Keynes and Greenbackism

“International Banking Conspiracy.” This equently dris into anti— semitism, since the “International Jewish Banking Conspiracy” is always just around the corner. Roman Catholics (Coogan, Coughlin, Father Denis Fahey) have been prominent in the movement, although Protes— tant fundamentalists are just as numerous, but they are seldom the “intellectual” leaders. In addition, Anglo-Israelites have been Greenback supporters. See C. F. Parker, Moses the Economist (London: Covenant

Publishing Co., 1947) or J. Taylor Peddie, The Economic Mechanism of Scripture (London: Williams and Norgate, 1934). In case aer case, the advocates of Greenbackism try to make their economic system the only true “Christian” one.

Keynes and Greenbackism

C should be aware of the fact that their organizations are constantly subject to subversion by anti-conservative forces. This is a fact of life. Sadly, many conservatives are not aware of the fact that it is as easy, perhaps easier, for the opposition to paralyze conservative action by means of fallacious ideas. Subversion need not always be personal; it can oen be intellectual. The tendency of conservatives to personalize their enemies makes intellectual subversion even more likely.

All that needs to be done is to import the alien ideas through ostensibly conservative individuals. Unless the ideas are recognized for what they are, and not just in terms of who is advocating them, the take-over will be complete, without a shot being fired or a subversive elected.

In our day, the economist who has become the symbol of Liberal ideology is John Maynard Keynes, and rightly so. The influence of Keynesian ideas is widespread, especially in the universities. This triumph was secure by the late 1950s.4 It is as true today as it was then, given the

West’s reaction to the economic crisis of 2008: deficit spending and monetary inflation. Keynes’s system of economics is at odds with the idea of monetary stability. The ironic fact is that the very policies recommended

4In 1959, Robert Lekachman wrote: “John Maynard Keynes was the twentiethcentury’s most influential economist. In fact, it is necessary to go back to Aled Marshallto find an economist equally effective with professional colleagues, and to David Ricardofor an illustration of equal impact upon public policy.” Robert Lekachman,A History ofEconomic Ideas(New York: Harper & Row, 1959), p. 33⒈

3

by Keynes—the same rationalizations for the increase of State controls on the economy—are dear to the hearts of many self-proclaimed anti-Keynesians. Not having read Keynes, and not having digested the ideas of any serious economist, unsuspecting conservatives are equently misled into advocating crude, but nonetheless dangerous, Keynesian-type economic policies. If this should become widespread, then the conservative movement could be easily sidetracked. As I shall demonstrate, Gertrude

Coogan’s recommendations on monetary policy are close to those made famous by Lord Keynes.

Greenback books are occasionally valuable for the historical information which they contain, although much of this information is not properly documented. Still, it cannot be denied that the authors have uncovered some interesting pieces of historical information, factual material seldom found in other contemporary literature, other than Austrian School criticisms of the Fed. The threat these books pose for the conservative movement is that many people will be misled into believing that the accuracy of the historical material must testi to the accuracy of the economic amework in which this material is presented. Courage in publishing controversial historical studies does not guarantee the soundness of economic outlook of these books. In short, just because these books at times seem conservative om the historical point of view, conservatives must not be deceived into believing that their economic recommendations are equally conservative. The old line is not true: “The enemy of my enemy is my iend.” The Populist Le has always hated the Federal Reserve System, not because its policies are inflationary, but because the 12 regional Federal Reserve banks are privately owned. Also, the Fed charges interest. Greenbackers believe that loans should be made by the Federal government in fiat money without interest charges. The Federal government should therefore control the flow of credit.

In my attempt to demonstrate the validity of my charge of “creeping

Keynesianism” within the Greenback, neo-Populist movement, I selected Gertrude Coogan’s two books as primary documentation. She was the only one of these writers who apparently had any formal economic training, holding a master’s degree in commerce om Northwestern University. While formal training hardly guarantees an individual’s grasp of economics, nor lack of it necessarily consigns a person to the economists’ limbo, formal training is a sign that the individual is serious enough to

4