BM: There is no doubt that Mr. Gilder is a brilliant and well-educated thinker. I thank DB for bringing this interview, and therefore reminding me that I should pull out that copy of “Wealth and Poverty” for a new read after a few decades of sitting on the shelf.
DB: [Gilder was] the former Editor in Chief of the Gilder Technology Report (published by Forbes Inc., 1996-2007)….[Gilder] co-hosts (with Steve Forbes) the annual Gilder/Forbes Telecosm Conference.
BM: As with Steve Forbes, one can tell the true nature of a free-market advocate based on one or two specific and key issues – litmus tests, of you will. In the case of Mr. Forbes, he never questions the need for a central bank, thus allowing him to remain in the acceptable mainstream dialogue.
Let’s see about Mr. Gilder.
GG: [Ron Paul] fails to understand that the evil in the world does not yet originate with the US government. Perhaps, he will be right next time.
BM: A strawman. Dr. Paul, to my knowledge, never stated that the evil in the world originates with the USG. He has suggested blowback in response to USG policies and actions – a view shared by the CIA. Dr. Paul merely suggests the USG should mind its own business and not get involved proactively or reactively in countless overseas adventures.
GG: No, I think we could get rid of most of the bases but American military dominance is crucial to capitalism.
BM: It may be crucial to some form of mercantilism, but not to capitalism – at least not to any form of free-market capitalism.
DB: Where do you stand on the issue of the Fed generally? Can it be brought under control or should it be abolished?
GG: I think it will continue as it is. With no discernible inflation in interest rates, there is little evidence that it is at the heart of the economic problem.
BM: Gilder avoids answering the philosophical / theoretical question by answering it in a practical manner. Never question legitimacy of money power if you want to remain relevant in the acceptable dialogue.
Money and credit is one side of every single transaction in a modern, division-of-labor, economy. You cannot get more to the root of the problem than the entity that centrally plans this one commodity.
DB: Can the Fed work? Can people successfully fix the price and value of money?
GG: Yes, money is a standard of value, not a commodity. There will be an evolution toward a new form of gold standard.
BM: There is nothing Austrian or Misesian about this answer. Again, Gilder avoids answering directly a question about the (im)possibility of the Fed playing a role in free-market capitalism.
GG: [Is the US broke?] As long as interest rates remain near zero, it is hard to make the case that the U.S. is anywhere near broke. But it is definitely broken, chiefly by destructive government policies, mostly based on the climate change scam and other environmentalist figments.
BM: He sees the danger of government, but not in the overseas adventurism and not in central banking. Despite being incompetent everywhere else, somehow, in these two areas, government is a capable master.
DB: Will Barack Obama be able to save the world from such a collapse?
GG: Barack Obama is irrelevant, just another academic socialist green poseur like all the other ones.
BM: If the President of the United States, the most powerful political office ever in the recorded history of mankind, is irrelevant, then who, exactly, is relevant? Who is pulling the strings of the puppet? Will Gilder shed any light here?
DB: Can any politician?
GG: Sure, a visionary US president could drastically cut back government and foster a global resurgence of capitalism. Cutting back government is all upside.
BM: Just don’t cut back central banking, and don’t question the need for global military intervention. In other words, be a blind visionary.
DB: Is there a kind of elite, a power elite, behind the world's multiple current disasters? Do they want world government? Are they trying to create chaos in order to bring order?
BM: Now, a chance to peek under Gilder’s curtain – the power behind the “irrelevant” President of the United States.
GG: No. At the Council on Foreign Relations, where I began my career, I learned conclusively that the so-called "establishment" is a myth.
BM: A new college grad at the CFR somehow saw all the way into the inner ring? A ring that likely is so hidden that many of the senior-most players at the CFR don’t even know of its existence or the players involved, but believe they do?
DV: Should the UN form a world government?
GG: No. It is controlled by demented pols. Too much world government and too much power in politics is already the problem.
BM: But not when it comes to central banking or military interventionism.
DB: Are large, central governments better for people than small, decentralized environments?
GG: No. I agree with Nassim Taleb, among others, that when economically free, city-states are both creative and stable. Examples are Hong Kong, Israel and Singapore.
BM: But then where would the global interventionist regime come from? Singapore is going to police the world, to make the world safe for “capitalism”?