Posts Tagged ‘Thomas DiLorenzo’

Lew Rockwell Donate Screen ShotEither I hit their paywall, or my IP address was targeted because of previous hard-hitting articles I had written about Austrian economics, the Mises Institute, Gary North, Thomas DiLorenzo, Dr. Walter Block, Lew Rockwell, The Daily Bell and the infiltration of Ron Paul’s campaign, because as of December 31, 2012, I am redirected to their donation page every time I go to LewRockwell.com.

Deleting my cookies doesn’t help — it’s based on my IP address. Apparently they didn’t consider that there are ways of getting around this, and as a result, I will continue to write hard-hitting articles on the above groups and individuals.

While I give them the benefit of the doubt that it’s probably just a secret paywall and not a result of specifically targeting me, I also had given the Daily Bell the benefit of the doubt about their website numbers, only to uncover that they had lied about them.

Read Full Post »

Frank SuessThe regular Daily Bell contributor Frank Suess included one of my articles at FauxCapitalist.com in his weekly Mountain Vision newsletter, on October 4, 2012.

Gary North: “The FED operates for the benefit of the largest banks”
Unlike fellow Mises devotee, Thomas DiLorenzo, who keeps calling the Fed a “national bank” and “government bank,” to obscure the fact that it´s 100% privately owned and operates at a profit for its shareholders, Gary North admitted on March 9, 2011, that the Fed “operates for the benefit of the largest banks.”

Go to Story

This is from the Daily Bell‘s bio on Suess:

Who is he: Frank R. Suess is CEO & Chairman of BFI Capital Group Inc. and he heads up the BFI group of companies in Zurich, Switzerland. They provide wealth management and consulting companies including the Global Gold Program offering secure gold storage in Switzerland. Frank also personally advises a select group of BFI’s high net-worth clients around the world. Suess’s vast knowledge of Switzerland and Liechtenstein is appreciated in his capacity as a member of the Advisory Board for The Foundation for the Advancement of Free-Market Thinking (FAFMT).

An advocate of free-market principles, Frank frequently speaks and writes on global economic, geo-political and financial matters. He is the editor of the Mountain Vision Update, BFI’s complimentary weekly newsletter. Furthermore, he is a regular contributor to The Daily Bell.

This is ironic, given what I have written about the Daily Bell.

Read Full Post »

April 30: George Washington becomes the first ...

Loyola professor and senior Mises Institute fellow, Thomas DiLorenzo, likes to attack President Abraham Lincoln for his policies of questionable constitutional authority.

What DiLorenzo won’t do, however, is attack with the same zeal, the same alleged violation of the Constitution by the first, and generally highly regarded President of the United States, George Washington.

During his presidency, Washington signed the Coinage Act of 1792 into law, which stated:

SEC. 16. And be it further enacted, That all the gold and silver coins which shall have been struck at, and issued from the said mint, shall be a lawful tender in all payments whatsoever

The term lawful connotes even stronger authority than legal, since lawful represents adherence to the spirit of the law, as well as the letter.

While prominent hard money advocates such as DiLorenzo take exception with Lincoln’s issuance of interest-free legal tender United States Notes, I have yet to see a single one of them point out with the same contempt, that George Washington was acting just as unconstitutionally, according to their own standards, as they allege Lincoln was in making United States Notes legal tender.

The issue of whether the federal government has the power to issue paper currency is separate from whether it has the power to make any currency legal tender.

As to where Washington may have believed he was acting constitutionally in signing the 1792 Coinage Act into law, and taking the view of his Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, over that of Thomas Jefferson, see my article The “necessary and proper” clause: it’s not meaningless.

Read Full Post »

The Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board B...

Unlike fellow Mises devotee, Thomas DiLorenzo, who keeps calling the Fed a “national bank” and “government bank,” to obscure the fact that it’s 100% privately owned and operates at a profit for its shareholders, Gary North admitted on March 9, 2011, that the Fed “operates for the benefit of the largest banks.

Instead of calling it a “government bank,” he correctly identifies it as a “government-created cartel of the banks.” Cartels are otherwise illegal, unless they’re government-sanctioned.

Unlike DiLorenzo, who prefers to focus on its limited and exaggerated governmental aspect, North continues to hammer away at the private nature of the Fed, with: “It was deliberately designed in 1910 to deceive the public, who were opposed to the idea of a central bank.

I will add to that, a private central bank, as North goes on to mention that Congress killed two previous private central banks that were a detriment to the American people.

In outlining his plan for abolishing the Fed, he talks about the United States Postal Service. It is an interesting comparison, since the creation of one (the Post Office) is one of Congress’ constitutionally enumerated powers, while the other (the Fed), isn’t.

Previously, I have taken North to task about some of his past statements, but on these ones, I am in full agreement. It is therefore important to judge all statements based on their merits, and not on the person making them.

Read Full Post »

The Ludwig von Mises Institute

From their About page:

The Ludwig von Mises Institute was founded in 1982 as the research and educational center of classical liberalism, libertarian political theory, and the Austrian School of economics.

It is the mission of the Mises Institute to place human choice at the center of economic theory, to encourage a revival of critical historical research, and to advance the Misesian tradition of thought through the defense of the market economy, private property, sound money, and peaceful international relations, while opposing government intervention as economically and socially destructive.

However, from their Donate page:

The Mises Institute is a 501(c)(3) so contributions are deductible to the full extent the law allows. Ludwig von Mises Institute for Austrian Economics, Tax ID 52-1263436

They hate government so much, they’re a government-sanctioned and regulated tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization.

Now their justification, I’m sure, is that they’re serving the best interests of the Austrian School of economics by facilitating a way for the Institute and its supporters to remove as much from the government’s tax base as their operations and donors can afford.

However, a legal requirement of their tax-exempt status is compliance with regular reporting requirements and regulations of the Internal Revenue Service, the government agency whose forerunner was formed in 1862 during the Civil War administration of President Abraham Lincoln, which senior Mises fellow, Thomas DiLorenzo, aggressively attacks in his articles, and has aggressively attacked in his books, The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked.

Read Full Post »

Thomas DiLorenzo

Thomas DiLorenzo, professor of economics at Loyola University Maryland, senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and regular contributor to LewRockwell.com, has written several articles discrediting early central banking in the United States, yet deliberately omitted mention of the fact that the First Bank of the United States was an 80% privately owned central bank.

The Founding Father of Constitutional Subversion – July 9, 2008

What Hamilton Has Wrought – October 6, 2008

A Fake Banking History of the United States – October 13, 2008

The Founding Father of Crony Capitalism – October 21, 2008

The Corrupt Origins of Central Banking – November 5, 2008

Central Banking as an Engine of Corruption – April 16, 2010

What could have been his motivation for his obvious deliberate omission of the private nature of the First Bank of the United States?

Regardless of his motivation, it serves at least two purposes: Putting disproportionate blame for the Bank’s actions on the federal government that chartered it, and downplaying the private interests that the Bank overwhelming served.

Previously, I wrote how he testified to Congress that central banks create panics, but failed to mention the numerous historical examples of how commercial banks create panics, and Private central bank misinformation, wherein he indirectly claimed that President Lincoln created a central bank.

Read Full Post »

Thomas DiLorenzo

At his February 9, 2011 testimony to Congress, Professor of Economics at Loyola University Maryland, Thomas DiLorenzo, asserted:

“Monetary policy under the direction of the Federal Reserve has a history of creating and destroying jobs. The reason for this is that the Fed, like all other central banks, has always been a generator of boom-and-bust cycles in the economy.”

What he fails to point out, however, are the boom-and-bust cycles that were created in the United States without a central bank. Namely, from 1837 to 1913.

A simple Wikipedia search for “panic of” shows articles for the financial panics of 1837, 1857, 1873, 1884, 1890 and 1907.

So much for the implication, whether intended or not, that financial panics are rare without a central bank.

“It was not the Fed’s subsequent restrictive monetary policy of 1929–1932 that was the problem, as Milton Friedman and others have argued, but its previous expansion.”

DiLorenzo needs to argue for that based on his Austrian economist notion that inflation is nothing more or less than an increase in the money supply, and therefore, the cause of so many of the ills in the economy, and not other reasons, such as unpayable debts.

The question I have for him and other Austrian economists is, without an increase in the money supply, where is the money supposed to come from to pay interest on the debts issued by banks and other lenders?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »