Do the Koch Brothers Promote the Teachings of Ludwig von Mises?

FrankRep

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
28,885
Yes, they do!





What Is Economic Freedom?


Koch Industries, Inc


Economic freedom is a system in which private property rights are fully respected under an impartial and beneficial rule of law; where people are free to voluntarily trade for what they need and want; that they have sound money which gives people an effective medium of exchange. Finally, government is kept small and limited to those activities that contribute to societal well-being, rather than undermine it.


Find out more

Economic freedom: a heated debate, Discovery July 2012

Economic Freedom in 60 seconds



Recommended reading


Start with:


- Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics, by Henry Hazlitt
- Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy, by Thomas Sowell
- The Law, by Frederic Bastiat
- The Use of Knowledge in Society, by F.A. Hayek
- Common Sense Economics: What Everyone Should Know About Wealth and Prosperity, by Gwartney, Stroup, Lee and Ferrarini
- Why Wages Rise, by Baldy Harper
- What is Seen and What is Not Seen, by Frederic Bastiat
- I, Pencil, by Leonard Read


Move on to:


- The Road to Serfdom, by F.A. Hayek
- The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek
- Free to Choose: A Personal Statement, by Milton and Rose Friedman
- Capitalism and Freedom, by Milton Friedman
- A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles, by Thomas Sowell
- The Science of Success: How Market-Based Management Built the World's Largest Private Company, by Charles G. Koch
- How The West Grew Rich: The Economic Transformation Of The Industrial World, by Nathan Rosenberg and L.E. Birdzell, Jr.
- In Pursuit: Of Happiness and Good Government, by Charles Murray


Want to learn more?

- Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, by Ludwig von Mises
- Constitution of Liberty, by F.A. Hayek
 
Last edited:
Still I don't totally trust them.

With wealth and power comes personal responsibility. I'm not totally convinced they have it. Greed is good to a point. Greed for personal gain is ok. Greed at the expense of others isn't.

I dunno, something about them has always rubbed me wrong, I can't put a finger on it. I don't trust their motives I guess.
 
Look Frank I like a lot of what the JBS does and says. But I have got to tell you, backing these two clowns and associating them with the JBS is a mistake.

How the Koch Brothers Became Billionaires


By Robert Wenzel

December 31, 2012

Forbes has a cover story puff piece out on the Koch brothers, but it is informative in a number of ways. We learn for example how the Koch brothers became billionaires. Using their father’s asset base, they bought more assets, sometimes using great debt, that then soared in value as a result of Federal Reserve money printing: Over time, Charles says, he learned he could take on profitable risk by investing in long-lived assets that his customers didn’t want to buy themselves. Koch’s father died on a hunting trip in 1967 at age 67, shortly after handing full management control over to Charles, setting in motion the two most momentous turning points in the company’s history. The following year Charles made the riskiest, and likely most profitable, move of his career. His family owned 35% of the Pine Bend refinery outside Minneapolis, with Union Oil of California holding 40% and J. Howard Marshall owning 15%. Koch wanted to buy out Unocal, but the company was asking too much. So he persuaded the older and more experienced Marshall–who later became infamous at age 89 for marrying the young stripper-turned-Playboy-pinup Anna Nicole Smith–to combine his 15% interest with Koch’s 35% to prevent Unocal from assembling a majority stake to sell to outsiders. The risk paid off handsomely. Marshall’s heirs, including the widow of his son, J. Pierce, hold Koch Industries stock worth at least $10 billion. And while Charles took on a potentially crippling $25 million in debt to buy out Unocal–something he has eschewed ever since–Pine Bend evolved into a cash engine that provided Charles the fuel to expand. It wasn’t rocket science, but they did act. Charles was most likely influenced by Murray Rothbard’s What Has Government Done to Our Money, which was published in 1963, five years before the Unocal refinery acquisition. The monograph discussed how the Fed was debasing the currency and how it would lead to major price inflation, which did occur and peaked out in the early 1980s at around 15%. If it wasn’t for that inflation, foreseen by Rothbard, the Koch acquisition of the Unocal asset, with the heavy debt taken on, would have been a bust.

Price inflation from 1963 to 1981 In the Forbes profile, we also learn of a very peculiar view Charles holds about democracy: The goal has always been, Charles says, “true democracy,” where people “can run their own lives and choose what they want to buy, choose how to spend their money.” (“Now in our democracy you elect somebody every two to four years and they tell you how to run your life,” he says.) People running their own lives would be less democracy and more a private property society (i.e., a Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist view), without legislators and other government operators attempting to micro-manage populations. Such a private property society would be a good thing, but it is hard to square Charles’ supposed take on this with the brothers behind the scenes role in propping up various politicians who move in a direction quite different from a private property society. Says Forbes: Mitt Romney’s loss was a huge blow to them, both in terms of likely policy outcomes and personal reputation.[...]“We raised a lot of money and mobilized an awful lot of people, and we lost, plain and simple,” says David. “We’re going to study what worked, what didn’t work, and improve our efforts in the future. We’re not going to roll over and play dead.” Quite instructive in the piece, for which Charles and David were clearly cooperating, is that Friedrich Hayek is mentioned, but not the Austrian economists Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises: Koch Industries essentially applies the ideas of Friedrich Hayek to the art of making money. Hayek, the dean of the so-called Austrian School of economists, celebrated the chaos of decentralized decision-making as a way for every individual to decide what’s in his or her best self-interest. Charles and David know better. The Cato Institute is mentioned in the piece, but not the fact that the idea of the Institute and the early driving force behind it was Rothbard. Rothbard, in fact, came up with the name, Cato, for the Institute. It is named after Cato’s Letters, a series of British essays penned in the early 18th century by John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon expounding the political views of philosopher John Locke, that had a strong influence on the American Revolution’s intellectual environment The essays were named after Cato the Younger, the defender of republican institutions in Rome. As David Gordon once said to me with a laugh, it wasn’t Charles Koch and Ed Crane, who came up with the name based on their deep knowledge of the early 18th century intellectual influences on the American Revolution. Also interesting, in a sidebar to the Forbes piece, we learn there is a good Koch brother, who is not into manipulating the world: Frederick, who never got involved with company management, moved to Monaco after selling out to his brothers. The 79-year-old Yale Drama graduate now lives quietly, collecting rare books, fine art and opera manuscripts. He’s also an arts patron: he funded the full refurbishment of Shakespeare’s Swan Theatre in Stratford-upon-Avon in the 1980s and has donated works to permanent collections at the Frick, Morgan and Carnegie libraries. Frederick owns properties across Europe, including an Austrian hunting lodge and French villa.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/12/r...ebillionaires/
 



Fred C. Koch, founder of Koch Industries, was not only an outstanding pioneer in the petroleum industry, but a staunch anti-Communist and American patriot.​


Fred Koch: Oil Man Against Communism


The New American
10 June 2011


In the year 1930, the city of Tiflis (now Tbilisi) was a captive capital. The ancient city in the heart of the Caucasus, with its mountain scenery and splendid architecture, was enduring, with the rest of the Soviet Union, the onset of Stalin’s reign of terror. As elsewhere in the Soviet Union, ordinary people had become practiced in the arts of sullen self-preservation. Perhaps that was why no one offered to help the men working to extricate one of their party from an overturned car before the badly damaged vehicle burst into flames. The men wore business suits and spoke English, though few of the passersby recognized the unfamiliar tongue. The man trapped in the car, on the other hand, was a feral-faced communist “handler,” a man with considerable clout in the Soviet government.

Eventually, the foreigners managed to pull out their little “guide,” whose name was Jerome Livshitz. As soon as he was on his feet, Livshitz addressed one of the foreigners, a young man scarcely 30. “Why did you save my life?” Livshitz asked. “We are enemies. I would not have saved yours. Perhaps when the revolution comes to the U.S.A. and I return there, I will spare your lives.”

Many years later, the American businessman who had helped to rescue Livshitz still expressed astonishment at the little Bolshevik’s cruel and unyielding ideology.

“[Livshitz] told me that if his own mother stood in the way of the revolution he would strangle her with his bare hands,” he wrote. “This is the mark of a hard-core Communist. They will do anything — anything.” The businessman’s name was Fred C. Koch.

Building a Business

At the time, Fred Koch was already a wunderkind in the petroleum industry. Born in 1900 the son of a Dutch immigrant from Quanah, Texas, Fred had graduated from MIT in 1922 with a chemical engineering degree. He was first employed by the Texas Company in Port Arthur, Texas, and then by the Medway Oil and Storage Company in Kent, England, where he was chief engineer. Only three years after graduation from college, Koch rejoined an MIT classmate at Keith-Winkler Engineering, a petrochemical engineering concern in Wichita, Kansas. His friend P. C. Keith soon moved on, however, and later in 1925, the firm was renamed the Winkler-Koch Engineering Company.

Within two years, Koch had devised a more efficient procedure for cracking crude oil — the process by which crude oil is refined into gasoline and other products. Cracking was first invented by a Russian engineer, Vladimir Shukhov, in the late 19th century. By the 1920s, the petroleum industry was fully fledged, in no small measure in response to the needs of the burgeoning automobile industry. Then as now, the petroleum industry was dominated by a few mega-corporations that did not scruple to enlist the power of the state to enforce their near-monopolistic dominance of the industry at the expense of smaller would-be competitors. Koch’s new royalty-free thermal cracking process, by producing higher yields of refined gasoline from crude oil and reducing down time, helped smaller companies to better compete with their larger, more entrenched, and better-capitalized rivals. The latter lost no time in attacking Koch, filing no less than 44 lawsuits against Winkler-Koch and all its customers in a contemptible campaign to force the company out of business. That Winkler-Koch won every lawsuit but one (and that verdict was later overturned when it was discovered that the judge had been bribed) is evidence enough that the full-frontal legal assault on the upstart Koch was inspired by no higher motives than envy and greed. We must suppose that, as a result of the campaign to sue him out of the refining business, Fred Koch must have begun to understand that the modern American business sector was not nearly as free-market as it was cracked up to be.

Vindicated though he must have felt at staving off the lawsuits, they proved to be Pyrrhic victories. The cost and production delays occasioned by litigation left Winkler-Koch unable to conduct business in the United States for several years — as the Big Oil oligarchs intended. Undismayed, Koch and his associates turned their attention to potential foreign markets, including the Soviet Union, where there was a demand for American expertise in petroleum engineering. Ironically, the litigation unleashed by anti-free-market monopolists at home prompted Koch to look eastward, to the rising communist sphere of influence, for new contracts. From 1929 to 1932, Koch built 15 cracking units in the Soviet Union, and many others elsewhere in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. He also brought Soviet technicians to the United States for training — some of whom opted not to return to their Stalinist motherland.

Repelled by Revolution

It was Fred Koch’s hands-on experience with Soviet Communism that convinced him of the unmitigated evil of such a system, and ultimately turned him into a passionate crusader on behalf of liberty. In 1960, three decades after his hands-on experience in the Soviet Union, he published a small but trenchant tract, A Business Man Looks at Communism, which spelled out his convictions and won many admirers. The Soviet Union, he wrote, was a “land of hunger, misery, and terror.” He had seen firsthand the fruits of Soviet Communism, both at home and abroad. One of his original Soviet associates, a Mr. Barinoff, the president of a major Soviet oil concern in Baku, whom Koch described as a “very large man with handle-bar mustache,” befriended the American at a meeting in Wichita. “Mr. Barinoff told me to be sure and come to see him at Baku,” Koch wrote. “When I came to Russia a year and a half later Mr. Barinoff was dead, shot by Stalin.” Another prominent Soviet oil executive at the Wichita meeting, a Mr. Ganshin, was, at the time of Koch’s visit, “on trial for his life, later to be shot.” As for the Soviet engineers that Winkler-Koch trained in the United States:


As far as I could tell most of these men were subsequently shot or sent to Siberia. One man, a little fellow by the name of Hatchatouroff, after leaving Wichita to return to Russia, found out in Germany that he would be shot when he reached home, so he came back to the U.S.A., and to Wichita. In order to help him we gave him a job, but after a few months, in the spring of 1930, he either committed suicide, or was murdered by the Soviet Secret Police, which unknown to most people has operated in the United States for thirty years. There is a saying among Communists that it is easier to commit an artistic murder than an artistic suicide. In other words many murders are made to look like suicide, so we will never know the truth about Hatchatouroff’s death in Wichita.​


Thus did Soviet communism cannibalize its own.

Koch was exposed to communism by precept as well as by experience, thanks to the unflagging evangelism of Jerome Livshitz, his handler during his time in the Soviet Union. Livshitz, like many elite Russian revolutionaries, was well educated and eager to debate the alleged merits of the Soviet system with his captive American audience. “In the months I traveled with [Livshitz] he gave me a liberal education in Communist techniques and methods,” Koch recalled:


He told me how the Communists were going to infiltrate the U.S.A. in the schools, universities, churches, labor unions, government, armed forces, and to use his words, “We will make you rotten to the core.” I believe that due to his American experience he was one of the original architects of the Communist plan of subversion of the U.S.A.​


But Livshitz — whose life had once been saved by capitalists who plucked him from beneath an automobile — suffered a no less indecorous end than many of Koch’s other Soviet associates; he was liquidated by Stalin in 1936.

How to Corral Communism

A Business Man Looks at Communism furnishes a neat overview of the theory of Marxism-Leninism; the late Livshitz had at least been a good preceptor. At a time when many of the wealthy and well- (or perhaps over-) educated rhapsodized about the supposedly high-minded principles of socialism and of Stalin’s program, Koch, in crisp, businesslike prose, demolished the Soviet cause in a mere 40 hard-hitting pages. But Koch was no reflexive fear-monger; he perceived, correctly as affairs have turned out, the comprehensive character of the communist threat. Where others saw only the military danger, Koch understood, thanks to the indiscreet boasting of Livshitz, that the communists’ aim was to conquer by subversion. He comprehended their patience and their willingness to appear to give ground tactically for strategic advantage. He perceived that the communists were masters at long-term planning:


If you do not think dialectically, you are at the mercy of any trick they pull. They are working it all around the world today — the dialectic thrust and then retreat. They surge in Iraq. We send troops to Lebanon. They retreat, then thrust at Berlin. We react and they smile, and send over the mass murderer Khrushchev breathing smiles and peace one minute and Communist propaganda and threats of nuclear destruction the next.... Words do not mean to a Communist what they mean to you and me. This is a carry-over from the Aesopian language of the revolutionary in Czarist days. When a Communist says he wants peace he means he wants Communism. When he says he wants “peaceful coexistence” he means he wants no outward violence while he bores from within and conquers you by treason and subversion.​


Koch warned that American institutions were honeycombed with communist subversives, from labor unions and tax-free foundations to universities and churches. Art and newsprint, radio and television — all these media had been transmuted into vehicles of communist propaganda. Koch declared unflinchingly that the United Nations was a tool of the communists:


The United Nations … has been a rotten core of subversion. It is a haven for subversives and security risks. UNESCO has been spewing forth Communist and World government propaganda into our schools for years. The U.N. was conceived by the Russians during World War II as a device to continue collaboration with the United States which had proven so profitable to them. The argument that the U.N. is an instrument of peace is entirely fallacious. Is there any indication that since the U.N. has been in existence there is any less war than formerly? As a matter of fact there are more arms, hatred, threats, brush fires and threats of war than there have ever been.... The U.N. will undoubtedly be one of the most important tools for the Communist take-over of America.... Let us give Red China a seat in the U.N. — our seat!!!!​


To fight the scourge of communism, Koch the businessman urged Americans to educate themselves about communism, to organize, and to act, never compromising their principles no matter how withering the rhetorical opposition. “Be scrupulous about your evidence and the rules of fair play before making a charge against any individual or group,” Koch warned. “You have helped Communism instead of hurting it when you have to retract.... The TRUTH and EXPOSURE are your most powerful weapons.”

To those too young to remember the Cold War, some of Fred Koch’s concerns may seem anachronistic. After all, goes received wisdom, the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc collapsed without a shot being fired, and freedom is now breaking out the world over. Yet America is less free now than at any time in her history, excepting perhaps the extreme regimentation during World War II. While we are still a far cry from the Soviet Union of Stalin, Americans now seem willing to tolerate comprehensive attacks on our liberty carried out in the name of a war on terror. Where once helmeted storm troopers kicking in doors were tropes associated with totalitarianism, they are a commonplace nowadays on American soil — all in the name of a feckless war on drugs. Where America once took pride in a laissez-faire business climate, businessmen and consumers alike seem to positively embrace the growing ascendancy of the federal government, with its legions of bureaucrats and regulators, over every facet of the economy. From perverted full-body patdowns in our airports to our newly socialized medical system, Americans — large numbers of them, at any rate — seem eager to participate in a Gadarene rush into full-blown socialism of a sort that would have made the Stalins and Khrushchevs of yesteryear proud.

Fred Koch was no fly-by-night pamphleteer. He spent a generous portion of his later years using his wealth and influence to fight the communism he abhorred. He was an early member of the The John Birch Society’s National Council, an advisory group to JBS founder Robert Welch. Koch supported a variety of freedom-related causes, all the while continuing to build the company today known as Koch Industries. Today Koch Industries produces not only a wide range of petroleum-based products and related goods like process equipment, but also has diversified into chemicals, fibers, plastics and forest and consumer products. As Matthew Continetti of The Weekly Standard put it:


You wake up in the morning and turn on a light using electricity generated by oil and natural gas that Koch Industries discovered, sold, refined, and delivered to the power plant. You get out of bed and your feet touch a carpet made from Koch polymers. You drink from a paper cup manufactured by Koch. You use a Koch paper towel to clean up water spilled from the cup. You get dressed in Lycra products made by Koch. You leave the house, built from materials that in all likelihood have at some point intersected with a Koch company, and get into a car powered by gasoline made by Koch Industries. You drive to the airport where you get on an airplane using fuel refined at a Koch facility. If the airplane is Air Force One, when you get thirsty you have some coffee from the Koch-produced official presidential coffee cup. You hijack the plane and demand that the pilot take you to a country where there is no Koch presence, no Koch employee, no Koch brand. But he can’t.​


Fred Koch died in 1967, not long after turning over management of Koch Industries to his son Charles. Were he alive today, he would doubtless be pleased that virulent communism as he knew it has withdrawn from Soviet soil, and that the Soviet Union itself has ceased to exist. He would probably be dismayed, however, that the United States is still enmeshed in the United Nations, and that she has traveled very far down the road to socialist serfdom. He would no doubt perceive the irony that, despite the demise of the Bolsheviks, their program for America, as a wispy little revolutionary explained it to him so long ago, is still very much in force. The process of subversion, corruption, and compromise of liberty continues apace, even if its authors are nowadays known (to the extent that they are recognized at all) by different names. But the occasional Fred Kochs that America is still capable of nurturing — the men of exceptional abilities who somehow avoid being seduced by success and who are willing to hazard all in the fight against organized evil — afford us hope that, after all, truth and right will prevail in the long run.
 



The Koch Brothers' meeting in Palm Springs could presage the beginning of the change back to sensible policies and limited government that so many are hoping for.​


Koch Brothers Revamp Strategies for 2014


The New American
01 May 2013


At the Koch Brothers' donors' strategy meeting at the Renaissance Esmeralda golf resort in Palm Springs, California, last week, the atmosphere was a blend of reality and optimism. The reality was stated in an e-mail from Charles Koch that was sent to potential participants back in January explaining why the meeting was being postponed to April:


Despite November’s disappointing election results, I am convinced that America's long-term decline is far from a foregone conclusion. Our goal of advancing a free and prosperous America is even more difficult than we envisioned, but it is essential that we continue, rather than abandon, this struggle.

We are working hard to understand the election results and, based on that analysis, to re-examine our vision and the strategies and capabilities required for success. This is a painstaking and time-consuming process. Although some of the needed changes are already evident, it will be several months before the state data necessary to complete this analysis is available.

For that reason, we are postponing the date of our winter meeting from January … to April …

The summer seminar, which will build on April’s meeting, will follow on August 4-5.​


The optimism was that the analysis of what worked, and what didn't, last November would be used to make changes and additions that could turn control of the Senate back to the Republicans and set the stage for a Republican presidential victory in 2016.

Among the 200 attendees at the weekend event were several of those who might be political participants in, and possible beneficiaries of, those Koch-funded and directed strategies, including Dr. Ben Carson, Governors Nikki Haley (R-S.C.) and John Kasich (R-Ohio), and Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

While many of the meetings were private, it was clear that some changes needed to be made. As Robert Tappan, a Koch spokesman, explained, “We took a long hard look at the effectiveness of the organizations we support — what they did well, what worked, and areas where we can be more effective.”

One major change has already taken place at the Koch Brothers' key project, Americans for Prosperity (AFP). Founded in 2004 to educate and motivate concerned citizens about economic policy and political action for lower taxes and less government, in 2012 AFP invested more than $140 million in political ads and door-to-door canvassing efforts with disappointing results. The group’s chief operating officer was terminated along with most of its staff and several fundraisers, but two key Koch employees were placed on its board.

It’s likely that support for the 60 Plus Association will be reduced while funding for Generation Opportunity, geared more to younger voters, and The Libre Initiative, which focuses on Hispanics and Latinos, will be increased in time for the 2014 elections.

The big news, however, is the creation of a new tax-exempt group, the Association for American Innovation, which will be run by a former AFP strategist and will coordinate state efforts to reduce taxes and limit government spending.

In addition, heavy investment will be made in a voter-mining and management software program called Themis in an attempt to catch up with the Democrats’ successful data management strategy that gave them a significant strategic advantage in that party’s messaging during last year’s election campaign. It will likely be managed by a key Koch employee, Kevin Gentry, who will use it to target advertising buys on cable as well as focus on registering new voters and staying in touch with them on an ongoing basis.

At present there are 53 Democratic senators plus 2 independents that reliably vote with that party, and 45 Republicans. On November 4, 2014, 35 of those seats will be up for election: 14 held by Republicans and 21 by Democrats. At the moment, most of the Republican seats appear to be safe, according to Bethany Blankley of Christian Post, while 7 of the 21 Democratic senators are from states that voted for Romney in 2012. CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said that


if 2014 is similar to past midterm elections, the demographics of the people who turn out to vote will be very different from the electorate in the presidential elections of 2008 or 2012. If history is any guide, the 2014 midterm electorate ... could easily benefit Republican candidates.​


There’s also the “sixth-year itch” which, as Professor Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics noted, is bad for the second-term president’s party.

And then there’s Nate Silver, the pollster who correctly called the 2012 national election as well as the winner in each of the 50 states, who said that the combination of midterm elections and more retirements than usual could create “the largest turnover in the Senate in nearly 40 years.”

The meeting in Palm Springs, sponsored by the Koch Brothers, might just turn out to be the beginning of the change so many are hoping for that will begin the long journey back to sensible policies and the restoration of limited government. The timing couldn't be better.
 
LOL! By the -rep I see I touched upon someone's nerve. Thanks for proving that if you think politics is the end all be all, you're too far gone to get it.
 
LOL! By the -rep I see I touched upon someone's nerve. Thanks for proving that if you think politics is the end all be all, you're too far gone to get it.

It wasn't me. Mild article. Was Robert Wenzel attacking the Koch Brothers for being successful risk takers?
 
Look Frank I like a lot of what the JBS does and says. But I have got to tell you, backing these two clowns and associating them with the JBS is a mistake.

Who is Robert Wenzel?

Tim Swanson, author of Great Wall of Numbers: Business Opportunities and Challenges in China, has just e-mailed me the following:

Chris, did a lot more digging and investigation. Robert Wenzel does not exist, his real name is Raymond Nize and he has several other aliases and a different life altogether: http://www.ofnumbers.com/2013/04/15/i-mayhave-the-drudge-formula-and-keyser-oze/

But first, here’s some context to what I’m about to post. When I first heard of Robert Wenzel and started following his blog EconomicPolicyJournal.com, and before I subscribed to his economic commentary the EPJ Daily Alert, I did background checks on him from my desktop. I could not find a single interview, either television, radio, or newspaper based, that he had ever done. He claimed he worked at a hedge fund on Wall Street for over 20 years, but again, no record of that. His avatar on his blog is also of a guy with his head cropped off. I found it a bit strange, but nevertheless, his economic commentary was solid and he was prolific at churning out analysis on the blog.

Following Wenzel’s “debate” with Stephan Kinsella on intellectual property, Stephan has repeatedly asked the question on his facebook page, who is this guy (Robert Wenzel) really, and is that even his real name? Well, clearly Kinsella is onto something. Beginning with the heading below, Part IV, everything is lifted from Tim’s website www.ofnumbers.com.

Part IV – unmasking the sock puppet

So who is this Robert Wenzel character ([email protected])?

There used to be a site called EconomicPolicyReview.com (2007-2008) run by Raymond Salter ([email protected]). Here is a 2007 copy from TheWayBackMachine. He wrote near identical copy to EPJ today. The Phil Gramm post on EPJ (careful IP!) is identical to the one on EPR (same date even). Here is aSS.
Prior to that was another similar site called EconomicsDaily run by Raymond Fuller ([email protected]), here is a 2005 copy from TheWayBackMachine. During this time, Fuller even was involved in a spat with Gene Callahan (who used to be affiliated with the LVMI). Fuller also wrote similar copy and content as EPJ today.
From 2002-2005 another site, Menrohm.com was maintained by Robert Menrhom ([email protected]), here is a 2005 copy which discusses some of the same topics (Freakonomics) and quoting libertarians like Justin Raimondo.
In 2006 a Peter Stojan piece (SS) at LRC cites Raymond Keller (not Fuller) as a source of commentary. Stojan’s company (montreauxadvisors.com) does not exist. A 2006 copy of Raymond Keller’s site is up on TheWayBackMachine and Keller’s Blogger profile is expired but turns into (SS) Raymond Salter’s. Keller also wrote about economics (Freakonomics) and talks about his letters to the late LRC publisher, Burt Blumert.
While it would be fallacious to connect those dots (guilt by association) consider the case of Los Angeles resident Raymond Nize, owner of Beacon Hill West and Nize Holdings.

In 2006 there was press release issued (SS) on behalf of Raymond Nize a supposed expert in economic forecasting who would be speaking at a World Economics Forecast Conference. The conference did not exist nor was the book by the title that Nize supposedly wrote ever published (“Understanding Macro-Economic Forecasting: A guide for Business Executives and Investors”). This same Nize may be the same poster at LVMI (see here and here and here). If it is the same Nize ([email protected]), then TheWayBackMachine also has a 2006 copy of yet another Blogger site that once again is written in similar style/copy as EPJ (e.g., macro economics). Nize also commented onthis post (SS) about re-finance mortgages in California but later removed his last name. Nize’s other Blogger profile (SS) leads to a dead end pointing to a non-existent site about the 213 area code of LA — a common theme through many of these domains and aliases is they are usually affiliated with LA. Looking through Technorati a site originally dedicated to indexing and searching blogs), Nizenotes is claimed (SS) by a mont99. One mont99 (located in LA — [email protected]) also has a profile (SS) at LibraryThing that includes favorites along the same genres/topics of all the other blogs thus far (libertarianism/Austrianism). (Note: this mont99 is probably a different room730.)

All of these sites have very similar look, feel and commentary to EconomicPolicyJournal.com and a few posts that are on all of the sites (with small changes) plus EPR also shows history going back to 2002 while it was really created in 2007. It is very likely that the same person is behind all of the Blogger sites but nothing besides the spartan aesthetic looks, content genre (all libertarian/econ), content layout (short blurbs/block quotes) and email addresses (similar style) confirms that. EPR seem to have been picked up in 2009 by other people and then dropped again, the domain is unowned at the moment.

The smoking gun however, is a lawsuit filed (SS) on January 14, 2008 where Ray was named as a defendant in a case filed in California: La Jolla Cove Investors, Inc vs Stomar Partners, Inc, Jim Miller, Raymond Nize and Does 1-10 (case no: 37-2007-000642640CU-BC-CTL). While I cannot weigh on the merits of the case (the plaintiff’s site is just one side of things… install Quicktime/IE for his 2nd monologue here), the plaintiff was apparently friends with Ray and his ex-gf. Here is a picture (SS) of Ray with the plaintiff (also seen at the top of this post). Compare that with his alias (Robert Wenzel’s) videofrom the LVMI speech last month (see side-by-side comparison at the bottom). Furthermore, if you do a WhoIs database search on EconomicPolicyJournal.com, it is registered to EPJ Holdings — to a Los Angeles address (5042 Wilshire Blvd) and the registered phone number (213-2593-55XX) is an area code for LA as well (SS).

Possible known aliases:

Raymond Nize
Raymond Sabat
Robert Menrohm
Raymond Fuller
Raymond Keller
Peter Stojan
Raymond Salter
Robert Wenzel
According to a friend of a friend who tipped me off on this, he suspects that there are many more aliases out there. I think it is more likely than not that Robert Wenzel is not his original name and probably even not his actual current name. And it seems like EPJ was his biggest success story so he stuck with that name because of that. Furthermore, it is hard to verify his claims of working at a hedge fund or in Wall Street itself let alone corroborate his purported predictions of booms and busts like the 2008 financial crash when he seems to have a history of backdating posts.

And while I personally have no qualms with people reinventing themselves or even leading multiple lives this entire escapade is beginning to look more and more like the Libertarian Girl hoax (see here and here) with a dash of bravado from Catch Me If You Can, a dab of whodunnit from The Usual Suspects and a smattering of interconnected cast members from Cloud Atlas.

Is Robert Wenzel/Raymond Nize the modern-day Keyser Söze? Or is he a mere internet sockpuppet?

Update: another source just emailed the following information, there are two more similar sites. EconomicBriefing.com (copy at TWBM and SS) and EconomicsBriefing.com (copyat TWBM and SS). The last one was active 2005 and 2007, with two different authors. All linked to the alias, Raymond Sabat and a new one, Robert Wallach ([email protected]). The latter has the same Blogger layout and the former is an already known alias. Both cover the same genre/topics and writing format as the other Wenzel/Nize aliases.

This man is as mysterious as they come. How do you know he can be trusted? For all you know, he could well be a leftist disinformation agent working to destroy the constitutionalist/liberty movement from the inside.
 
Who is Robert Wenzel?



This man is as mysterious as they come. How do you know he can be trusted? For all you know, he could well be a leftist disinformation agent working to destroy the constitutionalist/liberty movement from the inside.


He is such a good shill that he has the likes of Walter Block, Bob Murphy, Ron Paul, and virtually every libertarian luminary reading his blog religiously! He has them all fooled!

When you can't attack the ideas, attack the man. Classic.
 
He is such a good shill that he has the likes of Walter Block, Bob Murphy, Ron Paul, and virtually every libertarian luminary reading his blog religiously! He has them all fooled!

When you can't attack the ideas, attack the man. Classic.

Did you watch/listen to his "debate" with Stephan Kinsella? He not only inexplicably defends intellectual monopoly, but he does so without any shred of critical thinking. It kind of makes you wonder.

As far as the OP, the Koch brothers are clearly confused. One cannot fully respect private property rights and turn around to trumpet limited government. Government cannot exist without violated private property rights.
 
As far as the OP, the Koch brothers are clearly confused. One cannot fully respect private property rights and turn around to trumpet limited government. Government cannot exist without violated private property rights.

So you're criticizing the Koch Brothers for not being anarchists? Seriously?
 
Did you watch/listen to his "debate" with Stephan Kinsella? He not only inexplicably defends intellectual monopoly, but he does so without any shred of critical thinking. It kind of makes you wonder.

As far as the OP, the Koch brothers are clearly confused. One cannot fully respect private property rights and turn around to trumpet limited government. Government cannot exist without violated private property rights.

Yeah, that was pretty bad. He sucks on IP. It's weird because he's so solid on everything else.
 
It wasn't me. Mild article. Was Robert Wenzel attacking the Koch Brothers for being successful risk takers?


No it wasn't you, Frank. When accumulated wealth gets in a few people's hands it becomes a bad thing. The Koch Brothers have accumulated wealth and they use it to benefit, mainly, them.

We can turn this all around without playing politics. Dr. Paul is not a billionaire and he made a difference, nor did he get any help from the Koch Brothers.
 
Last edited:
No it wasn't you, Frank. When accumulated wealth gets in a few people's hands it becomes a bad thing. The Koch Brothers have accumulated wealth and they use it to benefit, mainly, them.

We can turn this all around without playing politics. Dr. Paul is not a billionaire and he made a difference, nor did he get any help from the Koch Brothers.

I have no problem with rich people and the Koch family donates tons of money to Libertarian/Conservative/Constitutionalist causes.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_Family_Foundations
 
No it wasn't you, Frank. When accumulated wealth gets in a few people's hands it becomes a bad thing. The Koch Brothers have accumulated wealth and they use it to benefit, mainly, them.

We can turn this all around without playing politics. Dr. Paul is not a billionaire and he made a difference, nor did he get any help from the Koch Brothers.

I don't care about the Koch Bros. one way or the other, but since when did it become a sin to become successful and wealthy, if you have done it without government favor?
 
I don't care about the Koch Bros. one way or the other, but since when did it become a sin to become successful and wealthy, if you have done it without government favor?

You should because people like them have such accumulated wealth that they can buy favor a lot more than you or I can. And when people like the Koch Brothers infringe on your rights, like polluting the ground water you drink, do you have any chance of winning a verdict in your favor? If you think you could, then you aren't paying attention.

I have no problem with people accumulating wealth but there is not an equal playing field and lots of people get trampled in the process.
 
You should because people like them have such accumulated wealth that they can buy favor a lot more than you or I can. And when people like the Koch Brothers infringe on your rights, like polluting the ground water you drink, do you have any chance of winning a verdict in your favor? If you think you could, then you aren't paying attention.

I have no problem with people accumulating wealth but there is not an equal playing field and lots of people get trampled in the process.

Being rich does have its advantages. I'm surprised you're pushing this "rich = evil" concept. The socialists and progressives agree with you and they also hate the Koch Brothers.
 
Back
Top