There are now those, that argue, that the Austrian School of Economics, endorsed by Ron Paul, is a globalist fabrication, because it has been funded by the Rockefellers and that if that economic system would be implemented, the bankers would legally own all the land through their corporations and because they have all the gold, they'd own all the money and would then legally have all the power they want.
Now in my opinion this is either a misunderstanding or disinfo. I think this is supposed to create confusion, as Alex Jones often said: "The best thing the globalists could do to discredit Ron Paul would be to endorse him." I'd like to hear your opinions on that.
As I understand the idea behind landownership as proposed by the Austrian school goes like "you own what you use". So a small group could only own all the land, when people would do it for them through corporations. People wouldn't have to do that. Why would I want to work for a corporation that exploits me and others, when I could legally own my own piece of land, maybe with likeminded people?
When it comes to money, I think a free-market monetary system is entirely possible inside the framework of the Austrian School, this was even formulated by Hayek. This means, people can simply choose, what they want to use a means of exchange and when a tiny minority has all the gold, people would naturally use something else most probably.
It is important to note, that the indictment of many figureheads of the elite is still on the table, they committed crimes and they must be held accountable for humanity to move on in decency. For that reason, I don't see how they could just slide into any new system and continue their criminal activity anyways.
The Austrian School is not completely fixed and not an absolute system anyways, so I guess Ron Paul does not have it as his bible and neither do I.
Henry Makow: Let's be real about Ron Paul Dec. 4, 2011
The Atlantic Wire: Peter Thiel is Ron Paul's Sugar Daddy Feb. 20, 2012