Honestly, Honestly

2008-3-5 14:47:00

Susan writes:

"And yes, I am still curious what JJ meant when he said, 'that explains a lot' about Ludwig Von Mises. My desire is to understand further where he is coming from. Von Mises quotes Friedman all over the place so I am wondering what JJ meant."

Larry:

"It doesn't appear that JJ is going to give you an honest answer to your question."

Ruth:

"Do you think that JJ is capable of ever being dishonest in his communications, ..."

Larry:

"Yes. I see it mostly as a symptom of self-deception and that is why I no longer profess to be his student."

JJ:

If I were to accuse an enemy of being dishonest I would include a quote of his words to cite an example. And if I were going to accuse a friend I would give several examples and be much more careful that I am accurate.

You accuse me of being dishonest with absolutely nothing to back you up except maybe a miffed feeling because I do not agree with you on all things economically.

If you go through my millions of words posted you will not find one dishonest answer because I make none. I always answer as honestly as possible. Honesty is part of what I teach and it is also what I practice.

Because I have not answered Susan's question does not imply any deception. There are often more questions and posts that I have time to comment on. Because of this I have said approximately the following many times:

If you make a comment or ask a question that is passed by and wish me to comment please ask again and when I realize this is important to you then I will respond. That said, now the question is raised again and the answer seems important to you and Susan I will answer.

Susan asked in a previous message:

"While I didn't know that Ludwig Von Mises was one of the favored economists for Larry, he is mine also. SO I am curious what does that explain to you?"

JJ:

Just as when Larry said he is a student of Ayn Rand helps me understand where he is coming from in many ways even so any other mentor he can supply will also aid in understanding his thinking. This helps me understand better his views on the gold standard and his frequent references to Marxism in relation to economics which Mises despised. I agree with Mises on the failed policies of Communism and many other things he said.

Because Friedman is my favorite economist does not mean I agree with him on everything and because Mises is not does not mean I disagree with him on everything. Both men had a lot of good things to say. One reason I like Friedman is that he is much easier to read and understand and he makes more sense on the gold standard which he sees as lacking feasibility in this age.

No one has commented on the fact that we only have enough gold in reserves to give each person in the U.S. less than an ounce and all the gold in the world is not enough to rise even the citizens of the U.S. above the poverty level.

Also, it is quite possible our gold at Fort Knox has been stolen for it has not been audited in many years. There was a rumor in the Seventies that Fort Knox was virtually empty and this has never been proven otherwise. A few bars of gold has been produced for show and that is all.

Now one can say that there is enough gold available for Zion to be on the gold standard, but Zion must be an example the whole world can follow and if there is not enough gold in the world to even put the U.S. on gold standard then something else of universal application and unlimited supply must be used. I see this as labor which is behind the core value behind all desired products.

In addition DK [Djwhal Khul] supports going off the gold standard saying that a great revelation on creating gold awaits humanity when we are significantly detached from it.