Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Economic Studies Even You Can Understand





Most people don't know what Austrian Economics is although it is an out-growth of Lockean Economic principles of property and labor as well as Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, which was well known to America's founding fathers and indeed the basis of their economic philosophy of freedom.  When I've mentioned Austrian Economics to some people they look askance as if it's some evil foreign doctrine, when the reality is it couldn't be more American than Thomas Jefferson.

Mostly what is taught in school, and used by western governments today is Keynesian economics.  Keynesian economics was widely accepted since politicians understood that using these principles, they could tax the population at large with the hidden tax of inflation.  That is, they could just print all the money they wanted, while the population remained in the dark as to why there was so much price inflation.

Keynesian economics is also why people think that they can't understand economics and avoid the subject altogether (believe me I understand, as this was what was taught to me in college).  It was designed to do just that, with it's complicated mathematical formulas and idiotic assumptions about human action in the market place.  Keynesian economics was and remains an intentional fraud on the people to keep them in the dark as to the real economic manipulations of both the Bankster Cartel and the governments they control. John Maynard Keynes admitted this himself, knowing the people would never read his words and if they did, they wouldn't understand him.

A fundamental principle of economics is the law of supply and demand.  If you can understand that, you can learn economics. Government and banking action can distort both sides of this equation in the short run, but in the long run real market fundamentals come crashing through these distortions, often with cataclysmic consequences.  History is replete with examples, the crash of 1929 and the crash of 2008, as well as World War I and II, and soon WWIII.

If you learn the principles of economics from a Lockean, or better yet an Austrian perspective you can get out of the way of these banking and government created catastrophes.  For instance, one man I know recognized the housing bubble being created by government policies and the bankster cartel and sold his house.  After the crash he bought it back for pennies on the dollar.  How did he know?  He had studied Austrian economics.

There are several books over at the Mises Institute that are very easy to follow and will teach you more than any college will about economics.


If you want a little history to go with your economic studies, there is no better book than The Creature from Jekyll Island, by G. Edward Griffin.  Mr. Griffin will take you step by step through the principles of Austrian economics as you learn the history of the Federal Reserve and how it was designed to fleece the people.  This is an easy way to start learning the principles of economics as you are taken through an exciting journey through the history of banking and market manipulation in the United States.  You may also get angry as you realize how you have been lied to and manipulated, especially once you realize how simple economics actually is and how complicated those in  academia have made it.

"The truth will make you free."  That's a quote from God Himself.  It's Gospel. You can learn the truth about economics if you have normal, average intelligence.  God does not want you to be a slave, and he gave you a brain for that very reason.  The founding fathers didn't want you to be slaves, but they knew that the European Banksters did!  And what those Banksters lost in direct military action against the colonies, they regained through economic warfare while the people remained totally unaware they were being made "subjects" once again, to the very same people.

If you want to learn the principles of economics and freedom another good book is The Law, by Frederic Bastiat.  It's free on line, so there's no excuse to remain in ignorance and slavery.


If you wonder why these things aren't taught in school, or just want to know why your kids are coming home even dumber than when you sent them there, I would encourage you read The Underground History of American Education, by John Taylor Gatto, former New York State & New York City Teacher of the Year.  Now I know that many people, especially those of us in the South, may have some suspicions about someone from New York, especially New York City.  Let me tell you something - although my family has been in Texas now for five generations, my great grandfather (times seven) was from New York and was a Major in the New York militia.  Yep, he actually picked up his musket and shot British soldiers in the American Revolution.  John Taylor Gatto is this type of New Yorker, so put aside your suspicions and get a real education. 

Now get to work.  Or remain in the dark dungeon of ignorance and slavery.  And remember, the best education you will EVER get is the one you give yourself.  Do your own research and evaluation, and see if what I say is true.

It's your choice.  But if you don't, just know that willful ignorance is the willingness to be someone else's chump.

Be the American, the freeman, you were born to be.


42 comments:

the teleprompter said...

I read 'Underground History' a couple years ago, and it helped explain a lot about both my own personal experience with school and the state of education as a whole. I've been trying to preach the gospel ever since, so it's nice to see it promoted here.

danobrega said...

«John
Maynard Keynes admitted this himself, knowing the people would never
read his words and if they did, they wouldn't understand him.»

Can we get a reference on that?

WarriorClass III said...

Why certainly! From pages 220-233 of The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919), by John Maynard Keynes:

"By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls . . . become 'profiteers', who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished not less than the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds . . . all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless."



Can there be any further doubt but this man was a Marxist, an agent provocateur, a FRAUD?

Go Gold or Go Poor said...

I don't actually agree that JMK is taught in schools. I think it's a
bastardized version of several different (Austrian/free-mkt, JMK, etc)
schools of thought where the bias gets focused on why businesses are
God's gift to man kind, and man kind is nothing but a bunch of covetous
leaches who should be grateful that Big-Corp lets them suckle some of
their blood. They provide cover for businesses and governments running
roughshod over the economy and society as a whole by cherry picking
which economic concepts to preach that benefit the elite and
indoctrinating the uninformed.

WarriorClass III said...

Well for me that was 36 years ago, so I adimittedly don't know what is being taught today; I'll take your word for it.

Steve Green said...

Preach the Gospel ? Blind subservience to a man made control system, is slavery. Unfortunately the brainwashed and deceived cannot see otherwise. Subservience to a book written by men to control mankind.

WarriorClass III said...

You confuse God with Satan, but I understand you have a tortured mind - no doubt from horrendous hours in those day-prisons called government schooling. Who wouldn't go completely mad, and with fierce anger, after having to endure that brutality. I truly hope you break free and exercise the freedom that God gave you - yes that free will you think He hates - He loves it! He will help free you, but you must at least WANT to be free. He will not force it upon you nor punish you for choosing slavery. Slavery is it's own punishment.

TheStateIsNotGreat said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
WarriorClass III said...

Yet it has worked out exactly that way.

WarriorClass III said...

Well, you really discredit yourself by subjecting the argument to the false Right-wing/Left-wing paradigm. Nevertheless, I commend you for doing your homework, even if I disagree with your analysis and conclusion.


The thing about real property ownership is that we have to use our own labor to purchase it. I have to work to get the money to buy that property, so that property is in fact the fruit of my labor. This fact in itself destroys your position.

Dan Sullivan said...

Nice recitation of Austrian dogma, but that's not what Locke, Smith or Jefferson said. Invoking Locke, Smith and Jefferson was either dishonest or terribly misinformed.

Suppose you bought some other privilege with your hard earned money, such as a taxicab medallion. Does the fact that you bought it make it any less a privilege?

And Austrians have a pretense of not being right-wing, much as Greens have a pretense of not being left-wing, but with regard to property in land, it is just a pretense.

Dan Sullivan said...

Jefferson:
"Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment, but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state."

" I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;" that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by an individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society. If the society has formed no rules for the appropriation of its lands in severalty, it will be taken by the first occupants. These will generally be the wife and children of the decedent. If they have formed rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife and children, or to some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased. So they may give it to his creditor. But the child, the legatee or creditor takes it, not by any natural right, but by a law of the society of which they are members, and to which they are subject. Then no man can by natural right oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the paiment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which would be reverse of our principle."

"A right of property in moveable things is admitted before the establishment of government. A separate property in lands, not till after that establishment. The right to moveables is acknowledged by all the hordes of Indians surrounding us. Yet by no one of them has a separate property in lands been yielded to individuals. He who plants a field keeps possession till he has gathered the produce, after which one has as good a right as another to occupy it. Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated, and their owner protected in his possession. Till then, the property is in the body of the nation, and they, or their chief as trustee, must grant them to individuals, and determine the conditions of the grant."


"[The] unequal division of property... occasions the numberless instances of
wretchedness which... is to be observed all over Europe."

wmyl said...

@WarriorClass III, I'm really interested in your reply to Dan Sullivan on this question: would you defend the monopoly of state granted title to ownership of taxi medallions because people had used labor to buy them?

TheStateIsNotGreat said...

What exactly has worked out what way exactly?

WarriorClass III said...

Jefferson's fear was that "wretchedness which... is to be observed all over Europe"." That is, the control by the elite over everyone else.

"Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right."

But that is in fact what has happened with the Federal government that claims ownership of 650 million acres, nearly 30% of the total territory of the United States now unavailable for the "common man."

If we continue through the extrapolation of your socialist theory, eventually no one will own any land and all will be homeless except for the banksters that own the government, and by extension the land - and you are once again faced by that exact same "wretchedness."

The taxi medallion is a perfect example market place tyranny. The automobile is the private property of the owner, who should be able to offer transportation services unimpeded by the government.

That's why this is not a right/left argument, but rather freedom vs. government tyranny.

Each Locke, Smith, Bastiat, Jefferson, and Gatto were seeking more freedom for the people, not less. The Austrians have taken this to it's ultimate conclusion, that a truly free market unimpeded by government is what provides the most freedom to the most people.

WarriorClass III said...

Of course not, the state should never have the power to grant a monopoly.

WarriorClass III said...

"By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some."

Dan Sullivan said...

You have only demonstrated that you have not read the context of these quotes (which are easy to find) or that you are going to great lengths to distort what they said.

For example, Jefferson explicitly expressed fears of a landless class "in this country" (meaning the United States) being made subservient to people owning land, in the very message you responded to first.


The old canard about Federal lands is a typical Austrian gambit. It ignores the fact that these are mostly submarginal lands, that many of these acres are leased on extremely favorable terms to ranching and mineral intersts, and that the remaining lands (other than military bases) are available to the entire public.

The bottom line is that Austrians who invoke Locke, Smith and Paine are either deluding themselves or lying. They have been infected with a level of anti-socialist paranoia not seen among the general public since the days of Joseph McCarthy.

Consider WarriorClass's unsupported assertion that the proposal "would lead to a system of even more regulation than we have now." Contrast it with the words of Albert Jay Nock, author of *Our Enemy, the State*, and founder of *The Freeman*, on the person most connected with this proposal:

"The only reformer abroad in the world in my time who interested me in
the least was Henry George, because his project did not contemplate
prescription, but, on the contrary, would reduce it almost to zero. He
was the only one of the lot who believed in freedom, or (as far as I
could see) had any approximation to an intelligent idea of what freedom
is, and of the economic prerequisites to attaining it.... One is immensely tickled to see how things are coming out nowadays with
reference to his doctrine, for George was in fact the best friend the
capitalist ever had. He built up the most complete and absolutely
impregnable defense of the rights of capital that was ever constructed,
and if the capitalists of his day had had sense enough to dig in behind
it, their successors would not now be squirming under the merciless
exactions which collectivism is laying on them, and which George would
have no scruples whatever about describing as sheer highwaymanry."

Or, consider that either taxing land values or otherwise challenging the idea of land as property was not only expressly advocated by Locke, Smith and Jefferson, but by William Penn, Tom Paine, Herbert Spencer, John Stuart Mill, William Lloyd Garrison, Mark Twain, Winston Churchill, several people cited in *Liberty and the Great Libertarians*, LP founder David Nolan, LP News founder Karl Hess, first LP Presidential candidate John Hospers, William F. Buckley, Nobel laureates Milton Friedman, James Buchanan, and Paul Samuelson, and many others - even some Austrians such as Carl Menger, Fred Foldvary and Max Hirsh (See his *Democracy vs. Socialism*.)

In contrast, Marx dismissed it as "Capitalism's last ditch," Engles called it "evil," Hyndmann railed against it and Gronlund charged what Nock observed, that it would reduce the prescription that socialists valued so much.

Indeed, it is not even the Austrian scholars who oppose land value tax so much as a lot of knee-jerk right-wingers who use Austrian dogma as a pretext for defending privilege.

Dan Sullivan said...

The land title is every bit as much of a monopoly device as are taxi medallions. There are many owners of medallions, just as here are many owners of land titles. People can operate taxis by renting permission from medallion owners or buying medallions from them, just as people can work the land by renting from a title holder or buying a title.

Indeed, if you look up the word "monopoly" in the Oxford English Dictionary, you will see that one of the defining usages is this quote from Adam Smith:



"The rent of the land, therefore, considered as the price paid for the use of the land, is naturally a monopoly price. It is not at all proportioned to what the landlord may have laid out upon the improvement of the land, or to what he can afford to take; but to what the farmer can afford to give."

The question at had was not whether the right-wing Austrian view on property in land is correct, and there can be no end of argument on that. Rather, the argument was about whether the opening post was dishonest in claiming to be "an out-growth of Lockean Economic principles of property and labor as well as Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations" that "couldn't be more American than Thomas Jefferson."

That is just plain wrong, but the Austrian mutual-admiration society continues to spout such nonsense.

Hans said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
WarriorClass III said...

If you had read any of the writings of America's Founders, you'd have seen they were all against slavery. They tolerated it as a necessary evil to get Virginia to join the Union. Jefferson wrote extensively about property, as noted by Dan Sullivan in his very long comments above. And no American Indian was ever enslaved. You have really got to get out of that indoctrination mind-fuck of the "progressive" re-written history and learn the truth.

the teleprompter said...

I think you completely misinterpreted my use of the phrase "preach the gospel". I am not referring to or implying the prosthelytizing of Christianity, or any other religion for that matter. If you had any familiarity with John Taylor Gatto, or the subject matter of his books, you would understand how completely misplaced and out of context your comment is.

WarriorClass III said...

I took it to mean that you told people about John Taylor Gatto and the subversive indoctrination of forced government schooling. I think you misunderstood my reply, or read my reply to another commenter and mistook it for a reply to you.

the teleprompter said...

LOL, yes indeed, Warrior. My response was directed to Mr. Steve Green above. Sorry for any confusion.

WarriorClass III said...

My mistake; I thought you were replying to me. You know, I found Gatto's book about 7 or 8 years ago when my children started coming home from school even dumber than when I sent them there.


At first I just thought it was teacher incompetence; I mean anyone who's ever seduced an El Ed major in college knows the problem there. But when my oldest started coming home with a hatred of our founding fathers, the Declaration of Independence, white people, etc., I knew it was more than just teacher stupidity and incompetence.


My research eventually led me to John Taylor Gatto and my own real education began, and subsequently, my children's. I suspect this is a story repeated all over the Nation with parents who take an active interest in their children's education.


It was just a matter of circumstance that I found this book at about the same time it was published; or was it Divine providence providing me with exactly what I needed at exactly the right time?

Lonejack said...

Let's say you score a point on the history of economic thought. So what?

Rather than accusing the opening poster of dishonesty and fretting obsessively over who said what in the past about the issue, let's focus on the issue itself: the notion of property, especally as regards land and natural resources, considered from the ethical perspective of freedom and non-agression versus tryanny and coercion.

You, Dan, appear comfortable with the use of state cercion and wealth confiscation. I wager that most of us on this forum are not.

Dan Sullivan said...

People who think in terms of scoring points tire me so. I am thinking in terms of correcting a terribly misleading post.

I didn't accuse the poster of dishonesty. I just said his statements were not true. That leaves plenty of room for other explanations, such as his being mistaken and misled. Your trying to make it more personal than it needs to be is a disservice to decorum.

The root word of "property" is "proper." All the people he cited focused on what is proper, and determined that property in land is built on privilege and coercion, not on natural rights. Their solution was simply to let the title holders keep the land, on the condition that they compensate the landless by bearing the burdens of government and/or by putting paying the value of their privileges into a fund that is divided no a per capita basis.

The land title is itself the result of conquest, and never existed prior to conquering states. Far from my position - the classical liberal position - being comfortable with coercion and the state, that position stands in contrast to right-wing neolibertarian justifications of the coercive landlord state, in which a subset of the population claims all the land between them, enforces their claims with the threat of violence against "trespassers", and makes each landless person pay one of them tribute for being on "his" portion of the planet.

"It can never be pretended that the existing titles to such property are legitimate. Should any one think so, let him look in the chronicles. Violence, fraud, the prerogative of force, the claims of superior cunning - these are the sources to which those titles may be traced. The original deeds were written with the sword, rather than with the pen: not lawyers, but soldiers, were the conveyancers: blows were the current coin given in payment; and for seals, blood was used in preference to wax. Could valid claims be thus constituted? Hardly. And if not; what becomes of the pretensions of all subsequent holders of estates so obtained? Does sale or bequest generate a right where it did not previously exist? Would the original claimants be nonsuited at the bar of reason, because the thing stolen from them had changed hands? Certainly not. And if one act of transfer can give no title, can many? No: though nothing be multiplied for ever, it will not produce one. Even the law recognises this principle. An existing holder must, if called upon, substantiate the claims of those from whom he purchased or inherited his property; and any flaw in the original parchment, even though the property should have had a score intermediate owners, quashes his right.

"'But Time,' say some, “is a great legaliser. Immemorial possession must be taken to constitute a legitimate claim. That which has been held from age to age as private property, and has been bought and sold as such, must now be considered as irrevocably belonging to individuals.' To which proposition a willing assent shall be given when its propounders can assign it a definite meaning. To do this, however, they must find satisfactory answers to such questions as - How long does it take for what was originally a wrong to grow into a right? At what rate per annum do invalid claims become valid? If a title gets perfect in a thousand years, how much more than perfect will it be in two thousand years? - and so forth. For the solution of which they will require a new calculus."

- Herbert Spencer, *Social Statics*, Chapter 9, "The Right to the Use of the Earth"

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=273&chapter=6246&layout=html&Itemid=27

Hans said...

Jefferson wrote extensively about property... I wonder if he included Sally Hemings in these writings?


And you say the Founding Fathers were all against slavery? That they "tolerated it as a necessary evil..." You mean a necessary evil to keep their homes clean and to harvest their crops? Seriously, man, WTF? Most of them OWNED slaves! I guess they were just the biggest hypocrites in the new world! LOL. Just how far up your ass is your head?


As far as the American Indians, they knew the land too well, so it was too easy for them to run away. Their fate was land theft and genocide.


You're really taking liberties with this revisionist history stuff. You should turn off Fox News and read an actual history book.

WarriorClass III said...

Hans! Hans, baby! History is never as neat and clean as they'd have you believe. Yes, Jefferson owned slaves and preached against slavery. He was a hypocrite and a sinner, but saw a greater good even though he himself did not achieve his desired perfection. And the American Indians either sold their land or made land treaties with the colonists and the US Gov., concerning land rights. No tribe or combination of tribes ever claimed they owned anywhere near the territory of what is now the USA. Conflicts arose and the Indians lost the argument. Either learn the actual history or just get over yourself.

Hans said...

To which "land treaties" are you referring to? Most Indians did not sell their land. That's a complete lie. Most of the examples of "sales" you are probably referring to consisted of Indians from a rival tribe agreeing to sell someone else's land. it would be like if i sold YOUR house to Canada and then the Canadian government held a gun to your head and forced you to honor the agreement.


And there were tribes living or hunting just about everywhere. White settlers and the government just kept coming, pushing them back and forcing them off their lands. They shot, starved, and butchered them. There was also an extensive system of concentration camps - which we called reservations.


Seriously, WarriorClass III, baby, I can tell by your handle that you glorify militarism and patriotism and other nonsense, but please, turn off Fox News and read a history book.

WarriorClass III said...

Hans, you either don't read at all or you can't. If you had even bothered to read the side-bar, you'd know where my name is derived from rather than making the typical liberal assumption about militarism and Fox News. Really, Hans, you've got to get your mind free from the slave training you got in school and do your own research.

Hans said...

Warrior, buddy, this Peters dude is a freaking lunatic. He's absolutely stark raving mad. He's also a poster child for "group think" and fascism. Just look at his advocacy of the Iraq war and his many flip-flops on his position. The guy says what's popular at the time, in contrast to his cardboard cutout literary characters who are always lone wolf types. It's funny. And that paper he wrote on the new warrior class... biggest bunch of crazy I've ever seen. He's a certified whack-o. Seriously, his paper reads like the synopsis for a bad spy / thriller novel (which is, coincidentally, what his books are).
So basically, you're idolizing a lunatic hack and calling it knowledge? You think you actually know something because you picked a crazy loon for a hero? Out of curiosity, how far in the military did you get? Were you in the military? Is this where you learned to ignore common sense and support fascism?

TransitDave said...

Actually American indians had no concept of land ownership whatsoever, and at first were only too happy to take whatever goods where given them to move on to other lands, of which there was no shortage for the first couple of hundred years after the Europeans arrived in America. When the overwhelming numbers of settlers began to compete with them for hunting and other resources, conflicts began, but the Europeans were viewed as no different than any other competing tribes in this regard. The early history of the American Colonies was one of competing alliances with the various tribes pitting the French, English and Spanish with their Indian allies against each other. You should read the Last of the Mohicans, America's first great novel, which was written before the revolution. And, also maybe you should read some other history besides Howard Zinn's version.

WarriorClass III said...

Ok, Hans baby, I have identified your problem: you have no reading comprehension skills. Had you understood what I was saying, you'd know that I'm against this idiot and the NWO. You have to realize that these are the sociopaths running our government. You apparently have no idea that the thousands of militia men across the United States are training and ready to kill these fascist pigs and restore liberty to America. In case you haven't noticed, there is a monstrous arms build-up between the fascist dictatorship and the American people. Have you not read about the huge government purchases of ammo (over 2 billion rounds and counting by the DHS) and American citizens stock-piling of the same? A civil war is brewing, and you fail to realize it, and which side I'm on.

TransitDave said...

Or maybe I'm a man who knows the history of his ancestors, white and indian......But since you obviously choose to be ignorant, I won't bother trying to educate you. And I've concluded I have nothing to learn from you. And, better a tea partier than a douche bag like you........

WarriorClass III said...

That's what I'm talking about Hans; you have no reading comprehension skills. You need to work on that.

wmyl said...

So why support enforced land monopoly?

wmyl said...

Land value is not wealth, no more than taxi medallions are wealth. They have value because privilege is scarce, but actually it is the aggregate level of proximate wealth that determines land value, not the other way around. In other words, land and medallions in the middle of nowhere are worth nothing. Wealth has to be near privilege before monopolists have something to extract.

WarriorClass III said...

Private ownership of property is not a monopoly.

chicagorefugee said...

I'm guessing you're a homophobic slur-slinging Tea Baggee?

wmyl said...

It is the classic example of monopoly. That is why all monopoly profit is called "economic rent". As Dan Sullivan points out, the literal definition of "rent" is "that which was ripped off".

WarriorClass III said...

I appreciate your comments. I think there is an argument for taxing commercial and investment property, but I do have a problem with taxing homestead property but even with that there are going to be questions of what is fair. Perhaps a death tax once the homeowner dies? It's an issue that's not going to be resolved here, which is why I quite responding to Sullivan; that and well, he's an ass.

I agree with you that there are problems with a pure gold/metal based money system and have addressed that in other posts. Historically, gold based systems have been manipulated by the banksters using fractional reserve banking to restrict or expand the "supply" of gold, thereby manipulating the economy. I agree we need competing currencies to limit that capability.

Mike Vanderboegh and I have been friends for a few years now and have both been to a few freedom rallies together, although I leave the speech making to him. He's a far better writer than I as well, but I started this blog because I felt there were so many more issues that he wasn't covering on his blog that I thought needed to be out there, particularly immigration and the balkanization of America.

Thank you for stopping by and sharing your thoughts. Hope you come back & visit!