and wild speculations that I don’t think any response is appropriate.

      • Lawrence Rice

        Well said. I’ve been following this discussion the last couple of days to see how it would evolve. I guess you beat me to calling him out on his assertions. He does have a fertile imagination. Hopefully he will put it to truly good use.

      • JayGBardo1, passion. Why express something apologetically?
        Your false characterizations fly in the face of your own argument. When I say, “markets don’t have minds, people do”, it is a methaphor. This relates to the biosphere of nature which follows natural, even geological, processes for creation. The act of the mind is “willful”…and it is the human creative mind that can change the natural world by force of will through scientific discovery and the application of technology to increase the productive labor of mankind. It is in this labor and production that realth wealth resides, not in monetarism (the assumption that money has value).

        I also send the message that “laissez-faire” markets play into the hands of the Empire. That’s what they want you to believe.
        The British Empire (Rothchild Banking Cartel based in London) would have you believe that markets DO have minds and if you just leave them alone they will create wealth. In the meantime as the Empire controls the money, they control the market, and you (we) control nothing. And, if you buy into their notion of FREE-TRADE, they will then come to your shores and take all you have.

        The force of the empire can only be broken with an alliance of nations that use a different system of money, their own currency to control the physical development of their nation.
        These nations need to have power and population. Larouche suggests Russia, China, India, and the US.

        Larouche argues in defense of the Nation State, and I believe Ron Paul does also, in the constitution of American. But where they differ is in a Hamiltonian National Bank that is controlled by the government of the Nation, not an external International Banking Cartel (like Rothchilds/London).

        You can have a gold standard, but the point is moot. When the enemy comes on your shores with gunboats and soldiers, you will print money and build your army to fend them off, and not say for minute, “Ok, no money for the army because we don’t have the gold”.

        How else will you defeat them? Hayek suggestion in his book “Road to Serfdom” that we need an international police force to protect the freedom to choose currency. Do you really want that? Isn’t the Nation State the better source of protection? That is actually the founding principle of America, with sovereign national borders.

        Joseph Giallombardo

        • Nate Y

          You have proven yourself unworthy of dialogue with your blatant lies and misrepresentations. You have demonstrated an willingness to acknowledge and respond to the thoughts of others. I (and others) have presented arguments against your positions but your counters amount to little more than “you guys are merely drunk off the Austrian Kool-Aid. We just need the right philosopher kings like Lyndon LaRouche in the places of power and everything will be just fine and dandy”. Theory suggests such a philosophy is absurd and history bears it out time and time again.

          You have also completely changed your statement regarding Hayek and the Road to Serfdom. First you said he suggests “a world police force used to PREVENT Sovereign Nations from determining how people wish to use their money.” now you claim he said “we need an international police force to protect the freedom to choose currency”. First you say the “police force” is to impose a form of tyranny on sovereign states. Now you have done a complete 180 and say the international police force serves to keep people free. He never uses the term “police force” in the final chapter of The Road to Serfdom.

          Also, you use a completely alien definition of the term “Monetarism”. You seem to think that Austrian Economics is synonymous with monetarism or that Austrian Economics is merely a form of monetarism. You couldn’t be farther off the mark if you tried. In fact, the ideas held by LaRouche and the so-called American School of Economics include the key aspect of monetarism. That aspect is a national bank headed by the proper philosopher kings with the intent of using monetary policy to promote productive industries. The Austrian School is dead set against such an institution because it cannot achieve its desired ends. Over time, such an institution only serves to distort the economy, promote malinvestment, expand the power of government at the expense of the people, make people poorer than they otherwise would have been, and a develop a host of other negative consequences. Such is the price of incredible hubris.

          You also don’t appear to understand what the word “axiom” means.

          I mean, seriously, how are we to have a constructive dialogue with you when you state “I express these views…to use your rebuttals to validate my information.”? By taking such a ridiculous position, you have demonstrated yourself to be impervious to reason and evidence.

          • JayGBardo1

            Nate Y…

            I see that I am antagonizing you more than I meant.

            I am working on presenting my knowledge and this is good forum to do that.

            But to clarify, I suggest your watch one more video and others that may catch your interest at the Larouche website.

            By the way I watch the Ron Paul Video on the FED (40 minutes) and I am in complete support of its abolition.

            A FED is not a national bank in the sense of Hamilton. It was indeed a corruption of the concept (by the British, who else?). FDR used it correctly, but it has grown out of control and is serving the interest of the Empire, not America.

            So here’s the link:


            Thanks for the scintillating conversation.

            Joseph Giallombardo
            PS I’ll be back…

          • Sean

            good movie!

          • JayGBardo1

            Nate Y:

            Another article for your education.


            Joseph Giallombardo

      • JayGBardo1

        And for those still with an open mind,
        here is marvelous serious of presentations on the concepts
        of Hamiltonian Credit vs British Monetarism.


        • Nate Y

          As the saying goes, “One must remain open minded, but not so open minded that one’s brains fall out”. Unfortunately, it seems you have reached that point.

          That aside, you do not abide by the rules of civil discourse. I and others here have shown you the respect of considering your views. We have then proceeded to tear your positions to shreds. We have pointed out your logical inconsistencies, your outright lies, your misunderstandings, and your misconceptions. And what have you done in return? Have you reciprocated with your own counters to our arguments? Have you shown the respect which was shown to you? Not at all. Instead you have engaged in a number of annoying and, frankly, childish tactics. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude that you simply don’t realize you’re doing what you’re doing but I still feel compelled to point it out. You have mainly just ignored the counter arguments given. It’s true that you have thanked me and others for our replies but you haven’t attempted to refute our positions nor have you put forth new arguments in an attempt to strengthen yours. You may as well have said “Thank you for wasting your time responding to my post”. You have also have changed your position (as you did with Hayek and his supposed “international police force”) and, true to form, refused to acknowledge it. And you have merely heaped more lies upon lies and made nonsensical assertions such as “Hayek was supported by John M. Keynes and Winston Churchill. The Austrian School of Economics was the British response through Mises and others against Otto Von Bismarck who had adopted the American principles of Economy of Abraham Lincoln. AusEco is the British answer to the American system of Economy. It was attempt to crush Bismarck and unfortunately, it did”. I mean, seriously, is this some type of freaking joke?

          Anyway, I have made my way to the LaRouche site (I had already visited it after my encounter with a couple of his supporters) and the ideas presented are truly insane. As I have already said, he honestly believes that a select group of people (himself being chief among them) are capable of, have have the right to, control everyone else on the planet. The arrogance is unbelievable. He never seems to consider that people just might be better at deciding what they want for themselves and that he may be acting like a jackass for thinking he knows better. It appears the world can be divided into two camps. Those content to live and let live and those who seek to impose their will on others. LaRouche most definitely belongs to the latter.

          • Sean

            lol whatever nate.. 98% of the people on this website believe that a small group of men can and does control the world. Anyways, that’s not it, LaRouche isn’t saying that at all.. Plus, most of the stuff he talks about is well known and not a secret. Everyone knows that the British empire has always meddled in everyones affairs.

  • Old Dominion

    We live in a world of polar opposites. Hot n’Cold, Good n’Bad, Bitter n’Sweet, Freedom n’Control. The right choice is neither both, but in moderation.

    You can’t have “total freedom”, it allows the advancement of those seeking power and control do to so “freely”.
    You can’t have “total enslavement”, it never allows advancement except by those who are in “control”.

    It takes a bit of both, “the middle ground”, to find the answer of a perfect system. You need a authority that wants freedom – sadly it is a rare occurrence expressed by the human heart and more imporantly beyond “most” common knowledge of our simple polar thinking. The US Constitution being an example of one of the only document-states in human history with this mentality.

    I would have to say Ron Paul is a US politican closest (if not only) to that middle ground.

    • JayGBardo1

      Old Dominion,

      Very wise. I would agree. It’s not one system that fits all, it actually as you say a combination of principles. Free-markets work well across state lines. Free-markets are more complicated across National borders.

      So unbridled capitalism has the danger of monopoly. Unprotected nations run the risk of production dumping and wrecking their local industry.

      An authority that loves freedom. What you are talking about was discussed by Plato as the Philosopher-King of Plato’s Republic.
      And that, sir, is very much in the right direction of principled thought.

      By the way, Austrian Economics is an Aristotlean view of the world, So the philospher king does not exist in that world, only the KING.

      Joseph Giallombardo

  • Jay Giallombardo


    I did find that interesting article by Mr. Champion on the Popperian support of Austrian Economics. So, I am starting to get a pretty good understanding.

    Larouche is BIG…HUGE…on Plato. The empiricists discount the metaphysical. All of the philosophy from Adam Smith, Lock, Hobbs, Malthus are all degenerate apologists for the British Empire (which is what you may refer to as the Rothchild banking cartel based in London). Sorry to say, the British rely much on the fixed world notions of Aristotle…and that might be a fatal flaw.

    The antithesis of this world view is found in “Nicholas De Cusa”, whose writing on “inalienable rights” endowed by the Creator was borrowed by Thomas Jefferson in the Dec. of Indep. You can follow this strain from Kepler, Leibnitz, Gauss, Riemann (the Mathematician) to Eistein.

    This forms the basis of the Larouche’s Science of Economy which places the “creative human mind” at the forefront of economic development combined with “scientific discovery” that provides technological development for the purpose of increasing the product labor of human endeavor.

    The purpose of the National Government of the USA was founded on these principles to protect it’s citizens from the ravages of the British empire which by 1762 was totally corrupt. It was not a graceful start with Slavery in the South as part of the colonial empire. And the USA principles of economy have been at war with Britain ever since.

    If we can but return to the constitutional principles, it will be a major step in the right direction. Follow the constitution!

    By the way, John Marshall (Supreme court Justice) wrote the ruling in 1819 supporting the National Bank…NOT a FED (that is a corruption)…but a true National Bank to support the endeavors of the national interest based on a credit system.

    Under the a National bank of this kind, America became the economic leader of the world by 1876…We were corrupted thereafter, but under FDR (whether you like him or not) we restored the National economy. That lasted until 1971…and it has been downhill every since.

    This back and forth flow of economic progress followed by destruction comes at the hands of the British Empire.
    To stay on a lasting path of economic development requires
    the destruction of the British Empire.

    The 4-Powers Initiative has a chance to do just that.

    Here is the link to the paper:

    Joseph Giallombardo

    • Somehow it sounds to me Joseph, that you are one of those guys who agrees on, that money rules the world, but still talk about politicians and presidents being the rulers.:-)

      – “We were corrupted thereafter,…” Politicians Joseph, are politicians for personal reasons; for the power and the money which power brings THEM (and their party). Max Weber also stated that fact clearly on several occasions.

      – “… but under FDR (whether you like him or not) we restored the National economy. ” What you state there sounds as if FDR’s New Deal was a success, while the fact is that his politics did nothing but prolong the depression which was created by the FED.
      What brought around prosperity to the US was getting into WWII and the unlimited financing of the war supply machinery by the FED against future US taxpayer money. And, you do know of course who the owners of that industry was and is. 🙂

      – “That lasted until 1971…and it has been downhill every since.”
      Hmmm?… yes, the big accelerators in the US economy got badly hit when the Viet Nam war drew to an end, and the Appolo program lost funding. US economy was also gradually badly hit by the advance of nations like Japan and Germany, who after 1945 had to consentration on developments outside the military field. On most civil industrial sectors the US had lost much ground by the late sixties.
      In anyway, an economy based primarily on rockets big and small to be blasted off into space or up the ass on people in foreign countries, has no lasting future.
      BUT!.. there is no bigger earner around for Rothschild&Co, than all the wars they create and initiate with the taxpayers money. Cold war -real war -war on drugs -war on terror (ridiculous) -war for peace(at present a total insanity) -war on starvation – war on poverty -war to end war…

      -“To stay on a lasting path of economic development requires
      the destruction of the British Empire.” The British Empire was brought under absolute Rothschild control at the fall of Napoleon by Waterloo, when the British Pound came under their absolute control, which it has been and still is today… like the dollar and the euro.

      Finally, the US of A has been under absolute Rothschild control ever since they were allowed to found the FED in 1913. And! there are no others to blame , than the American people and their own politicians themselves for being robbed and screwed for the better part of a hundred years.
      To blame “the British” for the US downhill slide from previous glory is utterly pathetic Joseph. Instead you should start dragging your politicians out into the town square and give them a solid bare ass spanking for taking bribes from Zionists inside and outside of the US.

      However, I think it is too late to break loose of the grip that the Rothschild clan have on the US and indeed the whole world… far too late.

      And beside Joseph… the way an old atheist like me looks at it all… it would definitely be a better planet for mother nature if the super rich get their way and rid her of some 90% of us.

      • Jay Giallombardo


        The problem sounds to me like you have given up. You complain
        about FDR and that our economy only heats up when there is war.

        When I talk about the British, I don’t mean England and the british people. I mean what I think you call the Rothchild/Haapsburg banking cartel, which is essentially based in London and is what Larouche calls the British Empire, or what could be called the Global World Monetary system.

        Rather than pouting about it and getting ready to die just to spite them, I think the American People can control their destiny and elect knowledgable folks that can learn to practice the economic principles of a Lincoln or a Hamilton. We have had smatterings of these good economic times, but never consistent.

        Why? because we don’t understand the British Empire and we keep falling into the traps they lay…cheap goods, easy money.
        It’s our fault…but the Empire is on the brink of collapse now.

        And the 4-Powers agreement is 3/4s of the way forward with China, Russian and India already rethinking their economies along the lines Mr. Larouche has proposed.

        McCain has introduced a bill to return to “Glass Steagall”.
        Health care will be stopped and defeated, if not now, in 2010, and 2012.

        I think there is hope…and that means “stay the course” and keep to the principles of the Constitution.

        Mr. Paul would agree…fight ’em with American “Mass Strike”
        and keep working to all the bums are out.

        Lincoln didn’t give up…he died for his belief in a strong union to thwart the evils of the British Empire. He said, “I have an army in front of me (South) and banking cartel behind (Britain)…but he persevered and won. Should we do any less?

        Joseph Giallombardo

        • – Nope Jesuph, but what I did say was that it was not FDR’s New Deal which got the US out of the recession created by the FED, but the war which the FED managed to drag the US into.
          – On the other hand, yes, war has been an important part of the US economy ever since the US of A, with the Spanish-American war, ventured onto the path of building a US empire.
          – A long and comprehensive listing of all US wars and military conflicts is found here: . A long and sad history, culminating with the present ongoing rape and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan… under the pretext of creating peace and democracy… and of course also to “protect American interests”, to repeat the words said in Oslo by yes-we-can-change-Obama. It is Viet Nam all over again.
          – And yes, war IS the biggest racket there is. War was always the bankers favorite racket, and wars are of course also huge accelerators in the economy, just like the space program is. Wars are killing a lot more people than a space program of course, but as Kissinger once said, “Soldiers are useful idiots.” so who the heck cares.
          – But like the history of all empires tells us, war as an economical accelerator is not sustainable. In the long run the only winners are the guys who have been given the right to print the fiat dollar and to operate their fractional banking system.
          – Well, I think the only way to end the power of your shadow government, is to make an end to the wars that they have dragged you into. Do as Ron Paul says. Bring all your troops home. Let the Senate take over the coining of money. Create accelerators in the economy at home to replace the warmongering abroad… and above all, flog and fire all your politicians who have been preselected by the International Banking Cartel… The Rothschild Clan.
          – By the way, do the following lines sound familiar to you?:

          “We shall surround our government with a whole world of economists. That is the reason why economic sciences form the principal subject of the teaching given to the Jews. Around us again will be a whole constellation of bankers, industrialists, capitalists and – the main thing – millionaires, because in substance everything will be settled by the question of figures.
          For a time, until there will no longer be any risk in entrusting responsible posts in our State to our brother-Jews, we shall put them in the hands of persons whose past and reputation are such that between them and the people lies an abyss, persons who, in case of disobedience to our instructions, must face criminal charges or disappear – this in order to make them defend our interests to their last gasp.
          It is from us that the all-engulfing terror proceeds. We have in our service persons of all opinions, of all doctrines, restoring monarchists, demagogues, socialists, communists, and utopian dreamers of every kind. We have harnessed them all to the task: Each one of them on his own account is boring away at the last remnants of authority, is striving to overthrow all established form of order. By these acts all States are in torture; they exhort to tranquility, are ready to sacrifice everything for peace: But we will not give them peace until they openly acknowledge our international super-government, and with submissiveness.

          – And then finally Josuph… me “given up”?… heck, I’m just an old retired Norwegian watching you from the other side of the water. 🙂

          • Lawrence Rice

            As an American citizen who is sick and tired of seeing and hearing our officials use lofty rhetoric as the pretext for their spending sprees on war and death, I assure you, there are MANY, MANY Americans who do not like what is done in our name and wish we could bring the young men and women who volunteer for our military home to their families and friends. It is long overdue.

      • Jones


        I like your icon because it reminds me of Rudolph the raindeer, and I can agree with several things you said.

        But, this

        “However, I think it is too late to break loose of the grip that the Rothschild clan have on the US and indeed the whole world… far too late.

        And beside Joseph… the way an old atheist like me looks at it all… it would definitely be a better planet for mother nature if the super rich get their way and rid her of some 90% of us.”

        is contradictory to everything else.

        Now, how can that be explained? in a single comment, by the same person, we find obvious contradiction: you point in the direction of the root cause of the problem and then say something to discourage the reader/person from doing something constructive, even maybe to the same rothschild.

        I just don’t get it.

        anyway, merry christmas.

  • Jay Giallombardo

    Here is the interesting conclusion of a paper by Rafe Champion in Popperian support for Austrian Economics

    He says:

    “The revival of the Austrian program also requires that the Austrians [advocates] themselves have another look at Popper instead of following the example of Mises and dismissing his [Popper’s] ideas as irrelevant to their concerns. ”

    The entire article is worth reading, not that MISES is not a God to some, but the “metaphysical” aspect of scientific discovery is articulated well in this paper…which has its roots traceable back to Plato who argues against the Aristotlean world view of “empiricism”.

    Joseph Giallombardo

  • SS

    The Southern Avenger’s ‘Man Of The Year’

  • JayGBardo1

    Some new questions for my Austrian Eco friends:

    1. Given the “laissez-faire” approach to markets and economy, what is the place of national will to take advantage of a say a “moon mission” and the predictable scientific discovery that would ensue, and the technological development that would take place.

    a. Do we wait for the market to impliment such an action?
    b. Is there a role for government to stimulate economic develop by supporting such a mission?
    c. What drives the “market” to wish to create a Water Reclamation project which might irrigate a desert for agricultural benefit?
    d. Isn’t it a role of a goverment to initiate such projects, or support them, for the obvious benefit to the welfare of it’s citizens?

    Would Ron Paul support these endeavors?

    I would welcome some comments from the Autrian Eco perspective.

    Joseph Giallombardo

    • Science fiction

      Oh Dear, Joseph,

      There are tons of info, right here in earth and for earth, for our fellow humans to improve living conditions, life span, suffering, etc etc etc etc etc…. I get just tired of knowing that of having had a glimpse at that hope, a true hope, gasp…. and nothing was, had, or ever will be done with it, it has been put some how in a place that we the real people can not even access, though we may even have produce it ourselves, somehow it is what is happening. By who?, by the cruelest rulers of planet earth? so then we must now go to the moon to be able to get it done… is that it? that would be worst, hard to spot like here in earth.

      if, science fiction is what this is all about allow me to let my imagination role…..

      THEY must sit there, somewhere, dictate, run things, plan and plot, say or somehow decide whose baby will survive something on the move, a lesson, and the innocent little one will be coming to this world for a short while, with half a brain (like many children on a hot spot of genetic problems near a river, down south), with just enough time to be a ‘testimony’ for a few months to the cruelty of science or scientists, was it really? who is doing that? where? but, but, but if that is the problem why then we the real people can not do what we must do, in peace, in true fellowship, and in true scientific true.

      In the space project few will go, few will benefit, but there is a lot do in earth, and what is needed is to take the few exisiting terrorists and pull them out by the ears, into the light of the day, for real, but they should not be the reason to run to the moon now.


  • JayGBardo1


    If you are around, I am reading the Higgs article on FDR and also Thomas Woods. I’ll have a response for you soon.

    I hope you will watch the film on Africa.

    Joseph Giallombardo

    • Nate Y

      I watched the video on Africa. What has happened to the people of that continent as a result of colonialism/imperialism is a complete and utter travesty. But it has done nothing to change my opinions of LaRouche and his ideas. The ideas espoused are a bizarre mishmash of disciplines that have no business being mixed together. Human consciousness is a cosmic force? The universe had humans in mind?

      In a way it’s very interesting. LaRouche and his supporters make a few suggestions that may be helpful and some statements that are true. But they quickly make their way past reason, truth, and wisdom and run full sprint toward delusion, half-truths, and folly.

      Yes, Africa is in a sad state of affairs. But do they really need a new 4 pronged imperial monster comprised of the US, China, India, and Russia to save them from imperialism? Would they not be better off if left to themselves? The experience of Vietnam is instructive in this case. Vietnam was fragmented and bogged down in civil war brought about in no small degree by French Colonialism/Imperialism. The US finds itself drawn into the conflict. After much bloodshed and wasted money/resources, we leave. What happened to Vietnam? Did it fall into barbarism. Nope. It’s now a united country and we have peaceful trade relations with them. No outside entity was needed. And no such entity is needed to help Africa.

      Also, the video provides a perfect illustration of LaRouche’s drive toward unbelievably large capital projects. Nothing wrong with that…if they can be afforded and the losses aren’t passed off on the people. So Africa needs a MagLev train system running throughout the country with nuclear power plants sprinkled throughout the land? If these gifts could be conjured out of the ether it would be a boon no doubt. Unfortunately that option is not available to us. How are these (maybe) advancements to be funded? How is a continent mired in debt supposed to suddenly have the savings (credit) to pay for these projects? Essentially no consideration is given to these questions. Also, what if the people of Africa don’t want a MagLev running through their backyard? Do they have no say in the matter? Do they really need the “Super 4” to descend upon them and tell them what to do?

      You know what I think would help Africa? They should be left to determine how they want to use their natural resources. I see every reason to believe that they would very much benefit from commodity money.

      Btw, you will find no fans of the IMF or the World Bank here or among Austrian free-marketeers in general…just sayin’.

      • Jay Giallombardo

        Nate Y:

        Thanks for your thoughtful discourse. I respect your perspective.

        I am still studying the articles you lead me to. It’s tough to just read this stuff and get a full understanding…so I’m not ready yet to respond back.

        And, I am very much a Ron Paul supporter…but I do believe he is talking to Mr. Larouche and thus his “gold standard” perspective is changing.

        Larouche has pointed out that gold or “free choice in currency” is a secondary issue…more important is breaking the back of the world banking cartel.

        And the only way to do that is with a NEW economy not based on monetarism.

        FIAT currency ala the FED is a distortion of the concept of CREDIT…it currently is feeding the monetary engine of the British empire. Hamilton wanted a National bank that issued credit based on the “National GOOD”, that which is needed for the people and the nation to provide for their welfare and prosperity. I don’t believe Hamilton conceived of an institution like the FED (which is of British design) that is above the National Sovereignty of the USA…that is why we all agree that it’s time to “END the FED”.

        Austria Eco says let there be “choice in currency”…but the only choice that will break the British Banking Cartel is the Larouche’s approach of the 4 Power Initiative to establish a new system of Credit, not monetarism.

        The price of criticism is a better idea!

        4-Powers initiative has a chance, and other nations can join in if that is their “choice”, even Britain. And for the US to do so, we must “contain” or vote out Obama. I think he’s gone for 2012 anyway.

        Joseph Giallombardo