Whoever said “You can’t take it with you” never visited www.thegoldencasket.com. (model as shown: The Monarch Elite in 24 k gold)
When Dave first saw the video interview between Max Keiser and Sandeep Jaitly, he had the feeling that this had the makings of a big deal between the libertarian paternalists and the libertarians. Dave even went so far as to send an email to an associate eight days ago to warn him not to “step out on that battlefield because you will get shot by friendly fire.” Well, it looks like Sandeep’s relationship with the Gold Institute is the first serious casualty of the debate between what is essentially Antal Fekete’s Real Bills Doctrine and the Ludwig von Mises Institute position on gold.
(the following was copied from a post at MaxKeiser.com and has not been verified)
Lest there be any misunderstanding, the views expressed by Sandeep Jaitly in his interview with Max Keiser (http://maxkeiser.com/tag/carl-menger/) are not the views of The Gold Standard Institute. To the contrary, we strongly disagree with those views. There is no doubt that Ludwig von Mises made mistakes; that should not diminish the respect due to a great scholar. The mistakes of Mises are dwarfed by the enormity of his positive contributions. The Institute believes that history will judge Ludwig von Mises far more kindly than does Mr. Jaitly. The Ayn Rand diatribe was of a tone that displayed little understanding of her philosophy and needs no further comment. The philosophy of The Gold Standard Institute has always been, and will remain, to debate and promote ideas, not to attack people.
Sandeep Jaitly has resigned from his position as Senior Research Fellow with the Institute and we sincerely thank him for his past contributions.
As Dave has said in the past, I like Sandeep Jaitly. He strikes me as a genuine fellow, extremely thoughtful and willing to take your mind to places it may have not been before. Dave has written a few blog posts about Sandeep’s ideas and Dave went back through and reviewed his email correspondence with Sandeep over the past year and found it to be quite inspired and thought-provoking. The way I described the video interview to my friend was that I was impressed with what Sandeep had to say, but I agreed with only 50% of it. I also said that I thought Max had somewhat mischaracterized Sandeep’s thesis and that there was a very high likelihood that this would bring what is, in Dave’s opinion, friendly fire upon someone courtesy of the von Mises camp and that someone was Sandeep himself.
Another fellow had an interesting post in the comments section of MaxKeiser.com that also struck a chord with Dave. Dave couldn’t quite put his finger on why Max had been slow out of the gates in his response to the Russian Punk Band Pu**y Riot’s verdict. Normally, Max would be at least concurrent if not out front on an current event such as that, but with the obvious Putin-backed RT.com, I was watching the timing closely to see how Max would manage the newsflow.
Here’s what a commentor KDT had to say. You can see the original link here: http://maxkeiser.com/2012/08/25/menger-von-mises-the-essential-difference-2/
WELL opon further serching i find good old nom chomski the great ‘libritarian” scocialist and revisionist is behind this obfiscation of what von miesis was acculy saying cant find exactly WHAT he spewed out on this subject , the serches all come back to adds for textbooks. but HE is the sorce wich means this is comming from maxe’s patrons at RT possably part of the putin crackdown that is curently going on. scocialists like anarcists as ‘usefull idiots” to disrupt scocity they make good expendable shock troops BUT they hate there cousins the libritarains with there individuality and “natural law” this is the sorce of these atacks IMO max has socialist leanings and works for a solviet broadcaster probly got a visit from a political comizar to discuss the “pussy riot” issue he is probly making up brownie points with this atempt to discredit von miesis and split the austrians and libriterians but it seems the accual membership in that school has already spoken! @max you kinda owe that Sandeep Jaitly dude for costing him that gold standard gig he had to resign from in DISGRACE from after WHORING him self for you and RT! LMAO I seriously doubt any accual “austrians” will be breaking ranks to help you out on this canpaign from this point on! nice try though and get rt to do the right thing by your buddy he gave his all for the cause dont leave him shifting in the breeze.
Much of the name calling and virtual rock throwing relative to what has transpired so far in the Max Keiser v. Tom Woods cage fight is not significant and the above paragraph and its possible relationship to all of this is quite speculative and possibly irrelevant. What is relevant, at least from Dave’s perspective is how the debate revolving around gold is most definitely rising in the consciousness both inside and outside the Beltway. Just this week, as you probably read, the Republicans are forming a “gold commission” as part of their official platform pre-convention.
You can attack this subject matter on lots of levels. There’s a debate at the lowest level that I would say is where the powers that be in the Republican Party are coalescing around the subject matter. There’s a debate at a slightly higher level between the libertarians and libertarian paternalists which is how I would describe the debate between Max and Tom and the Fekete – Mises smackdown that I have provided numerous links to below. That’s a very interesting and highly educational debate which I would encourage anyone who wants to expand their mind should dive right into. But there’s a third level to this debate. That level is about free will, human consciousness and as one commenter stated on MaxKeiser.com
Jaitly does seem to be correct. The Von Mises school shouldn’t be considered an ‘Austrian School’ in the sense of Menger’s teachings. There does appear to be a confusion by the Von Mises School of thought between “a purely mental precipitation” and the object itself.
However, Von Mises appears to have been aware of the distinction of the cognition of a thing and the thing itself. The fact that he apologized for Methodical Dualism in his ‘Theory and History’
(editor’s note: This is not the complete post. The complete post is at the top of this page titled “reposting”. Somehow this post got cut off this morning. I don’t suspect anything more than the fact that our server wasn’t capable of handling the traffic and I was making a spelling correction to the post (replaced the word “be” with the word “bet” in reference to which “camp” Dave falls into and it seemed to crash in the middle of the correction.)