Keiser Report: As Gold As Gold

186 comments on “Keiser Report: As Gold As Gold
  1. Zach OBrien says:

    Beard I totally agree. Sound currency is great, but I think that any violent monopoly on a sound currency makes it all for naught.

    In a free market, the more gold one institution hoarded, the higher the price would be and the less inclined the remaining holders would be to give it up. So power would naturally accumulate in opposing persons if one person or entity began to hoard.

  2. JonnyJames says:

    @Zach

    If you want to be free by some physical gold and silver and lay off the meth.

  3. JonnyJames says:

    An elitist fiat paper-worshipper posing as a libertarian?
    Are the bots coming out da woodwork or what?

  4. Zach OBrien says:

    JohnyJames Yes I worship paper. What’s wrong with a medium that allows liberal government to steal your production?

  5. ZORRO LONDON says:

    We are heading towards………ROLLERBALL !

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-NtHe1UIg0

    Max,, I’m writing to the Pope for youre beatification.

    Is there a saint Max?…………………………..Z

  6. stacyherbert says:

    @JonnyJames – I am sure you also ignore those who wield ‘liberal’ as a playground style insult ala various Fox News’ hosts?

  7. Zach OBrien says:

    @ Sacy Don’t be so heard on your own tactics. -Meth Head

  8. Zach OBrien says:

    I don’t even get Cable so I don’t have Fox dictate to me who’s running what grassroots movements and call my assumptions sophisticated.

    But I do know that under a gold standard all you liberals would be saddened by how small the government would have to be without an inflationary empire. Many of you would have to actually work for a living.

  9. jischinger says:

    How does Norway do it?

  10. Omega Pointing says:

    @ Zach O’Brien

    “If you dig the ideal that no man should exist for another man, that no man has the right to another’s life, property, or ANY portion thereof, and that men should be free to conduct peaceful transactions so long as it hurts no one.”

    1. No man should exist for another man: This is an impossible ideal by virtue of the fact that a) man is a zoon politicon or political animal and b) we live in societies and have interpersonal relationships. Socialisation and collective effort “create” society. As for the idea of “exist for” another: this philosophy is still ingrained in liberal philosophy; which, if you know anything at all, champions the idea of non-interference from the state and government. Taking “exist for” to mean that one lives for another person, or to preserve that other person, we can also look to the idea of a parent’s relationship to a child. Is it not true, in this relationship, that the parent is “existing for” the child; that the parent sustains him or herself in order to “care for another”? If we accept this point, then your argument falls flat.

    2. no man has a right to another’s life, property or ANY portion thereof.
    Kant expressed this more clearly when he said that man must be treated as an “end” rather than as a “means”. This means that we cannot use people to further our own personal interests. Accepting that humans are unique and sovereign entities, we cannot act morally without conceiving of others in a universal context. In fact, ethical requirements operate on the principle that we think of “humanity” before ourselves. Rawls, in a similar manner, advises that we must think of principles that can be readily agreed by all reasonable individuals. Only in this way is justice a viable ideal. In other words, if you argue egoistically toward a view of justice, you will not arrive at real justice; merely your conception of what justice is. Therefore, justice, the equal weighing of individuals, requires that we reason toward a common conclusion. Evading this process leads to nothing but violence.

    I mention justice as you commented on “right”. But where do rights come from? Do they not come from a philosophy that requires us to see the equal worth of all individuals? A right is not merely attained, it is derived from something. On the issue of property, a further point needs to be made: where you are born, who you are born to, ultimately helps to demarcate a certain territory: from the womb to the land about you. BUT, this is morally and economically arbitrary. One person could be born with more “goods” than the rest and use this to create a monopoly. Also, one person could control the means of production (as Marx would say), whilst another is forced to be a mere slave in the system. This, in turn, will reduce competition and lead to the invalidity of fair and reasonable mobility. So, goods must be distributed so as to ensure the best “starting position”. Again, this becomes an impossible ideal unless there is some measure of institutional support.

    3. men should be free to conduct peaceful transactions so long as it hurts no one.
    If we accept points one and two of your statement, if seems impossible to accept point three. Why? Because if individuals are given total freedom to do as they wish, without any institutional supports (without the rule of law), then there is no possibility of there being “peaceful transactions”. Peaceful transactions of any type involve collective decision making. They do not arise because you “will” them into existence.

    “Omega you’re assuming if men were free they would be savages. But in fact government attracts the savages who enslave men. Free men create, innovate, cooperate. Government is the barbarian who subverts the natural rhythm of commerce.”

    1. assuming if men were free they would be savages.
    Political theory has spent a great deal of time and effort on this subject. Those who talk about a commiserative bond between individuals take a particuarly Rousseauan tact. Others who believe that unchecked desires lead to violence and calamity, posit Hobbes as their source. Personally, government is nothing more than a social contract between citizens. Without it there is no such thing as freedom as some people will attain more freedom (through force and strength), while others receive less (through passivity, weakness or disability).

    2. Free men create, innovate.
    They do so because they are given the ability to be “free”. They are protected by laws, the heavy and necessary burden of statute. Government, if it is acting in the interests of the people, cares only about “free” commerce. Unfortunately, when a government is co-opted by banking elites, corporate players who have great money and power, the government becomes corrupted. It does so because politicians act egoistically, and act for their own personal gain. IF, however, they thought of the common good, IF they thought oikonomially, then commerce would run free and the laws of supply and demand would create wealth aplenty. THAT is the value of freedom. THAT is the substance of freedom. THAT is the morality of freedom.

  11. Zach OBrien says:

    I’m all for anyone being able to pursue the surplus of others, I just don’t think they should demand it with a government gun. Rather, produce surplus themselves and then freely negotiate for the surplus of others. I am therefore a free marketer.

    But it’s not “moral” unless you employ state-violence to seize the production of others. Am I right so far?

  12. Zach OBrien says:

    Omega, I never said that you can’t CHOOSE to exist for another man, you are free to do whatever you wish. But once you have a state that COMPELS you to exist for another via threat of violence, then you have Socialism in practice: where a bureaucratic aristocracy loots and cripples the productive free society, in the name of the growing ranks of unproductive and disenfranchised masses.

  13. Mark Lytle says:

    I see a lot of esoteric discussion here on the merits of PM’s vs Fiat, and different forms of fiat.

    I think ANY money system will work, and has worked from time to time, if sufficient safeguards were in place and ENFORCED to provide transparency and fairness. I don’t see any particular advantages of any single system. It’s the intentionality of the Monetary system that defines it, and it’s effects.

    That said, PM’s are the ‘contrarian’ position now, and serves as a check on the current system, which is full of abuses. This is cyclic, and there will come a time down the road when PM’s or at least a basket of ‘real’ items will be currency, until something forces it back to ‘virtuality’, i.e. fiat again, at some unknown number of decades from now.

    Put it another way, if one group of Humans is determined to screw another group of Humans, with sufficient cleverness and guile and persistence, they will pervert anything and put it to use towards that end.

    I think that is the ONLY universal about systems.

    A lot of these discussions strike me the same as how many angels fit on the head of a pin.

  14. Omega Pointing says:

    @ Zach O’Brien

    “I’m all for anyone being able to pursue the surplus of others, I just don’t think they should demand it with a government gun. Rather, produce surplus themselves and then freely negotiate for the surplus of others.”

    You issue here involves copyright. In other words, if Mr A conceives of idea B, then A = B. Moreover if Mr A’s idea is remunerative, then he should be allowed to accumulate a vast about of wealth (W) from his effort. So A + B = W. Also, any surplus that is generated after C, in other words, after C has taken his profit, goes back to C. We then have A+B = W+S. All of this comes from A.

    However, this means that the powerful will gain over the weak, as the surplus will be retained and expended on other activities: buying politicians, buying weapons, banks etc. So the surplus and the profit extracted from the equation are used to further the goals of A and the expense of everyone else. Is this fair? Surely there remains the possibility that Mr A, without regulatory frameworks of any sort, will destroy the ideas of future Mr As?

    The fact is that A is part of a state, a nation, a territory. He exists by virtue of a community that ensures B becomes a reality. In this sense, the product cannot escape linkage to a wider community of individuals. Moreover, the entire surplus does not have to be subsumed into the state, nor is it in realty. But it is clear that no society can function without taxation of some sort. So a higher tithe is imposed on A if and only if A has the power to enforce a monopoly. For all that, it seems feasible that A is unable to realise B and to gain S without government help of some sort.

  15. JonnyJames says:

    @Stacy

    Indeed, most folks don’t understand political and economic terms in the first place.
    They don’t have any idea about political philosophy, political psychology, political theory, politcial systems or how politics really works. Their superficial and distorted understanding simply reflects a life-time of dumbed-down propaganda and false narratives.

    This Zach character ignores all else and just toots his own horn about how someone is trying to steal his “surplus”. Too bad he can’t see that the kleptocratic oligarchy is stealing more than just his surplus.

    If these bot-types were really concerned about kleptocracy, they would be buying silver, gold and taking their fiat out of the BigBanks. They would look behind the curtain and realize it aint ‘da gumment’ per se, but it is the Oligarchy pulling the puppet-strings who are the real culprits.

    This is what you and Max talk about every day, yet the bots don’t want to hear it, they simply repeat their boiler-plate talking point to distract from the core issues. Folks like you and Max have x-ray vision to see through the thickest miasma.

  16. Mark Lytle says:

    Really, the scariest trend I am observing is that all asset classes are being ‘overworked’ to exhaustion. The current Financial class is so rapacious, they are extracting value from everything at a level that is destroying the underlying asset creation capability.

    Take Real Estate, for ands example. The wealth extraction process has become so efficient and ruthless, that through MERS and the accompanying title destruction it caused, it’s unclear what the value of ANY real Estae will be in a few years.

    Stocks are similarly, hyped and front-run, dumped and counterfeited, destroying trust in the underlying asset and the asset system it represents (Stock market)

    This is what’s unprecedented about the current time, the wholesale destruction of assets, through a process akin to exhaustive agriculture, where the soil itself is ruined, not just the current crops.

  17. Mark Lytle says:

    And so the dollar is being devalued through a process analogous to what’s happening with Stocks and Real Estate. It’s a unique form of destruction never seen before, which is part of the reason, there are all of these deflation-inflation debates. It’s also why Jim Willie calls it ‘disintegration’, because that’s what it is: the disintegration of money, of the price discovery process for stocks, and the valuations of Real Estate.

  18. Zach OBrien says:

    @ Omega. What’s wrong with powerful people if they have earned it peacefully by offering their innovation to willing customers? I’d like Toyota to keep what they earn to get an all electric car on the market ASAP. Not have half their earnings stolen to fight oil wars.

    Power earned is different from power seized.

  19. F. Beard says:

    I think ANY money system will work, and has worked from time to time, if sufficient safeguards were in place and ENFORCED to provide transparency and fairness. Mark Lytle

    Nope. You are wrong. Usury based monies (which include PMs) are mathematically unsustainable. Furthermore, if they are privileged by government then they are also fascist and lead to unjust wealth distribution.

    The true solution is pretty simple and comes from your wife’s Bible – Matthew 22:16-22 – separate government and private money supplies. Or do you think the Lord is ignorant when it comes to economics?

  20. Zach OBrien says:

    JohnneyJames? maybe there is another bot posing as me, or maybe I’m not conveying my sarcasm in a simplistic enough manner but I’m anti-fiat and SLA to the core dude. Like your enemies, Ron Paul, Peter Schiff or Ayn Rand.

  21. Mark Lytle says:

    You could say that the endpoint of all of this is just a loss in trust for the dollar, with PM’s as the means of preserving wealth. Well, I do generally subscribe to this, but the distortions in the fiat currency world, the equities world, and the Real Estate world has distorted things in the ‘real’ world as fully as the fiat, virtual one.

    We have grand houses (McMansions) made of cardboard, we have food with no nutrition, or even toxic, we have a highly damaged ecosystems, and we have damaged people running around crazy everywhere (and a lot of them have extreme irrational opinions)

    I can’t imagine a foreign invader could ever have produced as much damage as this system has done to itself. And no, though the bankers caused some of it, I think the core is in capitalism itself, where it has mutated with the opportunities presented by unparalleled computer power to morph any asset to any level desired without real effort being expanded. The very idea of ‘morphing’ of photographs, introduced in the ’80′s and ’90′s is a signpost to what was happening to all of the things real and virtual, in our lives.

  22. Mark Lytle says:

    @F.Beard

    Usury is a choice, I can produce any money system and abuse it. Or Not.

  23. F. Beard says:

    And no, though the bankers caused some of it, I think the core is in capitalism itself, where it has mutated with the opportunities presented by unparalleled computer power to morph any asset to any level desired without real effort being expanded. Mark Lytle

    In other words the problem is economic freedom itself? Then who do you propose should be in charge of this world of fallible humans? Another fallible human? Should we call him the Fuhrer too?

  24. Zach OBrien says:

    Beard! A PM standard is not by def usury based!! That’s only if the precious metals are loaned with debt attached to them, due back to a central power.

    And in a free market, any precious metals you currently owned are your property outright. Their value will grow too because you’ll have people trying to produce kick ass products to sell you products for them! Just think if our savings always grew no matter what! SLA baby.

  25. JonnyJames says:

    @Zach, Who cares?
    I don’t give a fuck about no one but myself and I don’t give a fuck about you. (sarcasm)

  26. F. Beard says:

    Usury is a choice, I can produce any money system and abuse it. Mark Lytle

    And that is why we need NO money system for private debts – so we can escape any abuse by using a competitor’s product.

  27. Mark Lytle says:

    For ages, there has been philosophic debate between how one discerns ‘reality’ from ‘appearance’. This goes back to the Ancient Greeks.

    Now, we have settled this. You can’t do it anymore.

  28. Zach OBrien says:

    Beard the US is Marxist, not capitalist, as our biggest current problem is “centralization of credit in the hands of the state.” That is if you’ll accept that the Fed, Goldman, and JPM is “the state.” I don’t know how anyone could argue against that.

    Marxism won, capitalism got sick and died a long time ago.

    (The 5th plank of Marxism: “centralization of credit in the hands of the state”)

  29. Zach OBrien says:

    “@Zach, Who cares?
    I don’t give a fuck about no one but myself and I don’t give a fuck about you. (sarcasm)”

    Stacy you sided with this guy against me. Wow.

  30. Mark Lytle says:

    @F.Beard

    “In other words the problem is economic freedom itself? Then who do you propose should be in charge of this world of fallible humans? Another fallible human? Should we call him the Fuhrer too?”

    Slow down, cowboy, I proposed nothing.

    It’s helpful to define the problem before you go blathering around about solutions.

    I am only trying to define the problem.

    No you know, a criminal will not limit himself in any way. I understand the criminal bankers make the same defense. They would claim I’m attacking free market capitalism. They wrap themselves in the flag, and all that.

    The problem is, modern Americans seem to have acquired the idea that ethics are an unfair imposition, very unpleasant and toxic, and since everyone is imperfect, then no one is ‘worthy’ to enforce ethics. So we choose chaos.

    Previous generations usually worked this out, satisfactorily, as long as those generations were healthy. We are not. Thus, the problem.

  31. Zach OBrien says:

    It explains your liberalism Jhonney. You don’t care about me, and of course you want to tax me. Natural liberal slip-up.

  32. JonnyJames says:

    @Zach,

    Aw did I hurt your feelings? All I did was use some English words (of Anglo-Saxon and Norse origin, which for some reason, many find offensive) and I indicated that I was being sarcastic. Don’t be so sensitive.

  33. JonnyJames says:

    You must be a yank, like me. Because you don’t even know what liberal means. Ask a Brit.

    http://www.politicalcompass.org will tell you some basics about this.

    I am an Anarchist, BTW. My sarcasm has escaped you.

  34. Zach OBrien says:

    “I don’t give a fuck about no one but myself and I don’t give a fuck about you. (sarcasm)”

    This came from Stacy’s partner-in-Zach-bashing. Shameful.

  35. F. Beard says:

    It’s helpful to define the problem before you go blathering around about solutions. Mark Lytle

    Implying that I do? I’m not blathering anything. I have thought long and hard about the problem and Matthew 22:16-22 is the solution.

    It’s your tough luck that it validates the Bible and that you did not take it seriously.

  36. Mark Lytle says:

    My main point is that manipulation of perception has become so powerful, that reality and appearance as the ancients debated it, is no longer resolvable to the average mind, and only with some difficulty by the not-so-average mind.

    Truth is defeated. A byproduct is that few have had sufficient experience with ‘thought’ to do it as well as people used to. A casualty of living in a ‘virtualized’, ‘matrix’ kind of world.

  37. F. Beard says:

    And in a free market, any precious metals you currently owned are your property outright. Their value will grow too because you’ll have people trying to produce kick ass products to sell you products for them! Just think if our savings always grew no matter what! ZO

    Jesus condemned money hoarding in Matthew 25:14-30.

    Furthermore, money hoarding is a means of looting the young for the sake of the old as the population grows but the money supply does not.

  38. Zach OBrien says:

    I think the most troubling thing liberal SLA members have to toss and turn about at night, is this:

    When the people become free from their banker-masters, they are also cut off from the feeding regimen the master’s farm provided (feed and healthcare based on money printing and products conned out of East Asia. They are worried about having to make their own way again without the subsidies of their farmer.

  39. Mark Lytle says:

    @F.Beard

    You rarely know what you are talking about, even with the Bible to help you.

    I think you’re still trying to sell the idea of Common stock (meant to vary) as currency (meant to be stable). Logic? None.

    Common Stock as in ‘Dow Jones’ is not a Biblical concept either, plus you make absolutely no sense.

  40. Mark Lytle says:

    I really shouldn’t be debating with a self-admitted ex-Meth user anyway..waste of time. You’ve lost too much grey matter Beard.

  41. jischinger says:

    What the Kochs did or are trying to do in WI –
    They gave Walker about $43k
    What they want from him is the state’s electric grid (Dreams of Enron)

    Walker wants to give this to them with a no bid contract

    However, they are anti nuke; cause they are in the business of coal, oil and gas – WI plants are mostly coal.

    They also have an office across the street from the capital and what I’ve been told this comes with a private tunnel connecting to the legislative chamber

    It’s hard to imagine they will get the contract after all the protests, but if the recalls fail it’s anyone’s guess what will happen.

    The State Supreme Court election was a test case and it looks like Walker’s guy won.

    However, Americans like a familiar face – if Walker is recalled there’s a pretty good chance Feingold will run for Governor.

    What the Koch Bros bring to the table and it’s pretty new is they got local

    They find a few dopes in each local community to weasel their legislation in and get it passed, this way it looks like this idea came from local citizens.

    Basically, what their organization does is copying legislation they like that passes in one state then tweak it to fit another state they want control in. They are like a virus that adapts.

    They got the idea from the law suits against big tobacco – few may remember or even know that the sweeping court cases across the country that won judgment after judgment against big tobacco was all written in Minnesota. What other state AG’s did was copy and past their work and took it with them to court.

    This method made it hard for a state judge to refute what another judge’s ruling was in a neighboring state, not to mention the case against big tobacco was actually written very well.

    The Kochs took this technique and started using it for legislation that favored their bottom line. They tried many techniques and the ones that worked they just copied, past and tweaked to fit then sent on to the next state.

    As long as you have a legal resident to purpose their ideas there’s very little anyone can do to stop them, other than get active.

    It’s, all-politics-is-local on steroids.

    What we have now are the American People not only fighting lobby groups in DC, but are also trying to fight guys like the Koch Bros. in their local communities as well.

    I don’t think the American people can handle both DC and their local government at the same time. We are being attacked on all sides, surrounded by vampires, and the only way to kill them is a stake through the heart.

    This is another reason why I am for secession.

  42. Zach OBrien says:

    Protesting austerity is just cattle back at the feeding trough begging for the fences to be put back up and the grain to start flowing to fatten them up for slaughter. It’s disgusting admittance of servitude. It’s surrender.

  43. Mark Lytle says:

    In the end, Humanity faces some kind of a test, as to whether it can surmount the wall of appearances, and addictive promises of a corrupt corporatocracy. If it can’t, it’s toast.

  44. F. Beard says:

    I really shouldn’t be debating with a self-admitted ex-Meth user anyway..waste of time. Mark Lytle

    That’s a cop out. But run away if you can’t hold your end of an argument.

  45. F. Beard says:

    If it can’t, it’s toast. Mark Lytle

    And who made you a prophet, sonny boy?

    The “true legend in his own mind” is you Mark Lytle.

    And since your are depressed and I am usually not then who is more sane, you or me? At least I am sane enough to have hope but what about you?

  46. Mark Lytle says:

    What a riot, the ex-Meth Head, who got himself fired over a redhead, calls himself sane.

  47. Zach OBrien says:

    Schinger that’s epic.

    I think secession in the SouthWest means race-war. There’s going to be a lot of Mexican nationals ready to fight whitey for their “land back.” I can feel the tension as the economy slips and we don’t have as much work for them.

    Also, when Sacramento collapses, the Fed’s plan to court the Mexican population with some pretty simplistic 3 minute hate, racially-charged propaganda and employ them to take out the white-property owners. A free Federal army really.

    The reason they are turning a blind eye to the drug cartel encroachment and the rampant migration of people is to destabilize an egalitarian succession movement. The enlightenment didn’t come out of Mexico after all.

  48. F. Beard says:

    I think you’re still trying to sell the idea of Common stock (meant to vary) as currency (meant to be stable). Logic? None. Mark Lytle

    You are pretty dumb if you think a constant store of value exists or could ever exist. ALL money is dynamic in value. But as far as money goes, I only insist in total liberty in private money creation. Then you could use your shiny metals and others could use saner money forms.

  49. Mark Lytle says:

    “You are pretty dumb if you think a constant store of value exists or could ever exist. ALL money is dynamic in value. But as far as money goes, I only insist in total liberty in private money creation. Then you could use your shiny metals and others could use saner money forms.”

    Sophistry by a nut.

  50. F. Beard says:

    What a riot, the ex-Meth Head, who got himself fired over a redhead, calls himself sane. Mark Lytle

    Falling for a woman is no shame since David himself did so. I suppose if one is cold-blooded then it might seem insane.

    And I never claimed to be sane – just saner than you. And since I take the Bible serious and you don’t then I expect the gap in sanity to grow to infinity unless you repent.

  51. F. Beard says:

    Sophistry by a nut. Mark Lytle

    You are a conceited little twit, aren’t you? Or just insecure?

  52. Mark Lytle says:

    @F.Beard

    David was a moral failure, not a role model, of any kind, and you’re hocus pocus doesn’t work.

    Good day.

  53. F. Beard says:

    David was a moral failure, not a role model, of any kind, and you’re hocus pocus doesn’t work. Mark Lytle

    David sinned yes but he was not conceited as you are and as I used to be. And David is a model of those saved by grace. A grace you do not even believe exists?

  54. 2O4C says:

    Very good show. You come across well when you’re sick Max. :)

  55. Zach OBrien says:

    Beard, why the hell did Noah include mosquitos and ticks on the ark? Next time you’re kneeling to your sky-god at the pews could you curse him out for me?

  56. Mike says:

    Hey Max, Why don’t you interview the anarchocapitalist Lew Rockwell (whose anti Koch) and discuss their neocon brand of libertarianism? He’s featured a number of your videos on his blog. Oh wait, what’s this? Butler Shaffer (and Lew Rockwell) masterbate in public while watching videos of American politicians getting shot http://maxkeiser.com/2011/01/11/butler-shaffer-and-lew-rockwell-masterbate-in-public-while-watching-videos-of-american-politicians-getting-shot/

    Koch Brothers Fund Trey Grayson’s Campaign
    Posted by Lew Rockwell on March 30, 2010 08:44 AM

    I have it on very good authority that Charles and David Koch, the ex-libertarian oil plutocrats of Wichita, Kansas, are helping bankroll neocon Trey Grayson’s senate campaign in Kentucky against Rand Paul. http://63.e5bed1.client.atlantech.net/pacs/expenddetail.php?cycle=2010&cmte=C00236489&name=Friends+Of+Trey+Grayson Grayson, who has been endorsed by Dick Cheney, is the protege of Mitch McConnell, the Bob Dole of Kentucky. Dole was also a favorite of the Kochs. This all makes twisted sense, since the Kochs are—says the BBC’s Greg Palast—the biggest Republican donors in the world, officially and otherwise. Of course, they support, and massively profit from, the regime. BTW, one hobby of the Kochs is their anti-Ron Paul “libertarian” Beltway movement.

    Koch Brothers Hire Arnold’s PR Operative
    Posted by Lew Rockwell on February 2, 2011 08:39 AM

    The Republican oil siblings, reports Bob Wenzel,http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/koch-brothers-hire-arnold.html are upset that their oligarchical ways seem not to be appreciated. Why, for example, can Soros travel with no security, or one body guard at the most, and they need the entire “K” army? So the brothers have hired former flacks for Arnold and Sarah, and a top movement neocon, too (illustrating the approved Beltway ideological spectrum), to make them lovable. Of course, as Politico notes, they already have a vast network of non-profits and even a university or two, to sing the Wichita anthem: “We’d like the world to pay us Kochs, in perfect harmony.”

    UPDATE Thanks to Norm, who reminds me that the latest guy to wear a lapel pin bearing Koch’s “K” logo, Michael Goldfarb, formerly of the Weekly Standard, is not only a warmonger and police statist, but a hate merchant.

    The influence of Charles and David Koch on the Tea Party Movement and their connections with the Governor of Wisconsin have been much in the news lately. The efforts of the Kochs to gain political influence began long ago; and students of what Sam Konkin aptly called the Kochtopus will inevitably be reminded of the Koch brothers’ involvement in Ed Clark’s campaign for President on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1980. Indeed, David Koch was Clark’s running mate; his being on the ticket freed him from the monetary limits normally imposed on donors. Differences of opinion on the campaign, among other matters, led to a breach between the Kochs and Murray Rothbard. For understanding that breach, we have an invaluable tool. Rothbard wrote about the conflict numerous times in Libertarian Forum, a newsletter that he edited from 1969 to 1984. http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon86.1.html

    On Koch Supported Herman Cain (former KC FED chairman ) http://www.lewrockwell.com/wenzel/wenzel84.1.html

    Your guest was an obvious left wing shill.

  57. F. Beard says:

    why the hell did Noah include mosquitos and ticks on the ark? ZO

    To plague non-believers? I can’t remember the last time a flea or tick bit me, praise the Lord!

    But in any case, the Flood was not world-wide since humans were concentrated to a single geographical area making them an easy target.

  58. 2O4C says:

    Max/Stacy

    You should ask Paul Sommerville (from Vincent Browne) to be on your show. He is a fantastic analyst and has been right about everything that has happened in Ireland so far. He’s also very entertaining.

  59. Omega Pointing says:

    @ Zach O’Brien

    “I’m all for anyone being able to pursue the surplus of others, I just don’t think they should demand it with a government gun. Rather, produce surplus themselves and then freely negotiate for the surplus of others.”

    You issue here involves copyright. In other words, if Mr A conceives of idea B, then A = B. Moreover if Mr A’s idea is remunerative, then he should be allowed to accumulate a vast about of wealth (W) from his effort. So A + B = W. Also, any surplus (S) that is generated after W is thereby added. We then have A+B = W+S. All of this comes from A.

    However, this means that the powerful will gain over the weak, as the surplus will be retained and expended on other activities: buying politicians, buying weapons, banks etc. So the surplus and the profit extracted from the equation are used to further the goals of A and the expense of everyone else. Is this fair? Surely there remains the possibility that Mr A, without regulatory frameworks of any sort, will destroy the ideas of future Mr As?

    The fact is that A is part of a state, a nation, a territory. He exists by virtue of a community that ensures B becomes a reality. In this sense, the product cannot escape linkage to a wider community of individuals. Moreover, the entire surplus does not have to be subsumed into the state, nor is it in realty. But it is clear that no society can function without taxation of some sort. So a higher tithe is imposed on A if and only if A has the power to enforce a monopoly. For all that, it seems feasible that A is unable to realise B and to gain S without government help of some sort.

  60. Mike says:

    @Zach Obrien

    How to Reach the Left | Roderick T. Long http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4hjO1ak4_M#t=3m07s

    Presented by Roderick Long at the Mises Circle in Chicago: “Strategies for Changing Minds Toward Liberty,” on 9 April 2011. Sponsored by Dr. Don Stacy.

  61. F. Beard says:

    “Strategies for Changing Minds Toward Liberty,”

    Liberty? Hah! The folks at mises.org believe in a government enforced gold standard. I know. I have debated them extensively. How dare they speak of liberty?! Liberty for who? Gold owners, gold miners and the usury class?

  62. Zach OBrien says:

    Thanks Mike, maybe I should check that out. Because a lot of the libs who post here are conservatives who haven’t really thought it out.

    F Beard? You can’t elect any mafia to protect your liberty without the means canceling out the ends. How about I don’t take your gold or silver and you don’t take mine. And if we produce something beyond what we consume; we allow each other to market our production for gold or silver anyone wishes to pay us. Or is that evil too?

  63. Zach OBrien says:

    So F Beard should government force everyone violently to own gold orrrr what? Liberty is achieved only when government violence liberates it? I’m not following the philosophy of why you’re still holding the gun of the state.

  64. F. Beard says:

    How about I don’t take your gold or silver and you don’t take mine. And if we produce something beyond what we consume; we allow each other to market our production for gold or silver anyone wishes to pay us. Or is that evil too? ZO

    You don’t understand what I’m saying. Use gold or silver all you want for private debts but don’t force others to pay their taxes with them. Get it? Or should it be necessary that in addition to paying taxes that people must buy gold or silver to do so too?

    Don’t you see the scam some so-called libertarians are trying to pull?

  65. Zach OBrien says:

    Beard fiat currency is inflated to confiscate gold. You understand that right?

  66. Mike says:

    @ F Beard

    You’re wrong.

    In the mid 1970s Hayek’s interest in the denationalization of money (1976) was renewed. Having lost all hope of achieving monetary stability through the instruments of highly politicized monetary institutions, Hayek suggested—by his own account, almost as a “bitter joke”—that the business of issuing money be turned over to private enterprise. Soon taking this suggestion seriously, he began to explore the feasibility and the consequences of competing currencies.
    Hayek’s proposal for competition in the issue of money is not subject to the standard objection based on the so-called common-pool problem. The proposal is not that private issuers should compete by issuing some generic currency. Clearly, competition on this basis would produce an explosive inflation. The proposal, rather, is that each competitor issue his own trade-marked currency. Under this arrangement, each issuer would have an incentive to maintain a stable value of his own currency and to minimize the difficulties of using this currency in an environment where other currencies are used as well. http://www.auburn.edu/~garriro/e4hayek.htm

    H.R.1098 – Free Competition in Currency Act of 2011 http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1098/text

    112th CONGRESSCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

    1st SessionCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

    H. R. 1098CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

    1
    To repeal the legal tender laws, to prohibit taxation on certain coins and bullion, and to repeal superfluous sections related to coinage.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

    March 15, 2011CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

    Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

    Ron Paul: End the Fed, Legalize Competing Currencies! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moROt9yoQl8

  67. Zach OBrien says:

    Beard force is not in the libertarian philosophy so you’re smoking something that prevents you from arguing against us. Sober up.

  68. Mike says:

    @ Zach

    I feel you dude. My only recommendation is to maybe temper your combativeness a bit. I think we’re all on the same team here. Finding common ground is always a good place to start. ~peace

  69. Zach OBrien says:

    Remember liberals are idle intellectuals who’s political philosophy always has to justify stealing eggs and milk from the countryside. They couldn’t manage a farm if their copy of Marx depended on it!

  70. F. Beard says:

    “To repeal the legal tender laws, to prohibit taxation on certain coins and bullion, and to repeal superfluous sections related to coinage.”

    The only competitive currencies allowed would be PM based. But PMs require usury. Common stock, which does not require usury, would be at a competitive disadvantage wrt PMs since the capital gains tax would remain on common stock but not on PMs.

    The folks at mises.org and perhaps Ron Paul are committed to usury.

  71. F. Beard says:

    force is not in the libertarian philosophy so you’re smoking something that prevents you from arguing against us. ZO

    Any money or money form that is accepted for taxes has a huge advantage over those that are not. Get it? If PMs are accepted for taxes then that is a government subsidy for them. Get it? But government subsidies are not libertarian. Get it?

    Sober up. ZO

    Sober up yourself so I won’t have to repeat myself to you.

  72. F. Beard says:

    liberals are idle intellectuals who’s political philosophy always has to justify stealing eggs and milk from the countryside. ZO

    Liberals aren’t the only evil; there are fascists too posing as libertarians.

  73. Zach OBrien says:

    I know I have such a tendency to do that. In reality I really admire Max and Stacy and I’ve been following them since mid 2007. The West is collapsing so I guess the freak-outs are more justified here than over some ball-game somewhere. But still..

    I just don’t see how people think government is the source of their prosperity, when it’s the biggest consumer of prosperity. And how they think that because Hank Paulson is a financial terrorist, my neighbor who is a rich engineer who invents amazing products that help others, should have his house stolen, his businesses destroyed, and savings redistributed to the poor. Liberals just can’t see the difference between wealth earned and wealth stolen.

  74. F. Beard says:

    Liberals just can’t see the difference between wealth earned and wealth stolen. ZO

    Any loans from the government backed counterfeiting cartel, the banking system, is theft of purchasing power from all money holders including and especially the poor since they are not considered “credit-worthy” themselves.

    The liberals wish to steal some of wealth back. That is a flawed remedy. True libertarians wish to abolish the stealing PERIOD.

  75. Zach OBrien says:

    Yes Beard every movement has it’s con artists and hijackers the media is poised to convey as it’s leaders; which is why Max and Stacy get conned into generalizing movements based on the shills designed to portray them.

    They don’t live here and don’t understand that dissent is met with death threats and violence. And the movements from dissenters are infiltrated by sock-puppets that the news cameras are ready to portray as the “source.”

  76. Zach OBrien says:

    Beard you got it!

  77. OldEnglishGame says:

    I don’t give a flying shit who wins the election now. I have SILVER. And I am Free

  78. OldEnglishGame says:

    If the rest of the people want to be free, is all they need to do is buy silver.
    As the economists say.
    There is a fire, Don’t jump in it.
    What do the people do?
    They jump in the fire straight away.
    It is sad but true. After the children get castrated in the schools, they are no longer able to think. This is the saddest condition man has ever been in.
    I do pity them but. As the GOLDEN RULE says.
    FORCE NO MAN.
    Mankind is so pathetically stupid.
    The consensus of every economist, about the entire educational system.

  79. olly says:

    aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!! Taki Taki Taki. Says it all. Let me down this time Max. Get well soon eh!

  80. olly says:

    actually made up for it in the last 5 minutes. previous comment retracted.

  81. JLJ says:

    This guest was clearly an economic ignoramus. He used the word “privatize” as if it’s something dirty. He made a few points that I thought you’d object to, Max. Mostly in regards to the nature of the free market.

  82. Zach OBrien says:

    Old English you’re not free until the bastards let us trade in silver. Until then we’re on the hook for the phony “capital gains” confiscation when we try to use our PMs to re enter the market.

  83. Zach OBrien says:

    Hey Mike are you on Max’s facebook friends?

  84. Mike says:

    @ Zach yes I am.

    Michael Jones. Look for the profile pic that says, “Obama, syop funding dictators!” I’m not the guy in the picture.

  85. Motor Mouse says:

    This is a giant steaming load of crap.

  86. MAX! Wealth distribution is immoral STEALING! The transfer to the top 1% is only possible via the State. The bailouts are GOVERNMENT bailouts! C’mon bro, join the Good Side!

Access The Max Keiser Podcast
Weekly Downloads, live Q & A Session and exclusive video posts from Max and Stacy

Subscribe Learn More
Buy Gold Online
Buy Gold Online
Watch the latest Keiser Reports:

Watch our Google Hangouts: