STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR FEKETE CONCERNING THE GOLD STANDARD INSTITUTE

Professor Fekete has made the following statement regarding the Gold Standard Institute firing the economist, Sandeep Jaitly, for what he said on Keiser Report:

I have been involved in the consultations preceding the establishment of the Gold Standard Institute (GSI). I did see the benefits in providing liaison with governments, central banks, universities and other research institutions, political parties, etc., in trying to rectify the deplorably low level of understanding the historical and potential future role of a gold standard; to act as the clearing house of ideas and a forum for debates. I can testify that at no point was GSI envisaged as a ‘thought police’. If it had, I would have strenuously opposed it. As a monetary scientist I firmly believe that truth can be approximated only through debate, and more debate if needed; never by the threat or exercise of the power of excommunication.

I have never been an officer of the GSI, nor have I been an advisor to it after it was established. I have kept GSI at arm’s length. I was not privy to its decision to engage in a malicious rivalry of personalities which, if it has occurred, I regret and consider it harmful to the cause.

Budapest, August 30, 2012

Here is the discussion GSI did not want heard:

Related posts:

19 comments on “STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR FEKETE CONCERNING THE GOLD STANDARD INSTITUTE
  1. Mabs says:

    If being the economic thought police is bad in the case of Sandeep Jaitly, how is being the economic thought police in the promised takedown of the LvMI somehow good?

    No wait…are we talking about a “malicious rivalry of personalities” or philosophy?

  2. Mabs says:

    …or something else?

  3. al says:

    I supposed it’s good for Max because… well, it would help him save face after all the flaming and name-calling he’s done. The problem for Max, however, is he has no intellectual foundation to intelligently discuss the Mises Institute. The extent to which he’s studied Mises hardly exceeds an entry in Wikipedia. So more and more, Max exposes himself as someone who professes to be an expert on a given topic after reading nothing more than a tweet, blurb, or article. Then, when challenged on the intellectual merits of his claims, he avoids the debate like a coward and resorts to ad hominem attacks.

    Sad, really, because Max’s work in exposing Wall Street fraud and larceny is legitimately important. He’s in over his little head on these deep, intellectual matters of economic theory. And that’s fine — I can say there’s a lot that I don’t understand about some of the discussions going back and forth, but he needs to have the integrity to admit as much.

    What’s really ironic about all this: on the most important matters of the day pertaining to bankster fraud, etc., the Mises contributors and Max are actually on the same side. All Max is doing is, in effect, enabling TPTB to divide and conquer yet again.

  4. Animadverto says:

    Great point Max and Stacy, and you are accurate in what was probably going through Mr. Magnificent (Paul Ryan) mind, at the time. The correct phrase is “moral relativism”, a term applied by either groups (mostly) and/or individuals. The comedy of “moral relativism” within the pyramid control structure of society is, there is always a higher level/group. There are two distinct paths of “moral relativism”, “meta-ethical” or “normative”. Either and both are paradoxical – to each and every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, meta-ethical. Meta will always supersede the normative at some point, as reality is dynamic.

  5. flicks says:

    “The essence of Objectivist ethics is summarized by the oath her Atlas Shrugged character John Galt adhered to:

    I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29

  6. Mabs says:

    Professor Felete said: I firmly believe that truth can be approximated only through debate, and more debate if needed; never by the threat or exercise of the power of excommunication.

    Wise words, it seems to me. However, in the case of LvMI, to the extent that it might be hiding its true agenda, engaging in philosophical debate would just be stepping on a bear trap for Max, it seems to me.

    I don’t think he can “take it down” in any material sense, if it is a Reconstructionist front organization–check the funding for Christian Reconstruction!

  7. Mabs says:

    However, if Max can prove that LvMI is a Christian Reconstructioist front organization, he is justified in doing so, it seems to me.

    Mises was no stoner.

  8. Mabs says:

    IOW, Gary North could contrive to have Max STONED with real rocks, if political fortunes flow his way.

    Does this not give one pause?

  9. Mabs says:

    Okay, Max and Stacy, I’ll leave and wish you all the best. I think you’re truly in a pivotal position to do good for all, and not many others have this much leverage at this time. Thanks for all you do.

    I firmly believe that truth can be approximated only through debate, and more debate if needed; never by the threat or exercise of the power of excommunication.

  10. Al Kyder says:

    @ al
    @ mabs

    The LVMI isa cult. It should be treated like a cult. You remember WACO Texas I assume.

    **are we talking about a “malicious rivalry of personalities” or philosophy? **

    Neither, it is Dogma based on a flawed interpretation of a particular philosophy

  11. al says:

    @Al Kyder – if the Mises Institute is a cult, then why isn’t Max proving it? In trying to take it down, all he’s doing is lobbing insults and acting like an angry donkey. Anyone objective in this discussion comes away with the following: Max is an intellectually shallow idiot while those defending mises.org are quite measured and reasoned in their responses.

    And, to repeat, Rockwell is on the same side as Max on the most important topics of the day wrt banking and finance, so Max is acting as useful idiot for the banking cabal to divide and conquer.

  12. Al Kyder says:

    @ al – those defending mises.org are quite measured and reasoned in their responses. Yes they are, but the actual substance of the responses are those of half brained imbeciles.

    To put it simply, Hayek and Mises are relics from the pre WW2 period and contribute nothing to post war economic reality with the exception of influencing politicians to make bad decisions.

  13. al says:

    @Al Kyder – again, if your claim is correct, then why can’t Max prove it? Why the need to resort to Hannity/Faux News tactics of insult-dismiss-declare victory?

    As for your claim that WWII changed everything concerning economics, you sound eerily similar to Peter Griffin:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fjgDgVEJtw

  14. not_me says:

    And, to repeat, Rockwell is on the same side as Max on the most important topics of the day wrt banking and finance al

    No! The folks at mises.org are austerians. They believe in further punishing the victims of the counterfeiting cartel instead of providing justice or at least relief.

    Hopefully, S & M will wise up to the gold standard scam, sell their gold, and denounce it.

  15. al says:

    @not_me – I don’t think S&M will do such “wising up.” That would mean they’d have to eat crow, and we’ve seen how well they do at that with this “take-down of the Mises Institute” debacle.

    The Mises folks are very much in favor of justice. Lew Rockwell has widely advocating pulling your money out of the system, disavowing credit card usage and debt, and simply abstaining from the Wall Street/banking casino. As for austerity, the pieces I’ve read denounce profligacy above all else. When benefits payouts far exceed what the populous is willing to pay for them and contribute to massive, unpayable deficits, I’d say that deserves criticism, and one isn’t necessarily cruel for pointing it out.

  16. Al Kyder says:

    @ al- Post WW2 brings us into the age of mass consumption and production. With the beginnings of LCH.clearnet in the mid 80′s we now have electronic money. Both money and products can now move at much greater speed. Logistics is now a very important function and it adds a whole new dimension to “just in time production”

    Mises and Hayek will fall in this debate and we will clear out the fake Austrians and Libertarian to make way for progress on the theories of Austrian economics and libertarianism will be clearly defined by this action, at least on the right.

    @ not_me – “No! The folks at mises.org are austerians.” and Liquidationists

  17. al says:

    @Al Kyder – if the Misesians have been left in the dust since the 1940s, why was it that so many of them predicted the crash of 2008 with such precision while almost the entire economics profession missed it? Max himself has an underlined, annotated copy of Peter Schiff’s “Crash Proof” which outlined exactly what would end up happening and why. So, no, the speed that money and goods moves doesn’t seem to discredit the Austrian School at all.

  18. Al Kyder says:

    @ al- You are confused. This is not an attack its a purge.

  19. Richard Carey says:

    @ Al Kyder,

    interesting that you use the word ‘purge’, with its Stalinist associations. I guess you also missed the bit when Jaitly called Mises the greatest economist of the 20th century?

Watch the latest Keiser Reports:

Watch our Google Hangouts: