Was Mises Bankrolled by the Financial Elite?

-C- said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is no "London School of Economics" economic thought. Hayek and Robbins taught there and each had different views. Keynes also taught there and was opposed to the Austrian School.

Not everything is a conspiracy of the Illuminati or whatever you crazy bullshit that you believe.
 
Last edited:
low preference guy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because misean said that he has been against the Fed for the last 35 years of his life. I'm just interested in honest information.
 
Travlyr said:
I'm looking for documentation. If you have it please post it.
Click to expand...

I don't have it. But since you're the one who's looking for it, perhaps you can post it when you find it.

ETA: at that divisionoflabour link the refer to the article I mentioned by his student, which was published in 1984.

His co-author of Monetary History, Anna Schwartz, quotes him speaking against the Fed in a 1973 Playboy interview here.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/mar/29/who-was-milton-friedman/

Also, IIRC, episode 9 of his 1980 TV series, Free to Choose (which in its entirety is a great resource) is anti-central banking.
http://www.freetochoose.tv/
 
Last edited:
Travlyr said:
Because misean said that he has been against the Fed for the last 35 years of his life. I'm just interested in honest information.
Click to expand...

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj28n2/cj28n2-12.pdf

I'm too lazy to reread this buy it has a brief history of Friedman's monetary views. Here is one quote I pulled out of it "Friedman and Schwartz ultimately conclude that there are in fact no good economic arguments to support government monopolies of hand-to-hand currency."
 
misean said:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj28n2/cj28n2-12.pdf

I'm too lazy to reread this buy it has a brief history of Friedman's monetary views. Here is one quote I pulled out of it "Friedman and Schwartz ultimately conclude that there are in fact no good economic arguments to support government monopolies of hand-to-hand currency."
Click to expand...
A view and a public declaration of that view are two different things.
 
I sorta wish I had billions to bribe Congress into ending the deficit and bring the troops home. :(
 
erowe1 said:
I don't have it. But since you're the one who's looking for it, perhaps you can post it when you find it.

ETA: at that divisionoflabour link the refer to the article I mentioned by his student, which was published in 1984.

His co-author of Monetary History, Anna Schwartz, quotes him speaking against the Fed in a 1973 Playboy interview here.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/mar/29/who-was-milton-friedman/

Also, IIRC, episode 9 of his 1980 TV series, Free to Choose (which in its entirety is a great resource) is anti-central banking.
http://www.freetochoose.tv/
Click to expand...

I appreciate the links. And I like Milton Friedman. My claim is that criticizing the Fed is different than calling for an end to it. While Murray N. Rothbard, Eustace Mullins, Ron Paul and others were calling for an end to the Fed in order to create prosperity for individuals, Mr. Friedman was criticizing the Fed for failed policy. That is two different sides of the coin. The difference being that Milton Friedman was on the Fed's payroll while Mullins, Rothbard, Paul, and others calling for an end to central banking weren't.
 
Travlyr said:
I appreciate the links. And I like Milton Friedman. My claim is that criticizing the Fed is different than calling for an end to it. While Murray N. Rothbard, Eustace Mullins, Ron Paul and others were calling for an end to the Fed in order to create prosperity for individuals, Mr. Friedman was criticizing the Fed for failed policy. That is two different sides of the coin. The difference being that Milton Friedman was on the Fed's payroll while Mullins, Rothbard, Paul, and others calling for an end to central banking weren't.
Click to expand...

I basically agree. I definitely wouldn't put him in the same category as the other people you listed. I think he thought we would have been better off if the Fed never existed. And once it did exist, he wished it could be gotten rid of, but didn't think it could, so he proposed compromise measures. I'm not sure if 1996 was the first time he explicitly said it should be abolished or not. But he did at least occasionally put it that way.
 
erowe1 said:
How do you know he changed his view then? Could you post the link?
Click to expand...

It does not matter when he changed his view. What matters is when he first publicly called for an end to the Fed (which he eventually did). It is my opinion from this discussion and my study that he knew full well that central banking practices were bankrupting the country and controlling society, but he was willing, for personal gain, (self interest... just like we all do) to obfuscate the truth as payback for his fame and fortune.
 
Travlyr said:
It does not matter when he changed his view. What matters is when he first publicly called for an end to the Fed (which he eventually did). It is my opinion from this discussion and my study that he knew full well that central banking practices were bankrupting the country and controlling society, but he was willing, for personal gain, (self interest... just like we all do) to obfuscate the truth as payback for his fame and fortune.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is anything nefarious about Milton Friedman's views on this issue.

I actually don't think he believed the problem with the Fed was bankrupting the country. I think his issue with that the Federal Reserve was that it couldn't manage price inflation very well. His issue was that there was too much of incentive to inflate.

I don't think see he saw the Fed as an enabler for debt. He definitely didn't agree with the Austrian Business Cycle. He saw rising prices more as the problem and not expansion of credit and malinvestment. He thought Greenspan was great. Before his death in 2006, he was very on board the aggressive action Greenspan took after the Dot Com collapse.
 
Travlyr said:
Because misean said that he has been against the Fed for the last 35 years of his life. I'm just interested in honest information.
Click to expand...

Not being driven by dates, but just the maturing of the philosophy, I've always had the same impression. I don't think Friedman woke up one day and recanted his earlier opinions. He remained a scholar to the end.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1813-6982.1978.tb00558.x/abstract - this is from 1978, and it quotes Friedman's "New Quantity Theory Of Money -
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.”
Click to expand...

He was clearly reacanting it then.
 
Travlyr said:
It does not matter when he changed his view. What matters is when he first publicly called for an end to the Fed (which he eventually did). It is my opinion from this discussion and my study that he knew full well that central banking practices were bankrupting the country and controlling society, but he was willing, for personal gain, (self interest... just like we all do) to obfuscate the truth as payback for his fame and fortune.
Click to expand...

RP said in an interview a few years ago that Friedman told RP that RP was one of the only people that could make a convincing argument in favor of the gold standard. That'd be quite a compliment for many. I suspect it was because he approaches it from a freedom pov instead of simply monetary pov.
 
specsaregood said:
RP said in an interview a few years ago that Friedman told RP that RP was one of the only people that could make a convincing argument in favor of the gold standard. That'd be quite a compliment for many. I suspect it was because he approaches it from a freedom pov instead of simply monetary pov.
Click to expand...
I remember seeing an interview on youtube, probably posted here, with Paul talking about Milton.

However, I haven't been able to find it to watch it again.

This is probably the same one. Anybody have a link?
 
GeorgiaAvenger said:
I remember seeing an interview on youtube, probably posted here, with Paul talking about Milton.

However, I haven't been able to find it to watch it again.

This is probably the same one. Anybody have a link?
Click to expand...

He also gave him a pretty glowing eulogy, which I think you can find on lrc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
Resignation from the Scientific Advisory Board of the Ludwig von Mises Institute Germany
Replies
4
Views
198
TheTexan
TheTexan
Occam's Banana
Mises University 2025
2 3
Replies
45
Views
660
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
PAF
Mises Institutes Beyond the United States
Replies
0
Views
213
PAF
PAF
PAF
My Encounter with Murray Rothbard
Replies
0
Views
460
PAF
PAF
PAF
Can Econometric Models Fulfill the Role of an Economic Laboratory?
Replies
1
Views
133
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
Back
Top