Tom Woods’ Blunders

Tom Woods ramblings are lengthy, but I wanted to zero in on this bit:

In the following passage, taken from Tom Woods response to Sandeep Jaitly’s interview on “Keiser Report,” Tom Woods rationalizes the failure of his fundamentalist ideology and ‘economic calculation’ by wedging a lot of intellectual dishonesty into this quote: “Private ownership, which is precluded by state intervention, would encourage the preservation of the capital value of resources.”

The idea that private interests preserve the capital value of resources (‘unless they are interfered with by the state’) produces a superior economic outcome over the public interests preservation of capital value of resources is the type of pseudoscience, faux-Austrian claptrap that gives rise to economic dictatorialism, completely blind to the actual consequences of its actions. What Woods is advocating here is in effect central planning, but the ‘right kind’ of central planning by the ‘right people’; the complete opposite of what Austrians say they are supposedly in favor of and a complete contradiction of what Menger was trying to elucidate before the Mises crowd came along and poisoned the water.

This story is related to the following:

57 comments on “Tom Woods’ Blunders
  1. stacyherbert says:

    Presumably it’s the state and its justice system which maintains (or takes) those property rights; without the justice system and society we would each have to fight it out alone and hope you’re stronger than the next guy to come along and try to take your property . . . as was the case for 10,000 years before civilization; and why have Germans been best able to preserve the capital value of their resources and mittelstands despite such heavy state intervention there? The UK and US with comparatively less state intervention have done the opposite, they have extracted and destroyed capital value from their resources and assets

  2. Leilu says:

    Tom Woods only responded to that disgusting divisive episode to prove the point which you make so vivid here – you can only continue to malign and misrepresent a thoughtful, intelligent breakdown of an already deliberate misrepresention of austrian economics …THANK YOU!

  3. Father Ice says:

    M & S,
    I read “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” by Woods. With a title like that, pretty much everything is said about the guy. How someone called “libertarian” can associate itself with a fucking church that threw people at the state just for thinking differently? Ahhh! The government that (should) make the rules to keep corrupt bankers in check is bad, but the Vatican (who have nice banks to launder money) is good. These fucking libertarians that habe government should hate BAD government and BAD public spending. I say that these guys like to throw away the baby with the bath water – that’s why i don’t give them any credibility.

  4. Father Ice says:

    M & S,
    I read “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” by Woods. With a title like that, pretty much everything is said about the guy. How someone called “libertarian” can associate itself with a fucking church that threw people at the state just for thinking differently? Ahhh! The government that (should) make the rules to keep corrupt bankers in check is bad, but the Vatican (who have nice banks to launder money) is good. These fucking libertarians that hate government should hate BAD government and BAD public spending. I say that these guys like to throw away the baby with the bath water – that’s why i don’t give them any credibility.

  5. snoop diddy says:

    Tom Woods and Austrians like him indulge in a meaningless intellectual wankfest.

  6. Father Ice says:

    Sorry.
    “people at the stake” instead of “people at the state”. Freudian slip! Ehehehe

  7. jischinger says:

    I want to see the current Mengerites and Misesites mud wrestle

  8. Father Ice says:

    One of the greatest mistakes of Austrian Economics is the illusion that “free market” can discern god and bad externalities of the economy in the environment. HFT and the “bot-ruled-world” should make that claim completely nonsensical. There’s no free-market at all and the price signals that come from the stock market are just fraud! Of course you can have a TEPCO price signal…AFTER THE APOCALYPTIC EVENT! Thank you very much…for nothing!

  9. febo says:

    I’m surprised Woods even bothered to rebutt the self-contradictory, clearly ill informed and most of all unimportant arguments of Jaitly and Kaiser.

  10. febo says:

    @Father Ice – as Woods says, the issue of externalities is not an issue for Libertarianism alone to deal with. Personally, I don’t mind if the State regulates in this area, just so long as it stops with the wars, stops with the assualts on civil liberties, stops with the bailouts …

  11. Terry says:

    Never teach a pig to sing…. wastes your time and annoys the pig.

  12. Aaron says:

    I thought that was an excellent rebuttal by Woods.

  13. febo says:

    I find it odd that MK is for state regulation ref the environment but has clearly helped to demonstrate that it is USELESS at it ref the economy. How does he square that?
    Libertarianism provides a unified theory explaining how and why state regulation – ie any kind of top-down-by-minority regulation fails.

  14. Hegelian Dialectic says:

    Everybody got opinions. Nobody got any facts.

  15. Father Ice says:

    @febo – “Libertarianism provides a unified theory explaining how and why state regulation – ie any kind of top-down-by-minority regulation fails”; “the issue of externalities is not an issue for Libertarianism alone to deal with”. My friend, regulation has everything to do about externalities. That’s not something that libertarianism can cop out.

  16. stacyherbert says:

    @febo – as per @Father Ice – indeed, externalities are an initiation of force

  17. Crazyone says:

    Max, me thinks stacy is just a front for your love affair with paul krugman.

  18. Davis says:

    Keiser proves once again he is an intellectual twat.

  19. Simon says:

    I always have to remind myself that Max is not a journalist, he’s an entertainer just like Jonestein. I’d like to hear Jaitley / Woods &/or Rockwell have a civilized discussion on Menger/Mises.

  20. Father Ice says:

    @Simon – if by “journalist” you mean the “News of the World” Murdoch cocksucker type of guy, thank God he’s not.

  21. Spankmybishop says:

    Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but nobody is entitled to his own facts. I am a huge fan of both Max and Tom. Max is a hero for exposing the evil of the crooked banksters, and Tom is a hero for exposing the evil of the governments, which have given the banksters all their powers. It is silly for you two to fight and argue about what Mises and Menger said. Anyone can read their works: not to form an opinion, but discover what they in fact said! Sheesh!

  22. Max,

    please invite Tom Woods on your show and have an honest debate with him.

    Also, what Austrian works have you read? Are you really familiar with Menger’s and Mises’s works? On what authority do you make the claims you make. The same questions can be asked of your guest, whoever it was.

    And considering how accomplished Woods is as an Austrian economist and historian, how can you write such a childish response to his very serious and well written rebuttal?

    Here is his response to your…whatever you call this assembly of words:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/118650.html#more-118650

    Show some courage Max, and have Tom Woods on your show. That is the very least you can do.

  23. Bob Robertson says:

    Max, I find it astounding that by arguing against central planning, you assert that “Woods is advocating here is in effect central planning, but the ‘right kind’ of central planning by the ‘right people’; the complete opposite of what Austrians say they are supposedly in favor of”

    Private property is exactly the opposite of central planning. One cannot argue for private property and “intend” central planning of any sort, since central planning is the violation of private property. It is the planner saying what people may and may not do with what is supposed to be their “property”.

    This is not a matter of rhetorical games, this is a simple cut-and-dried opposition. If you can point out where Woods advocated the violation of private property in any way, I’d like to see it because I can’t find it.

    Stacy Herbert, externalities that are coercive can be dealt with just as any other coercive action, by defenses such as fences, or adjudication. Just because something is an externality does not mean only govt can take an action to correct it. And that govt action must be paid for, by taxes, creating yet more coercive externalities and reinforcing the cycle by which central planning impoverishes everyone but the planners.

    You and Max do a wonderful job pointing out how the central planners, vested interests, and political elites devastate and loot the economies of the world.

    I am left dumbfounded by your attacks on the one school of economics which consistently and rigorously backs up EVERY abuse and flawed incentive you cite!

    You have a show and you need good guests, why not have these guys on so you can show how “wrong” they are? When you’ve had Austrian economists on previously, y’all got along swimingly. Were you just being polite?

  24. Kent says:

    Saw through Keiser months ago.

  25. Bharat says:

    Spankmybishop, if people make incorrect statements, they should be corrected. Keiser has made many at this point and Woods is only doing everyone a favor by stepping in and correcting them.

    I’m actually quite sad to see this sort of reply from Keiser, though. It is lacking of any substantive arguments regarding how Mises strayed from the Austrian school although ending with another claim that he did.

  26. Mike T says:

    Keiser should realize when it’s time to throw in the towel. Woods’ rebuttal to this odd piece by Keiser:
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/118650.html

    snoop diddy:
    “Tom Woods and Austrians like him indulge in a meaningless intellectual wankfest.”
    >> So, Tom Woods correcting Keiser and Jaitly on their baseless interpretation of Mises as it relates to Menger and the Austrian School is rendered as a “meaningless intellectual wankfest,” yet Keiser and Jaitly’s bizarre claims that they can not even cite in Mises’ actual work is not? This is akin to saying, during their time, Copernicus and Galileo engaged in meaningless scientific observation disproving the claim that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Keiser and Jaitly are attributing provably false ideas to Mises and somehow you instead indict the person who exposes these baseless claims. Interesting.

    Father Ice:
    “One of the greatest mistakes of Austrian Economics is the illusion that “free market” can discern god and bad externalities of the economy in the environment.”
    >> Wrong. The Austrian argument (certainly in the Mises/Rothbard treatment of externalities) is that the failure in “discerning good and bad externalities” is a failure in defining and enforcing the rights of private property, not a failure of markets themselves. For a quick overview of the Austrian treatment of externalities, read Chp 2 from Cordato’s “Efficiency and Externalities in an Open-Ended Universe” http://library.mises.org/books/Roy%20Cordato/Efficiency%20and%20Externalities%20in%20an%20Open-Ended%20Universe.pdf

    “There’s no free-market at all”
    >> Free markets are only compromised to the degree that governments violate private property rights. This, in no way, suggests that a free market can not exist.

  27. stacyherbert says:

    @Bob Robertson – you write, “externalities that are coercive can be dealt with just as any other coercive action, by defenses such as fences, or adjudication” – - tell that to the natives in South America or the tens of thousands of Chinese who riot every year due to poisons dumped into their water table by mostly US taxpayer backed corporations; and when they do win in court, as is the case in Ecuador against one of the giant American oil companies who spilled toxins into their water table for decades, the US corporation and the US financed military enable them to just flip the bird and say good luck enforcing that multi-billion decision suckers; or look at the victims of the Exxon Valdez spill – - more than 20 years later and they are STILL waiting for Exxon to pay what the court awarded them

  28. Stacy Herbert

    Did it ever occur to you that the Natives of South America are swept aside by their respective governments? That is certainly the case in China.

    Nowhere and anywhere are externalities so disastrous as in centrally planned countries. People complain about the consumerism of the Western World. My advice to you is to visit Russia and Eastern Europe and see what central planning did to the environment there.

    “…and the US financed military enable them to just flip the bird and say good luck enforcing that multi-billion decision suckers; ”

    Thank you for proving my point.

  29. nanny_govt_sucks says:

    Stacy, a “US Taxpayer backed corporation” is not a free-market entity.

  30. Bharat says:

    Keiser, you should invite Woods on your show to discuss this with him.

  31. Edward says:

    I would hope that Mr. Woods is invited onto the show to discuss his position.

  32. Dan A. says:

    I’ve been following the Austrian School for about five years, but this is the first time I’ve heard of that Sandeep guy. And unless he comes clean and honest on his charges, it’s the last time I’ll give him a serious listen. So far, he seems quite the charlatan. And who are those “phony libertarians”? Why don’t Max and Sandeep name names?

  33. It’s ridiculous to accuse Tom Woods of advocating “central planning.” Anyone who has read his work knows he would approve of the central planners only if they declared: “OK, this year we leave everybody alone!”

  34. Nelson says:

    Max why don’t you STFU and stop the whining and just invite Tom Woods on?
    You know what the most hilarious part is?

    YOU calling someone who actually teaches at the Mises Institute a fake Misesian/Austrian!

    LOLOL

    NO ONE outside of Jaitly’s own mind’s ever heard of him, nor among libertarian circles, even consider him a noted “Austrian.”

    You, who are slightly better Hamiltonian at best believe you are qualified to define what or who a libertarian or an Austrian/Misesian is, or is not?

    Are you friggin’ kidding, Max?

    WTF crawled up your ass, did Webster Tarpley brainwash you too?

    You hate the banksters, know of NWO, and the eugenicism, yet you LOVE THEIR State, and their eugenics ‘healthcare,’ so all those times you got on Alex Jones show never really rubbed off, eh??

    Max, it’s one thing to critique intellectually, but for you to resort to name calling a genuine academic with hell of a lot more audience than you? It’s a losing proposition.

    should apologize, invite him on, debate with ample time, and be done with it.

    I can guarantee you now, that you just lost a lot of viewers.

    seriously, Jaitly, the ‘master’ Austrian economist?
    LOLOLOLOLOLOL

  35. Father Ice says:

    @Bob Robertson,
    “The Austrian argument (certainly in the Mises/Rothbard treatment of externalities) is that the failure in “discerning good and bad externalities” is a failure in defining and enforcing the rights of private property, not a failure of markets themselves”.
    How can you define and enforce those rights without recognizing the multiple consequences (some of them, unexpected) that they carry? See the TEPCO case: for Austrians, a “nuclear meltdown hypothesis” is something that is irrelevant. Just as drilling in Alaska or fraking in Canada.
    Stacy is correct by pointing you out the examples in China: if someone can deal freely in a rigged market (in the case of China, a Foxconn type of slavery), how can you think that “markets regulate”?

  36. Father Ice says:

    @Randy England
    “It’s ridiculous to accuse Tom Woods of advocating “central planning.”
    Of course he is! He loves the Vatican central planning of the world!

  37. Father Ice says:

    “Nowhere and anywhere are externalities so disastrous as in centrally planned countries”
    You mean…Norway? Denmark? Finland? Germany?…

  38. Bob Robertson says:

    Stacy Herbert, I looked through your list of abuses and see nothing about market externalities. What I see is a list of government actions of abuse, and (like the pollution) ill-defined property rights. South American natives displaced? You mean, their PROPERTY RIGHTS were not respected?

    Father Ice, “How can you define and enforce those rights without recognizing the multiple consequences (some of them, unexpected) that they carry?”

    It’s called “liability”. Why do companies “incorporate”? To gain LIMITED liability grants from government in order to insulate those who made decision from the repercussions of those decisions.

    “for Austrians, a “nuclear meltdown hypothesis” is something that is irrelevant”

    Bald assertion without support. What “Austrian” makes that claim? The fact is that strict liability and respect for property rights hardly makes the “nuclear meltdown” irrelevant, it makes it of the highest risk! Those who built such a plant would be directly liable for their actions. What Dow executive was held accountable for Bhopal? What Japanese had to answer for Fukushima Dai Ichi? What Russian government official for Chernobyl? You claim horrible things will happen if people’s property rights are respected and people are held to strict liability, yet your world of limited liability and govt has allowed all that has happened!

    What terror do you feel that you would cling so desperately to a system that has already failed in every way you claim to oppose?

  39. @BobRobertson

    Well said. Max, invite Tom Woods on your show and discuss this where neither party can hide behind a legion of commenting biased fans. Discuss it involving facts and references, not assumptions. Stick to the main point you were originally on… Mises as a ‘fake’ Austrian. If you don’t it’s obvious that you know you were wrong and there is no need for everyone else to get so off subject and bicker like children. There’s a time and a place for everything, being that you opened the door to this one I believe it’s on your show. I doubt this will happen and I hope that if you’re reading this you feel it in your gut that you would be openly admitting your lack of credibility if not. It must be a sad existence if that is the case. If not I wish you luck in explaining your case and backing it up and I’d be open to hear and learn from it should you be right. I really don’t think you are but there is no harm in simply listening and contemplating the possibility. That’s how progress happens. Who knows, if you did that perhaps you could even learn something. No doubt you would if you simply read Mises’ works.

  40. Father Ice says:

    @Robertson, your rethoric has nothing to do about what Austrians think. Let’s talk about the concrete things “your” Austrians really want.

    For example, just look at this piece of crap:
    http://mises.org/daily/3930

    “Climate-change policy ought to be privatized. All government policy instruments, including taxes, subsidies, regulation and emissions trading to mitigate climate change ought to be abolished. Instead, property rights to a climate unchanged by human activity should be protected by tort litigation on the basis that strict liability is appropriate.”
    (…)
    “An alternative framework for formulating climate policy, based on an Austrian approach to environmental economics (Cordato, 2004) and informed by a libertarian political philosophy, (Nozick, 1974) sees Anthropogenic Global Warming as an interpersonal conflict rather than a market failure. AGW is a possible example of interpersonal conflict over the use of resources insofar as some individuals use the atmosphere as a carbon sink, changing the climate and thereby making it impossible for other individuals to rely upon an unchanged climate as a resource for growing crops in and even inhabiting particular locations.
    It is for the courts to decide, calling on the testimony of expert witnesses, whether CO2 emissions are responsible for harm by causing dangerous AGW.”

    Hilarious! Let’s call some “expert witnesses” paid by the Koch brothers to tell us “the truth” and let’s pay the judges to enforce “the truth”.

    If the government now is the problem, that’s because politicians are in the pocket of corporations and NOT because government is intrinsically evil. The problem of government is…there is no government!

  41. JP says:

    @Father Ice:

    “Hilarious! Let’s call some “expert witnesses” paid by the Koch brothers to tell us “the truth” and let’s pay the judges to enforce “the truth”.”

    The same Koch brothers that Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute of Austrian Economics have shown to be in bed with the govt and in support of central banking countless times?

    The main disconnect that I see on this thread is the simple belief that Big Business = Free Market. When the current state of affairs is not that. Big Business + Government = Legal cover to do all the bad things you are mentioning.

    Take the govt cover away and you now have a system where big business can be held accountable for any wrong doing.

  42. Father Ice

    Are you actually calling the Nordic countries and Germany “centrally planned”? Are you actually comparing them to the USSR and its satellite states? Again I’m amazed of how freely people speak of things, even countries, they don’t know the first thing about. None of the countries you mentioned can be called centrally planned. Strike one.

    “…if someone can deal freely in a rigged market…”

    Uhm…now how exactly is the market rigged, and how does that make the market free? It may come as a shock to you, but the markets in China and South America aren’t exactly what anyone would call “free”, unless of course you’re the kind of person who thinks Germany is a centrally planned economy. Strike two.

    “See the TEPCO case: for Austrians, a “nuclear meltdown hypothesis” is something that is irrelevant. Just as drilling in Alaska or fraking in Canada.”

    When land and resources are privately owned, you pay for the damage you cause other people’s property. Hardly a difficult concept to grasp. The company running the nuclear plant is liable for any damage caused by the meltdown, not unlike it is today. What exactly is the problem?
    Only when resources are unowned does this become an actual problem. Strike three.

    “If the government now is the problem, that’s because politicians are in the pocket of corporations and NOT because government is intrinsically evil. The problem of government is…there is no government!”

    Well this really says it all, doesn’t it? There is no government in the US. Have you ever contemplated that the reason corporations are so keen on buying influence is that the government has such tremendous power? If the government actually was limited, didn’t interfere in the economy, then what incentives would there be buy politicians?

    This isn’t a chicken-or-the-egg thing. As soon as the government started to amass power, it became interesting for corporations to take it over. Had the politicians remained honest and true to their oaths, they would have refused the bribes offered to them by the corporations. But they weren’t and the aren’t. In politics, the worst rise to the top. As Murray Rothbard said: “The government is a gang of thieves writ large”.

    Just imagine if every single politician was like Ron Paul. Don’t you think the world would look drastically different?

  43. VigintiTres says:

    “If the government now is the problem, that’s because politicians are in the pocket of corporations and NOT because government is intrinsically evil. The problem of government is…there is no government!”

    The “government is inherently evil” argument is a red herring, you can’t prove something to be evil that “exists” on a piece of paper or in our imagination. What does exist are the people that call themself “government”.

    The initiation of force is evil. Since the only way for the entities of government to interact with the rest of society is by force, their ACTIONS are evil. Whenever some thugs call themself “government” or “mafia” does not make a difference . It’s the way these people interact with the rest of society that matters.

  44. al says:

    Max – in no way did you refute any of Woods’ claims. Perhaps it’s time you have the conversation with him. Don’t run from the debate. Stand your ground and argue your side. This hit-and-run sniping is useless. Have it out already if you have the backbone.

  45. John Robb says:

    @Stacy

    The examples in your comment @Bob Robertson entirely support the Woods concept of externalities. I think even Jaitly and Fekete would agree [with Woods here]. I see Robertson has replied since a bit, but I will add. I agree with you in, “indeed, externalities are an initiation of force.” Indeed, it is largely an Austrian perspective that government is currently the most pervasive initiator of force. Government is typically the greatest externality with which the free market contends. Your reference to China is a good example. Who is it that puts down those riots and protects those US corporations from being run out of town? Is it not the Chinese government? There you have one government protecting the wards of another government. It is a case of externalities squared, hypercentralized planning with monolithic regulation.

    Also take heed of the comment from Kaj Grüssner. I will add. I contend that the US is far more “regulated” than Germany. If you must compare Germany with something american, compare it to something of similar scale like Minnesota, California, or New York. Feel free to compare the US to the EU. Then you might better see the success of mittelstands in terms of decentralization. This is a good topic to throw about with Catherine Austin-Fitts. Back on my side of the pond the budgetary problems of individual States would be negligible but for the externalities borne from an overbearing central government.

  46. Simon K says:

    @John Robb
    “Your reference to China is a good example. Who is it that puts down those riots and protects those US corporations from being run out of town? Is it not the Chinese government?”
    Wrong John: you have a government NOT ELECTED by the people, just like all CEO’s of any major corporation. Just call the chinese government a BIG CORPORATION not governed by the people and for the people. In Iceland you had democracy: they kicked the robber barons out. I want to see you do that with an Apple or a Monsanto…

  47. John Robb says:

    @Simon K

    I entirely agree with every word you’ve written, but for being confused by your first: “Wrong”.

    Okay, I’ll also concede you probably weren’t regarding me(John) with your reference: “you” in “you have a government…”. It was probably intended as, “What you have there [in China] is a government NOT ELECTED by the people.” In that case I still largely agree with you but for my perspective that in this case the US government is effectively similar to China’s virtual corporate governance. US representatives in the District of Columbia are not essentially representing people or States but corporations. Corporate interest is perpetuated though our effectively corrupted electoral process in which a narrow slate of corporately vetted candidates are presented to the public at large. This is the case too, but less so, in more localized jurisdictions. The current Governor of my State of Minnesota is an entirely corporate enterprise as he is part owner in a corporate chain of department stores second only in size to Walmart, but in my lifetime we Minnesotans have successfully elected a few non-corporately vetted Governors, Senators, and various representatives [as is the recent case in Iceland]. Years ago State borders were limits on jurisdiction for enforcement of law from within. Nowadays, at best, State borders are clung to as hopeful firewalls to dissuade overbearing enforcement of law from without, a virtual fence against misbegotten externalities.

  48. Jet Lacey says:

    As followers of both Max and Tom (as well as other Austrians), I do know one thing – pissing matches solve nothing. So you disagree on Mises vs. Menger – big f*cking deal.

    You’re both minarchists who stand against the scam that is the global banking cartel…the rest is just details.

    With much love for both “sides” – grow up, boys. There’s bigger fish to fry.

  49. Erik M says:

    @Jet Lacey: “You’re both minarchists…”

    Wrong, Tom is an anarcho-capitalist:

    http://youtu.be/Zpmqy9tC4uI

    And as Tom stated:

    “Now before I’m told that back-and-forths like this are silly or unproductive, let me note that I have tried to take the high road from the start, and the whole matter began because I wanted to exonerate Mises of the crazy charges leveled against him on Max’s show. That is an honorable motive. Max’s reply is filled with angry invective that was nowhere to be found in my essay. Again, defending oneself against this kind of treatment is honorable and just.”

  50. Ax123man says:

    How on earth do you take the statement “private interests preserve capital” to mean ” Woods is advocating central planning”?! I’m starting to think mk is just another leftist shill. All he does is bitch about banksters while rarely discussing the root cause ( which, btw, woods did thoroughly in “meltdown”. read that and see if you still think woods is pro-central planning). Those of you on mk’s side on this are sheeples. Bah, bah down to mk!!

  51. Unknown says:

    Max Keiser CIA psyops? As Assange?

  52. Unknown says:

    MaX Keiser a CIA psyop? As Assange?

  53. bud777 says:

    ————————————————————————————————
    The idea that private interests preserve the capital value of resources (‘unless they are interfered with by the state’) produces a superior economic outcome over the public interests
    ————————————————————————————————
    either maxine is fucking around to get higher ratings for his show/himself OR he really doesnt get it

  54. tibbus says:

    This is ridiculous. Invite Tom Woods on the show and discuss each other’s opinions in real time.

    Sandeep is a very confused ‘Austrian’. Don’t let him confuse you too. Invite Tom on

  55. Brian says:

    Please invite Tom Woods on the show to discuss. Would be very entertaining!

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
Watch the latest Keiser Reports: