Was Mises Bankrolled by the Financial Elite?

[green73]

Tom Woods:

I know I am spending too much time on these crazy LaRouchian claims — see my post on the argument that Austrian economics benefits the plutocrats, and therefore has been promoted by them. You will hear it mentioned that the Rockefeller Foundation funded Ludwig von Mises, and that this proves Austrian economics is supported by the elites, even though (1) the elites went to a lot of trouble to establish the world’s central banks, which the Austrian School opposes, and (2) if the elites are that powerful, why is the Austrian School so little known after all their alleged efforts to promote it?

I asked Mises biographer Guido Hülsmann to comment on this. Here’s his reply:

The crucial evidence against this interpretation is twofold:

(a) The RF stopped funding Mises when he needed it most, and did not help him get a prestigious position in a US university, which they did for all true hacks. If he was truly in their pocket this was a very stupid thing to do.

(b) AFTER he was off RF money, Mises continued to profess and develop exactly the same views that he had already professed and developed BEFORE he got to meet any RF people. That’s not the behaviour of an intellectual prostitute. You would rather expect him to change his tune to the likings of his sponsors.

This leaves only one viable interpretation: The RF started funding Mises because he was already a major representative of Viennese intellectual life. Mises was part of the European intellectual establishment before he received financial support from US financial aristocracy. Like all new private research institutions, the RF first tried to hop into bed with the already existing scientific establishment to prop up its own reputation. Only in a second step did the RF (and similar organisations) try to steer the scientific agenda according to its own political and philosophical prejudices. When they proceeded from Step One to Step Two, there was no more place for Mises precisely because his views were unacceptable to RF.

 

[hazek]

Utterly irrelevant as to whether or not his theories were valid.

 

[Travlyr]

Utterly irrelevant as to whether or not his theories were valid.

The smoke and mirrors are everywhere. The relevance is in whether he could be bought and sold. Mises couldn't be bought just like Ron Paul couldn't. However, Milton Friedman is revered as a great economist, yet he backed the idea of the central bank until his dying days. He is from the Chicago School which was endowed with $80 million from J.D. Rockefeller. In my opinion, Milton Friedman sold out.

 

[hazek]

I R R E L E V A N T .

I don't care if you are bought but what you say is true, I really don't. And I refuse to idolize any mere man, even if I think they've done something significant. No man is infallible, not a single one.

 

[green73]

It's important because the greenbackers and lefty types have been spreading this lie to discredit Mises and the Austrians.

 

[Travlyr]

I don't see anyone idolizing anyone. What I see is everyone financed by the elite are obfuscating the truth or else they don't get their funding. Almost everybody has their price but not everyone.

 

[misean]

The smoke and mirrors are everywhere. The relevance is in whether he could be bought and sold. Mises couldn't be bought just like Ron Paul couldn't. However, Milton Friedman is revered as a great economist, yet he backed the idea of the central bank until his dying days. He is from the Chicago School which was endowed with $80 million from J.D. Rockefeller. In my opinion, Milton Friedman sold out.

I hate defending Friedman because his monetary ideas are wrong. That said...

He was probably the loudest voice in advocating the elimination of the Federal Reserve for the last 35 years of his life.

Friedman was actually a reverse sell out. He started out as a Keynesian in college. He got more and more free market as he aged.

 

[Travlyr]

I hate defending Friedman because his monetary ideas are wrong. That said...

He was probably the loudest voice in advocating the elimination of the Federal Reserve for the last 35 years of his life.

Friedman was actually a reverse sell out. He started out as a Keynesian in college. He got more and more free market as he aged.

I stand corrected. I have not followed Milton Friedman as closely as I should have to make my claim. I did not hear him call for an end to the Federal Reserve System until his later years. If it was his last 35 years, then I applaud him and retract my claim that he sold out.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I hate defending Friedman because his monetary ideas are wrong. That said...

He was probably the loudest voice in advocating the elimination of the Federal Reserve for the last 35 years of his life.

Friedman was actually a reverse sell out. He started out as a Keynesian in college. He got more and more free market as he aged.

Friedman called for replacing the FED with a computer rather than eliminating central banking completely...unless he changed his mind later on, which IDR.

 

[misean]

“Any system which gives so much power and so much discretion to a few men, [so] that mistakes ‑‑ excusable or not ‑‑ can have such far reaching effects, is a bad system. It is a bad system to believers in freedom just because it gives a few men such power without any effective check by the body politic ‑‑ this is the key political argument against an independent central bank. . .To paraphrase Clemenceau: money is much too serious a matter to be left to the Central Bankers.” -Milton Friedman


Also what is wrong with getting money from the Rockefeller Foundation? The answer is nothing. Many established university professors hold a chair from a grant. Mises wrote The Theory of Money and Credit in 1912. He started getting funding from the Rockefeller foundation after he came the US in 1940. I remember Hazlitt interview saying that Mises had a lot financial problems when he came to the US (he was a Jew in Nazi Germany.) He was the world's greatest economist but he couldn't get an academic job because he was considered "right wing."

Friedman called for replacing the FED with a computer rather than eliminating central banking completely...unless he changed his mind later on, which IDR.

He was for the Treasury using a computer algorithm to create a constant growth in thrmoney supply for a while (which is definitely not an Austrian idea). I also remember seeing that he thought private money in a free banking system would work.

 

[Travlyr]

Also what is wrong with getting money from the Rockefeller Foundation? The answer is nothing. Many established university professors hold a chair from a grant.

I disagree with you on this. The Rockefeller family had inside information which they used to create somewhat of a monopoly. That gave them unfair advantage against people who did not have that inside information. Then they used their wealth to promote elitist propaganda (central banking) in order to further the wealth of the elite at the expense of the people. And University professors are not yet teaching honest sound money even today. They are still teaching obfuscation by Keynesian economics. Because of their grant money? I think so.

He was for the Treasury using a computer algorithm to create a constant growth in thrmoney supply for a while (which is definitely not an Austrian idea).

Nor is it honest.

I also remember seeing that he thought private money in a free banking system would work.

I agree with him.

 

[angelatc]

The smoke and mirrors are everywhere. The relevance is in whether he could be bought and sold. Mises couldn't be bought just like Ron Paul couldn't. However, Milton Friedman is revered as a great economist, yet he backed the idea of the central bank until his dying days.

He admitted it was a failed theory right there at the end.

 

[erowe1]

Milton Friedman is revered as a great economist, yet he backed the idea of the central bank until his dying days.

No he didn't.
http://www.swifteconomics.com/2009/09/02/milton-friedman-abolish-the-federal-reserve/
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/10/economists-occupy-and-end-the-fed.html
http://divisionoflabour.com/archives/003603.php
http://hubpages.com/hub/Milton_Friedman_on_the_Central_Federal_Reserve_Bank

 

[-C-]

obviously he was bankrolled by the elite, the entire austrian school of eco is just a rip off version of the London School of Economics. Mises came from Hapsburg money.

you can say they are larouchian claims all you want, and try to discredit them that way, but its still history. A sovereign nation state having control over its own value of currency, what specie the currency is, and what to do with that currency....it just doesnt go well with the 'free market.'

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

If the Rockefeller's were just interested in promoting central banking, then why promote the Austrians and Chicagoans? The Austrians are against it, and the Chicagoans are wary of it.

If they were interested in depopulation, why give to charities?

On the other hand, a lot of the money went to socializing academia and the media.

There are a lot of missing wholes in these theories.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

obviously he was bankrolled by the elite, the entire austrian school of eco is just a rip off version of the London School of Economics. Mises came from Hapsburg money.

you can say they are larouchian claims all you want, and try to discredit them that way, but its still history. A sovereign nation state having control over its own value of currency, what specie the currency is, and what to do with that currency....it just doesnt go well with the 'free market.'

A lot of the money came from the Kochs and the Volker fund.

I know Lionel Robbins of the London School is popular among Austrians.

 

[Travlyr]

No he didn't.
http://www.swifteconomics.com/2009/09/02/milton-friedman-abolish-the-federal-reserve/
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/10/economists-occupy-and-end-the-fed.html
http://divisionoflabour.com/archives/003603.php
http://hubpages.com/hub/Milton_Friedman_on_the_Central_Federal_Reserve_Bank

So the earliest reference you have to Milton Friedman calling for an end to the Federal Reserve is 1996? Does anybody have any proof that he requested an end to the Fed earlier than that?

An interesting note about that is that the Internet (the truth machine) was just starting to heat up in 1996. Prior to that we could rely on TV, Radio, and Newspapers to get "honest" information? Now we know we were not getting "honest" information from the media. Also, we could not even go to the library to get honest information as Eustace Mullins and Murray Rothbard's books were not available in public libraries at the time.

And one more interesting note about J.D. Rockefeller and his connection to the central banking powers. Abby Aldrich Rockefeller is the daughter of Senator Nelson Aldrich.

 

[erowe1]

So the earliest reference you have to Milton Friedman calling for an end to the Federal Reserve is 1996? Does anybody have any proof that he requested an end to the Fed earlier than that?

I'm not an expert. But that divisionoflabour blog is written by economists, and they are convinced that he held that view even when he wrote his book with Anna Schwartz. I've seen other economists say that about him, including in a journal article written by one of his students at Chicago.

 

[Travlyr]

I'm not an expert. But that divisionoflabour blog is written by economists, and they are convinced that he held that view even when he wrote his book with Anna Schwartz. I've seen other economists say that about him, including in a journal article written by one of his students at Chicago.

I'm looking for documentation. If you have it please post it.

 

[low preference guy]

So the earliest reference you have to Milton Friedman calling for an end to the Federal Reserve is 1996? Does anybody have any proof that he requested an end to the Fed earlier than that?

your claim was that Milton backed the Fed "until his dying days". so why do you need a proof he wanted to end it BEFORE 1996? that doesn't seem to make sense.