Post: #1

I would like to start a thread on Austrian Economics. I believe it to be the most truthful economic school and also the greatest weapon against socialism. What I consider “Austrian Economics” refers to the branch advanced by Mises, Rothbard, and the Mises Institute (they have a great website for learning the basics); not necessarily other more mainstream economists such as Hayek and Friedman although they have some good ideas too I believe.

Does anyone have any arguments for or against the Austrian school?

Post: #2

I thought we did have a thread...

Post: #3

There are plenty against - Austrian Economics - this globalist funded economic craziness cannot even be defended properly.

Crap has been going down since their 2008 popularity, entire sites were closed down because alternative economic researchers came upon highly superior systems than THE SAME OF THE OLD JUST ON STEROIDS.

https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/201...economics/

https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/201...economics/

Post: #4

^ Great links, Zelcorpion.

Austrian economics - just like every other mainstream economic theory - conveniently ignores the elephant in the room: the fact that banks create money out of nothing, but that this money (+interest) has to be paid back to them through labor and natural resources.

It is pseudo-intellectual mental masturbation with the goal of convincing the sheeple that stuff like extreme wealth inequality, bubbles, crashes, ... etc happen naturally because the people and the government are simply too stupid with money - whereas in reality all of these things happen, at least partially, by design.

Post: #5

(04-08-2017 02:58 AM)PhDre Wrote:  ^ Great links, Zelcorpion.

Austrian economics - just like every other mainstream economic theory - conveniently ignores the elephant in the room: the fact that banks create money out of nothing, but that this money (+interest) has to be paid back to them through labor and natural resources.

It is pseudo-intellectual mental masturbation with the goal of convincing the sheeple that stuff like extreme wealth inequality, bubbles, crashes, ... etc happen naturally because the people and the government are simply too stupid with money - whereas in reality all of these things happen, at least partially, by design.

Especially the history of the movement is interesting. Why should multi-billionaires (and likely trillionaires) be for it?

Also the proponents often forget that Libertarian economic models have been in place throughout human history (as close as they can be implemented at all) - all of those instances were brutal colossal disasters. That is why you will never get a successful libertarian economy just as you will never get a successful communist economy. Because with those systems you have to take the success and prosperity out of it.

Post: #6

Wrong. Austrian economics ignores Fiat currency? What the hell have you been reading?

https://mises.org/library/fiasco-fiat-money

https://mises.org/library/fiat-money-and...rruption-0

https://mises.org/library/cultural-and-p...at-money-0

A simple google search would have told you not to spew that nonsense.

Also, Zel, I would really like to know where such libertarian models were applied, resulting in tyranny and colossal failure? Because I cannot recall a single example. Most people bashing Austrian Economics have not read ONE book on it. How the hell would you take success and prosperity out of libertarianism since in essence it aspires to be a sort of radical meritocracy? It makes no sense whatsoever to compare it to communism, not in method, not in theory, and much less in terms of negative results it has caused.

(04-08-2017 02:58 AM)PhDre Wrote:  ^ Great links, Zelcorpion.

Austrian economics - just like every other mainstream economic theory - conveniently ignores the elephant in the room: the fact that banks create money out of nothing, but that this money (+interest) has to be paid back to them through labor and natural resources.

It is pseudo-intellectual mental masturbation with the goal of convincing the sheeple that stuff like extreme wealth inequality, bubbles, crashes, ... etc happen naturally because the people and the government are simply too stupid with money - whereas in reality all of these things happen, at least partially, by design.

Post: #7

Weimar republic, also some countries in the 19th century had Austrian levels of it.

Never said anything about fiat currencies - that is a Mises shitty term that misleads people. A currency can be based simply on the net productivity of a people and be paper.

All this gold crap is pure madness - has been tried before with gold and silver in the US and they could easily restrict the money supply in the 1880-90s - an economic depression far deeper than the 1930s, but never talked about.

Post: #8

PhDre, they do specifically cover the topic of "banks making money (credit) out of thin air". Mises himself saw no problem with it (its basically what all business accounts look like if the payable/receivable maturities are mismatched) so long as the monetary base was sound (i.e. gold).

That's actually the primary rift within Austrian economics. One faction thinks that "fractional reserve" banking is dangerous/fradulent etc. The other thinks banking is just banking as is part of a normal healthy free market (i.e. anyone can start a bank). To understand this you can read about the "adverse clearing mechanism".

Post: #9

^Phoenix, I see money as a standardized medium of exchange. The fact that it is created out of thin air does not pose a problem indeed.

However, what does pose problems are:
1) Nearly all money in circulation has been created as credit; this implies that banks can expand and contract the money supply as they please.
2) Interest needs to be paid on this "out of thin air" money and this interest does need to be paid in labor, transfer of natural resources, ...
3) Since (nearly) all money is created as debt with interest attached to it, there is a debt snowball effect. The current debt can never be paid back by the amount of money in circulation; there is a perpetual need for new credit and thus ever increasing debt.

Then again, I'm not an economist at all so maybe I'm missing parts of the picture or misinterpreting some stuff.

Post: #10

(04-08-2017 12:20 PM)PhDre Wrote:  ^Phoenix, I see money as a standardized medium of exchange. The fact that it is created out of thin air does not pose a problem indeed.

However, what does pose problems are:
1) Nearly all money in circulation has been created as credit; this implies that banks can expand and contract the money supply as they please.
2) Interest needs to be paid on this "out of thin air" money and this interest does need to be paid in labor, transfer of natural resources, ...
3) Since (nearly) all money is created as debt with interest attached to it, there is a debt snowball effect. The current debt can never be paid back by the amount of money in circulation; there is a perpetual need for new credit and thus ever increasing debt.

Then again, I'm not an economist at all so maybe I'm missing parts of the picture or misinterpreting some stuff.

I am an economist and this is exactly like that. Though monetary policy is seldom explained in detail to students for a good reason.

Also the super-successful examples of interest-free money creation with demurrage like Woergl 1930s, semi-private Jak-banks in Sweden or Canada from 1930s to 1960s - well, no one focuses on those examples for a good reason.

Also underlying gold based currencies or "competition of currencies" would be very messy. It would get far more messy since the globalists own most gold and metals in the world. So again you end up cap in hand to please borrow from their gold supplies (at interest).

Post: #11

Well I don't think being an economist makes someone wise in how the world actually works. Authority fallacy etc. To illustrate simply, Keynes, Friedman, Hayek, and Krugman etc are all renowned economists in spite of having completely opposite views on things.

So all we can do is think logically.

(04-08-2017 12:20 PM)PhDre Wrote:  ^Phoenix, I see money as a standardized medium of exchange. The fact that it is created out of thin air does not pose a problem indeed.

However, what does pose problems are:
1) Nearly all money in circulation has been created as credit; this implies that banks can expand and contract the money supply as they please.
2) Interest needs to be paid on this "out of thin air" money and this interest does need to be paid in labor, transfer of natural resources, ...
3) Since (nearly) all money is created as debt with interest attached to it, there is a debt snowball effect. The current debt can never be paid back by the amount of money in circulation; there is a perpetual need for new credit and thus ever increasing debt.

Then again, I'm not an economist at all so maybe I'm missing parts of the picture or misinterpreting some stuff.

1) They can't expand it beyond what the adverse clearing mechanism will allow. Banks don't have to settle debts with their depositors often, but they do have to settle them with each other. The more a given bank expands its credit, the higher the risk of a payment coming due to another bank that it can't meet during the course of day-to-day commerce.

An easy way to visualize this random risk is the Singapore interbank rate. Singapore is perhaps the last place on earth where they don't fix the interest rate (which in a way makes it the closest thing to a free market the world currently has). As a result, the interbank rate reflects actual bank-to-bank activity as it naturally is: quite hectic.

https://www.quandl.com/data/MAS/SORA-Sin...erage-SORA

So its not obvious why banks are in fact limited just like any other business, but they are. To think about it further, imagine you yourself started a bank. Would you really automatically become rich as a result of your new right to "make money out of thin air?". Unfortunately, no.

2) Well nobody has to be in debt if they don't want to. You just rent, only spend what you have, etc. You don't even need debt to start a business, you just do it with equity. People go into debt because they want to, and then they obviously have to work harder to pay off that bill later (time value of money, i.e. why interest rates exist in the first place). The root cause is peoples' desires itself; the financial system is merely a result of that.

3) Well lets illustrate it simply. Alice has $100 and a horse, Bob has $0. Bob borrows the $100 from Alice at 10%. Bob uses the $100 to buy a horse from Alice. Now Alice has $100, and Bob has $0 and a horse and -$110 debt due in a year.

Bob teaches French. He gives Alice lessons at $10/hour. For the first 10 lessons, Alice pays in cash. Now she has $0 and Bob has $100 and -$110 debt. Bob pays back the debt. Now Alice has $100, and Bob has $0 and -$10 debt.

Finally, Bob gives one more lesson. Alice pays him $10. Now Alice has $90, Bob has $10 and -$10 debt. Bob now pays back the last $10 debt. Now Alice has $100, Bob has $0.

So the difference for Bob was that in getting the horse now, rather than later, he had to give one extra lesson. That's it.

There is no debt snowballing effect, the only reason credit continues to expand is because the monetary base is expanding.

Post: #12

Austrian economics is the most autistic economic philosophy that people larp about waaaay too much. Socialism is worse,but the Austrians,lolbertarians are a close second. They have no solutions to deal with negative externalities or protect the truly vulnerable in society (elderly,children and disabled). Their theories on inflation are bunk, we had semi commodity standards in the past and purchasing power was much lower. While (((Central banks))) are a huge problem, a hard or semi hard commodity standard or debt free money would be much much more retarded. Modern economics, at least in monetary policy, isn't as bad as people make it seem. The issue is regulatory and spending (fiscal). The state/nation should have more power to sue and control MNC's and NGO's and government spending in most nations should be at between 28 to 35% of GDP. This is in between most western nations and East Asian tigers. Even this is ideal, reality means currently austerity and slashing spending is a bad idea as it would mostly hit pensioners. The economic problems in Greece and the UK as the biggest current examples.


Economics is a balance and a tango. It's very hard to get things right.


Singapore is a miserable society

Post: #13

In college a professor nominated me for a scholarship to attend the Mises Institute. I got it, but turned it down...... Dumb mistake.

Post: #14

(04-09-2017 09:36 AM)Vaun Wrote:  In college a professor nominated me for a scholarship to attend the Mises Institute. I got it, but turned it down...... Dumb mistake.

Well - on your way to become a globalist minion.

I talked with Bill Still a while ago - yeah the guy who made the MONEY MASTERS DOCUMENTARIES and attempted to run for president as 3rd party candidate.

He said that Milton Friedman had contacted him after seeing his documentaries. Friedman said to him that he agrees with him 100% and that it is not enough to change the monetary system and the central bank - you had to abolish the fractional reserve system, because that is actually more powerful in terms of steering the economic cycles via money supply as well as a tool for concentration of wealth.

So it seems that world-famous economists - even ((((economists)))) are fully aware of what is wrong with our world. But of course guys like Friedman know where the bread is buttered and that they are not going to change anything by becoming some forgotten impoverished economist who speaks the truth, but lives like a chump.

By the way - Austrian economics will never rule just as pure communism will never rule - they are far too inefficient, utopian and would collapse society quickly.

The final system seems to be some kind of big corporate fascism where only major corporations exist coupled with brutal dictatorial marxism for all the social and political decision making aspects - so essentially you are to get China, but worse with only big companies existing. Maybe they will let some small enterprises survive where big business competition does not pay.

----

On the topic of whether only economists can debate monetary economic policy:

Everyone can make an educated opinion knowing the basic facts. Business degree frankly has some factual parts like marketing, logistics and accounting, but anything else is up for grabs. Even general business strategies and guidelines are at best just theories that get changed by innovative companies all the time. As for general economic policies - you can be a genius and have a PHD in economics and still be a moron and in contrast you may only have a high-school degree and have a better idea of how things work. A lot of the macro-economic calculations are theories and only very rarely valuable enough to have any positive impact on society. Otherwise the perfectly calculated communist model would have worked wonders ideally calculating how much milk, meat and chairs are going to be used by the population and then being produced by them in perfect accordance to the plan.

Post: #15

(04-09-2017 06:25 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  1) They can't expand it beyond what the adverse clearing mechanism will allow. Banks don't have to settle debts with their depositors often, but they do have to settle them with each other. The more a given bank expands its credit, the higher the risk of a payment coming due to another bank that it can't meet during the course of day-to-day commerce.

An easy way to visualize this random risk is the Singapore interbank rate. Singapore is perhaps the last place on earth where they don't fix the interest rate (which in a way makes it the closest thing to a free market the world currently has). As a result, the interbank rate reflects actual bank-to-bank activity as it naturally is: quite hectic.

https://www.quandl.com/data/MAS/SORA-Sin...erage-SORA

So its not obvious why banks are in fact limited just like any other business, but they are. To think about it further, imagine you yourself started a bank. Would you really automatically become rich as a result of your new right to "make money out of thin air?". Unfortunately, no.

I agree, the clearing mechanism does seem to pose a limit on the amount of money they can create. However, according to this source there are no hard constraints: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=31063

Quote:“in the real world, there is no deposit multiplier mechanism that imposes quantitative constraints on banks’ ability to create money in this fashion. The main constraint is banks’ expectations concerning their profitability and solvency.”

If you read any macroeconomic textbook written for mainstream (neo-liberal) courses you will find some account of the money (deposit) multiplier as it applies to ‘reserve-constrained’ commercial banks.

But as the Bank of England now reliably informs the world, this sort of model is not “in the real world”. Banks are not reserve-constrained.

The full paper can be found here: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/research/...p529.aspx#
I didn't read it yet.

(04-09-2017 06:25 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  2) Well nobody has to be in debt if they don't want to. You just rent, only spend what you have, etc. You don't even need debt to start a business, you just do it with equity. People go into debt because they want to, and then they obviously have to work harder to pay off that bill later (time value of money, i.e. why interest rates exist in the first place). The root cause is peoples' desires itself; the financial system is merely a result of that.

3) Well lets illustrate it simply. Alice has $100 and a horse, Bob has $0. Bob borrows the $100 from Alice at 10%. Bob uses the $100 to buy a horse from Alice. Now Alice has $100, and Bob has $0 and a horse and -$110 debt due in a year.

Bob teaches French. He gives Alice lessons at $10/hour. For the first 10 lessons, Alice pays in cash. Now she has $0 and Bob has $100 and -$110 debt. Bob pays back the debt. Now Alice has $100, and Bob has $0 and -$10 debt.

Finally, Bob gives one more lesson. Alice pays him $10. Now Alice has $90, Bob has $10 and -$10 debt. Bob now pays back the last $10 debt. Now Alice has $100, Bob has $0.

So the difference for Bob was that in getting the horse now, rather than later, he had to give one extra lesson. That's it.

There is no debt snowballing effect, the only reason credit continues to expand is because the monetary base is expanding.

In your example, the original 100$ that Alice owns can exist indefinitely. However, as I see it, that 100$ would be a bank credit that needs to be settled with interest. And the settlement of this interest is impossible since there exists only 100$ in circulation, hence the need for a new loan to settle the previous interest. So there is a debt snowball.

As I see it, on a personal level you can avoid being in debt, but society as a whole cannot. Since nearly all money is created as credit, society is in debt simply because it uses money. And I think this is one of the reasons for the ever-growing government debts and ever increasing taxation.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. This is a subject I'm not very familiar with, but it's highly interesting to me.

Post: #16

I can only ask that you go through the maths again. If there is a specific step that is incorrect, please point it out. I reaffirm that there is no debt snowball effect.

I've long wanted to make a professional rebuttal video to those fanatical "money as debt" videos that were circulating a while back, but unfortunately my passion on the topic doesn't exceed that authors own passion of the alarmist variety.

On the "banks aren't reserve constrained", this fails to meet common sense. If they're not reserve constrained, it stands to reason they would extend infinite credit. If I was a bank that was bestowed the magical gift of never having to settle an outstanding debt with cash reserves, I'd immediately go on a buying spree and buy up the whole stock market and real estate market. After all, the sellers can never demand settlement. That would basically be a license to print money. However that isn't the real world.

Yes there is no "hard restraint", just like there are no hard restraints on other facets of the market, like labour participants and cotton prices. That's natural and normal. As uncertainty increases, transactions become more chaotic, and businesses including banks increase their cash reserves, creating more certainly. As uncertainty decreases, they expand their outstanding accounts again. One of the fundamental unanswered questions in economics (unanswered mostly because of the difficulty keeping politics out of economics) is what exactly causes booms and busts, and whether or not booms and busts are a natural fact of life, or an aberration created by some wrongdoing.

I think its a fascinating topic really. I have no doubt the credit-cash ratio and the interest rate is a sociological indicator and feedback mechanism of some fundamental kind.

Post: #17

Also on "society as a whole", society is just a collection of individuals. One person can choose not to be indebted. 100 people can choose not to be indebted. Everybody can choose not to be indebted. People do not have to be indebted. They simply choose to be because it meets their desires.

On "money is created as credit", this is just a problem of unclear definition. If it is confusing, just use words with more precise definitions: cash, credit. The confusion comes from thinking of your bank balance as being equivalent to the cash in your wallet. Sure, in steady economic times that is true in a functional sense -- for you (even better in fact due to convenience). But it isn't true for the bank, and it isn't true in an objective sense. One thing is a coin, another thing is a legal obligation to deliver a coin.

Its worth noting that this effect isn't restricted to banks -- they are merely a type of company specialized in balancing cash and credit. Companies not using banks still have to do this. They have to balance their accounts payable to their suppliers, employees, landlord etc, with their accounts receivable from clients etc, and the cash in their company vault is their available buffer in getting it wrong. Getting it wrong of course ending in angry employees stopping work until they get paid, suppliers not delivering the next batch etc. This is still a situation where the accounts payable and receivable will exist at a far greater multiple of the cash reserve. Are we to tell all businesses "you have to keep 100% cash reserve on your payables!". To which they'd respond "if I had that I'd just pay it off now" or "ok so are you willing to give me that capital at 0% interest? didn't think so".

Everyone just chooses to use banks for the same reason we use clothes stores. It's just division of labour. All the same effects, be those pending future payments and current cash balances, or people wearing clothes, would still exist whether we make the clothes ourselves or get someone else to.

Post: #18

(04-09-2017 10:03 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  So it seems that world-famous economists - even ((((economists)))) are fully aware of what is wrong with our world. But of course guys like Friedman know where the bread is buttered and that they are not going to change anything by becoming some forgotten impoverished economist who speaks the truth, but lives like a chump.

Zel; its highly logical to conclude that all decision making concerning foreign and domestic policy is made from purely economical reasons, i.e., economists rule the roost. Virtually every war, military action, policy, partnership, deal, etc. My econ professor, the one that nominated me to Mises, spent an entire semester proving this out with the American Rev. War, Am. Civil War and WW2. None of the popular reasons we associate with these wars held up against the economic conditions that lead to these wars. BTW, M Friedman was an advisor to several US Presidents.

So always follow the money. Who benefits from Trumps bombing last week? Is the US economy about to pop like so many are saying, so we need to start a war? Or are the dire market predictions just misinformation propagated by Trump opposition? Consider the source.

Economists truly rule society. They are the masters in business(finance, retail, etc), they are the most trusted advisors to world leaders, who then tell the military where to shoot their guns. They create, support and virtually make every C-level business decision.

In one sense; economics is the only truly tangible religion. Adam Smith's Invisible Hand touches all people, more than any one religion.

Post: #19

^ I think you mean "the rich". Economists aren't rich, even Krugman their foremost bulldog isn't worth that much. The rich employ them, not the other way around.

Post: #20

(04-10-2017 09:17 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  ^ I think you mean "the rich". Economists aren't rich, even Krugman their foremost bulldog isn't worth that much. The rich employ them, not the other way around.

This

Post: #21

(04-10-2017 09:17 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  ^ I think you mean "the rich". Economists aren't rich, even Krugman their foremost bulldog isn't worth that much. The rich employ them, not the other way around.

No, I meant what I wrote. The smartest politicians, executives, entrepreneurs, leaders in society are steeply educated in economics. Academics like Krugman or Friedman inform and advise on decision making, but they aren't actually pulling the strings

Post: #22

Well then I'll disagree. They're paid lackeys of the rich. They get into high public positions because what they advise and inform are what the powers that be wanted to do anyway. They just provide the academic plating, an intellectual propaganda service if you will. If Krugman was advising "go back on the gold standard" we'd never have heard of him.

Post: #23

(04-11-2017 03:17 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Well then I'll disagree. They're paid lackeys of the rich. They get into high public positions because what they advise and inform are what the powers that be wanted to do anyway. They just provide the academic plating, an intellectual propaganda service if you will. If Krugman was advising "go back on the gold standard" we'd never have heard of him.

Many globalist executives have some sort of business degree. Macroeconomics is actually less suited for all of it. Most of that stuff are just theories on which some kind of state/monetary police is based.

And yes - the economists just like the climatologists are the lackeys of the rich and come up with models that have to serve the rich.



It is not only the matter of interest free money creation which is a monopoly issue and too important to be left in the hands of the super-rich. That is like giving the super-rich access to all the potable water and letting them restrain even your right of capturing rain-water. They could literally charge you 90% of your income for water and there is nothing you could do about it.

The current generation forgets the old struggles the lower classes had to fight out a decent wage. The Battle of Blue Mountain and the violent marches of the unions are forgotten. Those marches were violent because men died for decent wages.

Now the fuckers came up with the "trickle down economics", "tax cuts for the super rich" and the "unseen hand of the market" in order to roll back on all the advances the previous generation fought for.

Reminder: In the 1960s an immigrant steel worker with no experience could make 40.000$ by current standards. The purchasing power of that income was also higher - he could afford to buy a house, 2 cars and support a non-working wife and 2 kids on that income - also send those 2 kids to college. That is the power of a decent economic system that the US had - where there was a balance of power between the workers and the owners. CEOs made 50 times as much as the average worker. Now CEOs make 500+ - sometimes even much more.

All the advances we had are even exacerbated.

Austrian economics is even worse than the trickle-down-scam. Mises was financed by Rockefeller and Ayn Rand was an ugly mistress to Rockefeller as well. The old Rockefeller used to shoot down comptetitors and his own workers and now he has become a philanthropist all of a sudden?

The current push for more immigration with above 10% unemployement is also something that serves no one except the super-rich who get cheap labor. I guess they won't be satisfied until a Dickensian economy is reinstated and mothers sell off their 13yo daughters to whore houses in order to pay the bills.

Ah well - give it a rest already.

/thread-37831.html

I had a thread once on a related topic. Many issues were talked about there.

Post: #24

(04-11-2017 03:17 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Well then I'll disagree. They're paid lackeys of the rich. They get into high public positions because what they advise and inform are what the powers that be wanted to do anyway. They just provide the academic plating, an intellectual propaganda service if you will. If Krugman was advising "go back on the gold standard" we'd never have heard of him.

My point is not that academics like Krugman are highly paid (even though the top ones are at Goldman Sachs, etc etc), or even power brokers, but yes, they are used by the powerful to drive decision making. My other point, is that the top leaders in business and government are more educated in economics than most econ majors.

Case in point: my client in 2008 was the CMO of one of the top retailers in the USA. He knew a crash was coming and eluded to it in almost every one of our meetings in 2007-8. He had all of these unique and completely obvious leading economic indicators, none of which you would find in an academic book, none that paid economists like Krugman would use, because if they let those secrets out, they would be out of a job.

Post: #25

(04-11-2017 04:32 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Austrian economics is even worse than the trickle-down-scam. Mises was financed by Rockefeller

Specious insinuation.

"(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."

[taken from http://tomwoods.com/was-mises-bankrolled...al-elite/]