Why I Despise Central Banking, Keynes, And Keynesians Like Paul Krugman

Western Europe, and, in particular, England, developed ahead of the rest of the world only because here the people managed to contain their rulers. Kings, and their royal servants, had to "obey the law" no less than the people. Property and contracts were thus secure from State predation. Economic development naturally followed. In England, the beginning was in 1215 AD - the signing of the Magna Carta. With this, there was "due process," habeas corpus, and much more. After this, the people said, of their rulers:

The King is UNDER God and the Law

and

There is no King where Will rules and not the Law

Such events never happened in nations like ours. Our rulers were always arbitrary.


With the coming of written constitutions, a new concept emerged alongside that of the Rule of Law - and that is "limited government": the purpose of constitutions was to limit the powers and scope of the State. There are two effective means of limiting this power: one, by constitutional law; and the second, by the Budget.


Both these limits to government have been overthrown in modern times by the Keynesians, what with central banking and fiat paper money. These have been weapons in the hands of rulers to buy up support and to finance anything and everything to their own glory, from wars to welfare to space exploration. Entire parliaments can be bought. This is particularly true of India.


The whole world has been inflated. Money is no longer something "hard." It is just government paper. 


Yet, this government paper still has a "promise to pay" inscribed upon it, signed by the central banker. This promise - which makes the note a solemn contract - is meaningless today. The note is actually a Property Title. Today, there is no property backing this title. This is the problem the whole world is facing.


These central banksters practice "fractional reserve banking" with private bankers who are members of their paper money cartel. They say they are "lenders of last resort." Money as well as banking become corrupt under such a system. 


We need gold as money - and free private banking under ordinary commercial law. The writings of Jesus Huerta de Soto are vital in this context. And there is an essay on their import in my Natural Order: Essays Exploring Civil Government & the Rule of Law, which you can read online here. This version is dated 2007 - and I am hoping to have a new edition out next year.


The Keynesians have a very different view of money and banking - one based on "immorality." Keynes claimed to be an "amoralist" - but that was just his homosexuality. As an economist of money and banking, he was a pucca immoralist. Read about Keynes and the "ruling class" who adopted his ideas wholesale in this brief article by Garet Garret. Also, do read the article "Why the State demands control of money" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.


Today, the most prominent Keynesian in the world is the Nobel laureate Paul Krugman. On the crisis in the Eurozone, Krugman writes that the best way out is to resort to "the power of the printing press" - and let the European Central Bank do the needful, even if current rules do not permit it. 


Really! If printing money could produce wealth, Indians would have been rich long, long ago.


Indeed, even producing more gold and silver does NOT create wealth, as the history of Spain and Portugal testify. The silver mines of Potosi and all the gold looted from South America did not make these nations rich. 


Britain got rich when gold was exported by the East India Company in exchange for spices - much to the displeasure of the mercantilists. What constitutes the "wealth of nations"? Adam Smith answered that in 1776 - and the plain answer was that it was NOT the hoard of bullion. If so, what can more irredeemable paper notes accomplish?


But Keynesian errors are not new. Ludwig von Mises, in his Notes & Recollections, writes of Carl Menger that his essay on "Geld" (money) which he contributed to the German-language Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences was brilliant. A few pages later, Mises writes:

For obvious reasons I frequently discussed G. F. Knapp's Staatliche Theorie des Geldes (State Theory of Money) with Menger. His answer was, "It is the logical development of Prussian police science. What are we to think of a nation whose whose elite, after two hundred years of Economics, admire such nonsense, which is not even new, as highest revelation? What can we still expect of such a nation?"

Menger, Mises writes, foresaw the destruction of Old Europe. He foresaw the wars that engulfed the whole world. All these wars were financed by "funny money." And these wars will forever continue until the State is once again "limited" by the Budget. And money is gold. Money is private.


Mises once wrote that these "intellectual battles" of our time are something everyone must plunge into - if civilisation is to be saved. These are not difficult issues to understand: what is money? what is banking? etc. I see people crack their brains on crossword puzzles, computer games and Sudoku every day. Yet, these are just pleasurable pastimes, meant to banish boredom.


Surely people can crack their brains at the vital issues of our age - money and banking? The future of our kids - and theirs - depend on it. If Krugman-types win the day, all will be lost.


Paul Krugman also wants to "protect" corrupt banking practices. He wants the power of the printing press to wipe out banking sector losses - irrespective of how much inflation will surely follow, and how much capital loss ordinary people will have to suffer. At least we in India ought to know better than to endure continued inflationism to fund welfare.


In the USSA, there is only one presidential candidate who knows money and banking well - and that is Ron Paul. His photograph graces this post. He wants to "end the Fed." He wants to end war too. He stands for Gold, Freedom, and Peace. 


I wish Ron Paul would add PROPERTY to this list. Without property, there can be no freedom; there can be no "limited government"; there can be no "rule of law": rechtstaat.


Ron Paul will succeed - and civilisation will be saved - only if all you people out there STUDY money and banking and arrive at your own decisions as to what is truth and what is falsehood; what is good, and what is evil.


So, don't "agitate" at political rallies before agitating your brains first.


This is my sincere advice to you all.