WTF Rockefeller funded Mises?

Miscellaneous Current Events
21

demosthenes: “Why is it so hard to believe that it was designed on purpose? Alex Jones isn’t the only person who says this, and I’d suspect you doubt it solely because you heard Alex Jones say it. Don’t put your head in the sand just because you think he’s a sensationalist or whatever. If you are smart enough to understand AE and ABCT, and would presumably know some of the fundamental steps to take to avoid such a disaster, then why is it so hard to imagine that there are evil geniuses out there willing to do the exact opposite?”

I think “engineering” is too sensationalist. And by “Alex Jonesy”, I meant sensationalist and that the crisis was entirely and perfectly controlled, thus, engineered, by the descendants of Amun Ra. If by “engineered” he simply meant “caused”, then I agree with him.

22

I know you recommended it to your client, but did you also invest? Or were you more tentative when handling your own money?

I’m just curious.

I didn’t have any at the time, it was all tied up in my business. But he ended up coming back to me and giving me 3k. I’m seeing decent gains now.

23

Quit exploiting the bank workers.

24

Haha. Nice try. You obviously pay no attention to my posts.

I don’t follow the marxist theory of exploitation.

25

I guess the things I wonder about are:

1.) To what degree is the Fed really earnestly attempting to fulfull their stated mission of monetary stability? Do they just think the crash was a “mistake” they made managing the money supply, or a miscalculation while playing interest-rate brinkmanship? If they’re really just dumb Keynesians, then I would certainly agree that it could not have been “engineered”.

2.) But if that’s not the case, if the Fed is actually being purposefully used as the fraudulent inflationary tool we know it in fact is, whose directives is it serving? Is it mostly directed by politicians who enjoy being able to spend unlimited funds, and are buoyed by the populist euphoria of the masses who mistake the artificial credit boom for real prosperity? Or does it actually do the bidding of a smaller, less-known, behind-the-scenes business elite that systematically directs its actions to gain further wealth and influence?

I suspect that it’s some degree of a mix of all of the above, but I sometimes really wonder how strong each influence is. To what degree can our economic situation be blamed on conspiracy versus stupidity versus irresponsibility?

26

This came up once before, can’t find the thread. However, this should really knock your socks off.

Good god Clayton, that was something.

27

There is no earnest attempt. Even if there were, we understand that “monetary stability” is meaningless.

The rank-and-file economists and mid-level managers who comprise the intellectual bodyguard of the Fed are Keynesian true believers. But the folks at the top understand exactly what it’s all about.

The Federal Reserve’s?

Well, the central bankers are a small, less well-known, behind-the-scenes business elite that systematically direct their actions to gain further wealth and influence. Central bankers are one variety of rent-seekers but there are many other specialties within the broader category. Rent-seeking has become so pervasive in Western culture that there is an element of rent-seeking to almost any economic activity. This is why many (all?) major corporations belong to a lobby. You can’t afford not to lobby for political privileges - your competition certainly will.

Clayton -

Controlled experiment to show resource misallocation?
28

Being a fly on the wall of a Rockefeller office is largely humdrum. The Rockefeller children insufferably and invariably believe themselves to have some semblance of wit whilst sitting at the kiddy table playing checkers. And they still have to read the damn instructions…

29

Here are some preliminary observations that I was able to dig up regarding the issue of Mises being funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. I summarize my observations first and then give all the links and quotes later in this post. Keep in mind that these are all just preliminary observations; I do not have a full thesis statement or theory as of yet to explain it all. And I openly admit that I do a lot of speculating here as well.

  1. It was Mises, not the Rockefeller Foundation, who initiated the whole funding process.
  2. The Rockefeller Foundation was not too keen on funding Mises initially. Objections were raised because of Mises’s methodological approach to economic science (i.e., he wasn’t empirical and so didn’t fit in with the American approach) and also because of concerns over Mises’s Jewish heritage. It seems as if this methodological issue was an ongoing problem for Mises throughout his life. It might also have been an ongoing concern of the Rockefeller Foundation (possibly, although in 1935 the fund actually seems to contradict this claim).
  3. The initial funding was, oddly enough, for studies in the area of “Industrial Hazards and Economic Stabilization.” I am not sure why Mises and allies would be put into a statist area that was openly against competition but they were. Possibly, the Rockefeller Foundation found a solution to this by putting them into a safer area of research regarding “comparative studies.”
  4. These Rockefeller Foundation doubts about Mises seemed to fester and in fact got worse and worse over time. There was a group of doubters who openly wanted to cut Mises off from funding. They reduced his funding down to a pittance and eventually ‘fired him.’ They also were fairly candid about all of this.

From Austroliberalism to Anschluss: Oskar Morgenstern and the Viennese economists in the 1930’s by Robert Leonard. The link is: https://depot.erudit.org/bitstream/001205dd/1/2006_03.pdf

On page 6, in the section called “Social Planning and Contemporary Civilization,” Leonard writes that it was Mises who approached the Rockefeller Foundation and not the other way around. “Hayek’s memo was part of a campaign begun earlier that year by Mises to attract Rockefeller support.” One page 7, Leonard emphasizes that it was Mises who pushed hard for the Rockefeller funding. Also notice that the Rockefeller Foundation was not too keen on supporting Mises and had all these reservations.

Apparently, some of the reservations were due to the fact that Mises was Jewish. Keep in mind the context; we are in early 1930s Europe. Continuing on pages 7-8 of Leonard, and note that all the square bracket editorial editions are from the original, not me:

The Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report 1930 gives us a short summary of what Mises’s Austrian Institute was doing during this time period. The link is:

http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/uploads/files/f430e279-336b-424b-8bd1-e85769a406bd-1930.pdf

The section that Mises’s Institute is classified under is called “Industrial Hazards and Economic Stabilization.” You can find the key references on pages 221 [Adobe Reader 229/389], 224 [Adobe Reader 232/389] and 227 [Adobe Reader 234/389]. There are some missing pages in this report labeled “Photographs Excised.” Notice that in the introduction section the Rockefeller Foundation’s purpose was to attack competition. They are blaming the free market for the Great Depression by suggesting some sort of ‘market failure’ explanation.

It seems to be counterintuitive. Why would someone committed to blaming the market economy turn around and fund the market economy’s staunchest supporter? Maybe the Rockefeller Foundation really didn’t expect major policy conclusions from Mises’s Institute. Notice how the amount of funding was relatively low. The total allocation for this project was $980,000 of which Mises got $20,000 or roughly 2%. The vast majority, $875,000 or over 89% went to Harvard. So my guess is that whatever Harvard was up to at this time is probably a better indicator of the true Rockefeller Foundation intention. I also noticed that the report specifically mentioned that the Austrian Institute was doing work on “comparative studies of a general character.” What can we infer from that? Maybe, and I am just speculating, the Austrian Institute was put into a ‘safe’ discipline of “comparative studies” in order to keep them far away from something dangerous like “policy proposals for decision makers.” Obviously, Mises’s policy proposals would not favor attacking competition or the market mechanism but would support free trade, lower taxes, and an unregulated economy. Mises might even be so bold as to attack central banking and fractional reserve money creation. After all, his whole thesis is that depressions are caused by central bank manipulations.

The Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report 1935 also mentions what Mises’s Institute was up to at this time. The report praises the Austrian Institute for its high level of academic excellence. Why am I not surprised! The link is:

http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/uploads/files/6e12d533-f1bb-4e7d-bb28-45c1566f78ac-1935.pdf

On pages 211-212 [Adobe Reader 223/491 and 224/491] they write:

In a way, this quote seems either disingenuous or contradictory. Earlier, the Leonard report mentioned that the Rockefeller Fund was thinking of not funding Mises because of his methodological approach. Now, in 1935, they mention that Mises is helping ‘improve methods of analysis.’ So now are they saying that they like Mises’s approach to economic science? Of course the phrase ‘methods of analysis’ might means something different from ‘methodological individualism’ or ‘deductive’ or ‘qualitative.’

Then, I noticed a trend in the literature that seems to suggest that the Rockefeller Fund wanted to move away from funding Mises and these feelings were growing over time. I am not sure what promoted this growing dislike of Mises. Maybe they really do not want his methodological approach after all.

An excellent source is Jorg Guido Hulsmann’s Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism. The link is:

http://mises.org/books/lastknight.pdf

They easy way to do this analysis is to type in ‘Rockefeller’ and you will get lots of results. The theme of ‘methodological differences’ keeps coming up as well in Hulsmann’s book. Apparently, the push was to fund the statistical and econometric approach over the verbal-qualitative approach favored by Mises. This was in the section about the London School of Economics and the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Foundation.

The more vocal concerns about Mises seem to have started in 1936. For example, Hulsmann writes on page 723 [Adobe Reader 723 (740 of 1161)]:

By the time Mises moves to New York, we see that the Rockefeller Foundation has really cut him off. They are basically giving him a charitable handout. Hulsmann writes on page 800 [Adobe Reader 800 (817 of 1161)]:

Obviously, something must have made the Rockefeller Foundation really dislike Mises given that the Foundation gave him so little money that he had to live at a level Hulsmann described as ‘destitution.’ Finally, Mises gets ‘fired.’ The Rockefeller Fund totally cuts him off. Hulsmann writes on page 822 [Adobe Reader 822 (839 of 1161)]:

My guess is this: Mises approached the Rockefeller Foundation for the simply reason that he needed money to hire staff, expand the Institute, pay for publishing costs of his monographs etc. It probably looked bad from a public relations perspective that the Rockefeller Foundation was going to be so into statist funding—since they openly blame market competition for the Great Depression in the 1930 report. So, they throw Mises a bone in order to look ‘balanced’ and ‘objective’ in their funding. It makes it look as if they are trying to find the ‘truth’ about what is really going on. But really, they don’t care for Mises and his approach. As time drifts on, Mises’s approach becomes more and more irrelevant to ‘mainstream’ economics. So they keep cutting his funding until they ‘fire’ him completely.

30

I found your theory that the Rothchilds and Rocefellers are feuding very interesting. I came across the theory first when I watched Ben Fullford, ex-asian pacific beureu chief for Forbes Magazine, interview David Rockefeller. Ben Fullford talks about both an ongoing feud between both Rothchild vs. Rocefeller, and also a feud between Eastern vs. Western secret societies. This seems very similar to some things I have read you mention. I’m wondering if you had heard of Ben Fullford before you came to these conclusions or did you come to the conclusion without hearing about him?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW4p9N2Ocs8 (Fast forward to 11:15 to see the interview with David Rockefeller)

P.S. - Though I have found Ben Fullford’s theories interesting, I find he often relies on one taking his word for what he is saying. Also in some interviews he seems overly emotional and illogical. So for those reasons I some what disregarded his theories, but now that I see you proposing a similar theory my interest has been re-sparked. That is actually my main reason for joining this forum. Though I’m also I huge fan of Von Mises ideas, and coniser myself an anarcho-capitalist.

31

Explain. Why is Rockefeller money “blood money?” Who did they kill, exactly? As I understand it, J.D Rockefeller was an ingenious entrepreneur, a self-made man and the world’s greatest philanthropist.

32

While Rockefeller didn’t kill anyone, he was not above engaging in violence against his competitors. See, for instance, Wealth Against Commonwealth by Henry Lloyd. While Lloyd was a socialist, his facts mostly checked out (for that, see Historians’ Fallacies) - including a case where Rockefeller bombed a competitor’s factory.

So even though Rockefeller did do much good, he didn’t exactly follow the non-aggression principle to the letter.

33

David Rockefeller was personally tutored by F.A. Hayek. What of it? Sure, David went on to manage JP Morgan Chase for a few decades with the knowledge of themarkt Hayek imparted to him. lexander took lessons from Aristotle. Look what he did.

I’m not going to argue with people that the Rockefeller Foundation has funded some pretty insidious stuff, but not everything they have done is bad. This is why the left doesn’t trust the ‘right-libertarians’ though. The original J.ohn Rockefeller was dick, for sure, but he was not nearly as corrupt as his kids and grandkids. John II is the Rockefeller that lobbied so hard for the Federal Reserve, tax exemption for research foundations, and early eugenics programs. David is the one who started the Trilateral Commision with Bush Sr. and Brzezinski, so we know where he stands. (The CFR was started by British interests.) Rothbard makes clear that British interests were in conflict with American/German interests in the early 20th century.

RF has funded everything from Dr. Kinsey to the first eugenics programs. The people who run that foundation have generally been scum. However, the policy making think tanks do consult opinions that differ from their own*.* The CFR, RAND, Brookings, Carnegie, etc. They all have a mixed bag of funding history. They have funded public “health” experiments with the CIA in third world countries that have resulted in tens of thousands contracting diseases (look at Thailand AIDS vaccine).

We need to discern between policies and not generalize and personify particular policies as being indicative of everything that goes on.

I’d be careful how much of what that guy says you believe. He was incredibly unprofessional and did not at all know how to broach the subjects he wanted to talk about. He could not even avoid the “conspiracy keywords” when asking the questions. David constantly looks at his PR guy and is rolling his eyes at questions. Now, having said that, he does, in my opinion, have some interesting revelations. Learning the actual realities of the western secret societies is hard enough. The Eastern ones are, again in my opinion, seem to be more based on honor than virtue. Their secret methods and agenda are probably far more “secret” than ours. And I doubt that they have something as shallow as “world domination” as their end game.

34

I am just curious about why Rockefeller would fund Mises

I discovered this some time ago and it really shocked me, but I think I have an explanation now.

Three possibilities:

  1. Rockefeller et al are interested in real economics (as opposed to the nonsense they promote to the public) because one needs to understand real economics to run the world. So they funded an intellectual who promised to do work which they would find useful, even if they would oppose having that work popularized. An analogy would be a “magician” in the 15th century who wanted to know chemistry to perform his “magic” better, even though he’d oppose having the knowledge of chemistry popularized.

  2. They thought they could buy him and turn him off the course he was on, and it didn’t work.

  3. This is probably the least likely, but also my favorite possibility - they were too dense to realize the implications of his work.

35

I think that the first is the most likely. The biggest profits on the stock market are to be made when everyone is wrong but you. You can get metals cheaply while the popular investing world is jabbering over blue chips in a bubble.

36

How the f— did that Fulford clown get an interview with David Freakin’ Rockefeller??? That was probably like $10M worth of Rockefeller’s time!

My view of the Rockefeller family is the following:

Disclaimer: This is all built on 100% pure hunch, take it with a block of salt.

  • John D. Rockefeller was a consummate businessman who happened to be at the right place at the right time (oil boom)

  • When the Establishment found they couldn’t shut him down and take him over through the usual dirty business tricks, they went after him through (extra-) legal means

  • This is where most new money is ground to powder - but Rockefeller fought back and not only did he fight, he beat them at their own game

  • The Establishment won an apparent victory when Standard Oil was parceled out but Rockefeller bought up the pieces anyway and went on doing what he knew how to do best: pump oil

  • The Rockefeller strategy from then out was not only to defend the core business but to counter-attack - Rockefeller bought railroads, broadened and deepened his social ties including marrying into existing wealth, actively bought political influence, and so on. The purpose was not to try to own everything (the JP Morgan strategy) as I’ll argue below.

  • I have yet to see a single piece of evidence that the Rockefellers were willing to resort to strong men except to protect their assets

  • The Rockefeller family’s psyche is etched by its early persecution; they became more closed and less trusting of the often fickle public’s sympathy as a result of John D’s early experiences and later episodes

Over time, they realized the necessity of “working within the system” and became more team players. Nevertheless, I perceive in the Rockefeller family the following mentality: “We own oil”. This mentality is not one of entitlement, as in, “you owe your oil to us” but, rather, that their family remains to this day the consummate oil business in the world. As their core competency, they defend it like a ruler defends his turf - they will attack if provoked (other players begin using dirty tricks to seize legitimate Rockefeller interests) but otherwise they maintain diplomatic relations with the rest of the political and economic world as a non-aggressive power.

I think they take an apathetic stance toward foreign political oppression - it’s up to the subject people to deal with their rulers. It’s not the job of the Rockefeller family to depose corrupt dictators just because the dictator happens to control oil fields that the Rockefellers are pumping. But if you nationalize Rockefeller assets, they will seek to recoup them, through political (ultimately, violent) means, if necessary.

I believe this explains some of the Rockefeller influence in USG and CIA, in particular. The Rockefellers’ primary interest in politics is to expand their business as broadly as possible while reducing the risks to themselves of asset seizure by foreign tinpot dictators or populist nationalization programs. If they sit at home and twiddle their thumbs because there’s no way to “play nice” with people like Gaddafi, they lose turf to other oil industry magnates, such as BP. They won’t own oil for long, with that strategy. So, there’s no choice but to play dirty. But I think what makes the Rockefellers different from, say, JP Morgan or the Rothschilds, is that they are conscientious about the fact that playing dirty is dirty. You do it as little as you can possibly manage. You don’t go wading into the mud just because you can’t get through the business day without scuffing your shoes a little.

I don’t think the Rockefellers are fans of central banking. That’s a Rothschild/UK/European-establishment thing. They’re plugged into the system to one extent or another anyway and I don’t think they’re about to risk their own interests in order to attack central banking. However, I think there is a real tension there because the Rockefellers are (I believe) more “hard asset” people and the effect of central-bank inflation is, naturally, to transfer hard assets away from their owners to the government, the central bank and their cronies.

Notice that Mr. Rockefeller equivocates on the central banking question. His answer is perfectly consistent with the idea that central banking does need to be ended… just not “at this time.” By applying my formula “we own oil”, I suspect that the Rockefellers cooperate with the central-banking system because they can’t fight it. It’s too dangerous to take on that beast. Instead, they use their own political pull to influence matters so that their core business is not hurt.

When the central-banking Establishment has launched attacks on Rockefeller oil interests, I think the Rockefellers have retaliated in under-the-radar ways. For example, I believe that the CRU email leaks in 2009 that shot down the Copenhagen summit were - one way or another - the work of the Rockefellers and were in retaliation for some attack on Rockefeller oil interests which I have not been able to identify. The Establishment struck back four months later with the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon and a string of other oil “accidents” around the globe followed immediately after. I haven’t taken the time to study the matter yet but I suspect that Arab Spring may also have been further retribution for the Copehagen defection. My theory is that Arab Spring toppled long-standing Rockefeller “equilibrium” political regimes in that oil-rich region, throwing the gate wide open to nationalization and private cannibalization of Rockefeller interests by other oil-magnates, such as BP.

Clayton -

37

While I agree that Rockefeller’s are more conscientious of how dirty playing diry is, do you really think they dislike central banking? In what way? JPM and Citigroup are within the Rock ambit. They’re the greatest beneficiaries of central banking in America. It’s not as though they’re still battling the Morgans, though that may remain the case with the other ‘R’ family. Why should they fight it when they have so much (and have had) to gain from it?

38

@Jargon: As I said, my theory is all hunch. I’m aware of the Rockefeller involvement in central banking but I suspect that it’s a defensive move - they have to be in the game, otherwise, they can’t exert influence. Perhaps things have changed over time and they’re so plugged-in that they’re no different from the Old Money. But I think every family has its own character and disposition, so I’m speculating on the Rockefeller’s.

I also don’t think the Rothschilds are as evil as they’re made out to be, either. In fact, I suspect that they are a lot like the Rockefellers except with banking: “we own banking.” The difference is the engagement of the political establishment with banking as an industry - banking has been a very suitable tool for political domination for going on 200 years now. It used to be the Church before that (and look how opulent and powerful the Church used to be compared to what it is today). I think people read it backwards when they say the Rothschilds rule the world and the European powers are beholden to them. It’s the other way around, the European/Anglophile power elite rule the world and one of their key instruments of power for the last 200 years has been manipulation of money and banking… the Rothschilds happen to have been the world’s best bankers during this period and happy to do business with the State.

Clayton -

39

I think that John Rockefeller Jr. was a very different man than his father. He may have been driven by an era of statism to change his methods towards a corporatist paradigm, but his actions belied a different attitude. JD Sr., as much of a prick as he may have been, was a boon to the American civilization, whereas his son can only be said to have been a boon to the Rockefeller family.

I don’t know if either Rockefeller or Rothschild are ‘evil’, because I don’t know if any human can fulfill that word. They are however crooks or criminals and trade much of the suffering of others for their own gain. I understand after getting to know these people and their modus operandi’s, the injustice of it dulls and is left with a kind of admiration for that incredible force of will. I try to not to lose sight of the main thing though: the world would be better off without these people. This is especially more apparent to me after becoming acquainted with the works of Antony Sutton, who I recommend you bite into. Can you elaborate when you say ‘it’s the other way around’ by the way?

40

This is totally in line with Niall Ferguson’s books on the Rothschild’s. The Rothschild’s built their business by serving the kings, princes, and other elites while being treated like crap for being Jewish.