Avoid Debt

There is no question that we live in an inflationary environment.  Since World War 2, prices have gone up almost every single year.  Some years are worse than others.  But even if prices are going up at 2% per year, it still eats away at your savings.
I will sometimes hear advice that it is financially savvy to take on debt because you can pay back the debt with dollars that have depreciated.  This can be right at times, but we also need to understand that it can be very bad advice in certain situations.
First, we live in an unpredictable world.  We also live in a world with booms and busts, courtesy of the Federal Reserve and other central banks.  While the general trends may be inflationary, we also see times when prices are stable or even pulling back in some areas.
Imagine the poor person who took this advice of taking on debt in 2005 in regards to buying a house.  He thought, “I will just buy a house and pay back the loan with money that is worth less in the future.  As long as it is a fixed rate loan, the interest rates won’t matter.”
But things wouldn’t have worked out too well with this strategy.  It would have become evident in 2008 when everything came crashing down.  In some areas of the U.S. you could have bought the same house for half the price in 2011 as would have been paid five years earlier.
The point here is that it is very hard to predict and time the market and the economy with any certainty.
A second factor to consider is interest rates.  Right now, the Fed is creating new money out of thin air at an unprecedented pace, yet interest rates have remained low.
If you have money available, why would you take out a loan and pay interest when you are probably earning less interest with the money you have?  In other words, it doesn’t make much sense to take out a loan at 5% interest when you have money sitting in the bank earning one-tenth of a percent in interest.
A third factor to consider is the type of debt you are taking on.  This can be a major difference.  I strongly advise against any credit card debt (that isn’t paid off each month), unless it is for an emergency or it is a special rate of zero percent.
Even if prices are rising as fast as the interest rate on your credit card, which is highly unlikely, it still doesn’t make much financial sense.  Also, most credit card purchases are for consumer goods and services and not for investment purposes, which is all the more reason not to have any credit card debt where you are paying interest charges.
Overall, I think it is best to avoid most debt, even in an inflationary environment.  There are exceptions of course.  Taking on debt may be ok for buying a house, as long as you realize that the house you live in is a consumer good.  Generally, I think a home loan is ok as long as it is the same as what you would have paid for rent anyway.
Car loans are ok as long as it is needed transportation.  I don’t think it is smart to take out a big loan for a car that costs more for its luxury than its ability to transport.
Student loans are a tricky subject, but this could be a good form of debt in some cases, particularly for high-salaried occupations such as a surgeon.  But student loans can also be the worst form of debt too, particularly if it doesn’t lead to a high income.
In conclusion, I think it is best to avoid debt as much as possible, even in an inflationary environment.  If you are going to hedge against inflation, don’t do it by paying interest on a loan.  That isn’t going to make you money.
Instead, invest your money in inflation hedges.  In order to get wealthier, you need to collect interest, not pay it out to someone else.

December 2013 FOMC Statement

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) wrapped up its latest meeting on Wednesday and released its latest statement in regards to monetary policy.  For the last several meetings, the statements were very similar, reading almost identical at times.
The latest statement was different.  We finally saw the beginning of a “taper”, something the markets have been anticipating for many months.
Starting in January, the Fed will “only” create $75 billion per month out of thin air, instead of the $85 billion per month we have seen over the last year.  So instead of buying assets at an annual pace of just over $1 trillion, now the pace will be $900 billion per year.
To put this in context, the adjusted monetary base was around $800 billion in 2008 before the major bust became evident.  So the Fed will still be creating more money on a yearly basis than all of the base money that was in existence just over 5 years ago.
The Fed is currently buying $40 billion per month of mortgage-backed securities and $45 billion per month of longer-term Treasury securities (government bonds).  With the Fed’s taper, it will decrease $5 billion per month for each.
This means that the Fed will continue to bail out banks (buying mortgage-backed securities) and will continue to help Congress fund the deficit (buying U.S. government debt).  It will just be at a slightly slower pace.
The other news making headlines that the markets seemed to like is that we could see the federal funds rates stay low for longer than expected.  Before, the FOMC statements said that the current rate of between 0 and .25% would remain as long as unemployment remained above 6.5% and inflation expectations stayed below 2.5%.
In the latest FOMC statement, this portion changed.  It says, “The Committee now anticipates, based on its assessment of these factors, that it likely will be appropriate to maintain the current target range for the federal funds rate well past the time that the unemployment rate declines below 6-1/2 percent, especially if projected inflation continues to run below the Committee’s 2 percent longer-run goal.”
While this may seem like a big deal, it really isn’t at all.  The federal funds rate has been kept below .25% for about 5 years.  But it is almost meaningless right now.  It has nothing to do with the Fed’s monetary policy at the moment.  The Fed has gone through periods of “quantitative easing” and periods of relatively stable money in the last 5 years.  It doesn’t matter what the Fed does with the monetary base.  The federal funds rate stays about the same.
The federal funds rate is the overnight interest rate for banks to borrow money.  But since the huge expansion of the monetary base in 2008, we have also seen a huge increase in excess reserves held by banks.
Since most banks have reserves far above their minimum requirements, they have little need to borrow money overnight.  They already are way in excess of their reserve requirements.  Since there is little demand for overnight borrowing, the rate stays low.
For that reason, I wouldn’t focus too much on the FOMC’s policy of keeping the federal funds rate low.
The last interesting thing that deserves mention of the FOMC’s latest statement is how the members voted.  In recent past meetings, we have seen one dissenting vote by Esther L. George with concerns over long-term inflation.
In the latest statement, there was also one dissenting vote, but it was a different person.  Eric S. Rosengren dissented, believing that changes in the purchase program are premature.  In other words, $75 billion per month in new money is not enough for him.
We are in for interesting times ahead.  I don’t know if anything will change once Janet Yellen takes the helm.  I do know that we are living in unprecedented times and I don’t think the Fed members really understand how to get out of the mess they have created.

Government Workers Can Object to Government Too

I recently saw an article that discussed the economic conditions in Washington DC as compared to the rest of the country.  Personal income and wages were far higher in DC in comparison to any state.  In 2012, wages were 79 percent higher in DC than the national average and employee benefits were 102 percent higher.
Meanwhile, the middle class in the country continues to struggle, seeing real wages staying stagnant, or even declining.
There was never a bust in Washington DC.  Most of the rest of the U.S. saw increased unemployment, a bursting housing bubble, and overall tough economic times.  But DC has managed to escape most of that up to this point.
It is not surprising when we think that the federal government collects nearly $4 trillion a year.  It does not have to worry about balancing the budget like state and city governments do.  The politicians in DC can keep running huge deficits as long as the Federal Reserve is willing to fund them.
I think more Americans are waking up to the reality that they are getting the short end of the stick.  They struggle to find work, and when they do find it, they are often required to work overtime or do stressful jobs that don’t pay a lot.  But they can see that many government workers are not under the same pressure, particularly those working for the federal government.  For this, I do not include the military, which can obviously be stressful.
I sometimes hear liberty advocates write off government workers in terms of making allies.  They are sometimes painted with a broad brush.  Obviously, most government workers do not want to give up a good job.
We do need to be careful in how we stereotype people.  I don’t think we should assume that most government workers will never be friends of the liberty movement.
In fact, some government workers may be even more prone to the ideas of liberty because of where they work.  If you see the bureaucracy five days a week, you probably aren’t going to constantly defend it.
Most government workers aren’t in their job because they love government and the way it operates.  In most cases, it is simply survival and out of self-interest.  How many people do you know who would turn down a job that is less stressful and pays more and has great benefits?
Some people take government jobs because they are otherwise limited in their field of work.  If you are a teacher, you are sometimes quite limited in working outside of government.
There are many government workers who understand that government is too big, too wasteful, and can’t solve our problems.  They understand this because they see it for themselves.
There are some people in the military who become anti-war after fighting in one.  They see the horrors of war and realize it isn’t all glamorous as they once thought.
It is the same with many other government workers.  They see the red tape.  They see the inefficiency.  They see the wasted money.  Sometimes they even see the corruption.
Many of these workers are just playing along.  They want to collect their next paycheck, so they don’t rock the boat.  But this doesn’t mean they support the whole system.
There will come a time when you see more government workers turn against the government itself.  There will eventually come a time when there are cuts made in DC too.  It will rain on the party there.
It is likely not sustainable for a group of people to keep living at the expense of others, particularly when it is so obvious.  You will either see some people revolt, or you will simply see a drain on wealth where there is no longer enough to be taken.
As Margaret Thatcher pointed out, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.  Yes, that is a problem for those on the receiving end.  Either the middle class will run out of money to fund DC or they will run out of patience and put an end to it.

The Dollar Store Miracle

I was recently in a dollar store where everything in the store has a price of one dollar or less.  I bought 17 items.  With sales tax, the total was 18 dollars and change.
I bought a few things for Christmas like boxes and tape, a few toys, some plastic utensils (for those moments when the dishwasher is full and you are short on time), and a bunch of other random stuff.
I have a few thoughts on my shopping experience and the whole dollar store concept.
First, it simply amazes me how so many things can be priced at a dollar.  While some of it may be junk, it is still inexpensive junk.  But a lot of things are quite useful.  And even if some things don’t have great longevity, you are still only paying a dollar.
I bought a stapler there because I couldn’t find a little one that we have at home.  I just need the stapler for a little project with my kids.  It really only needs to last a day.  Even if it is a cheap stapler, it is really incredible that anyone could sell a new stapler for a dollar.
This just shows that we live in an advanced civilization with an advanced division of labor.  I would never be able to make a stapler or anything close to it.  I don’t know if anyone could.
It reminds of the little story called I Pencil by Leonard Read, first published back in 1958.  There is nobody on earth who could make a pencil from scratch, yet they get produced all the time.  And not only does the division of labor make it possible, it also eventually makes it inexpensive for others.
This leads me to my second point about the dollar store.  It is a great benefit to the poor.  We hear about government welfare and even voluntary charity, but it is really dollar stores and the like that keep people out of absolute poverty.
I don’t typically buy much in the way of food at the dollar store, but if you are poor and really in desperate need, you can always go to the dollar store and get a decent amount of food for just a few dollars.
While I am not a regular at the dollar store, I saw a few people in there with carts full of stuff.  They were buying food and household supplies.  I don’t know if they are poor or just really frugal, but how great is the dollar store for these people?
My third thought about dollar store shopping is just how productive the free market really is.  In spite of huge inflation by the Federal Reserve, the market is still able to keep production high enough and cheap enough to keep many things priced at a dollar.
Here is a whole store full of items that are priced at a dollar or less.  Despite all of the roadblocks by government and despite massive monetary inflation, the market still finds a way to function at a high level.
This leads me to my final thought about the concept of a dollar store.  Will the Fed overwhelm the market at some point and make dollar stores extinct?  While the free market is really amazing and resilient, it is possible for the government and the central bank to overwhelm it.
You will know that the Fed’s monetary inflation is outpacing the market’s ability to produce when the dollar store ceases to exist, or at least exist in its current manner.
It might become the two-dollar store, or eventually the ten-dollar store.  Who knows how bad it could be?
I think this will be a good test in the future.  If dollar stores are able to continue to exist and price everything at a dollar or less, then the market is still able to function at a high level.
If dollar stores go out of business or start pricing items above one dollar, then you will know that the Federal Reserve is overwhelming the market’s ability to produce at a high level.

NYC to Require Flu Vaccine for Small Children

Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York City, is making a final mark before he leaves office.  The New York City Board of Health unanimously approved Bloomberg’s initiative to require children under the age of 5 to receive a flu vaccination if the child is enrolled in a city-licensed day care or pre-school.
Bloomberg is the face of the nanny state.  He is well known for his ban on large sodas.  He is a nightmare for libertarians, except for the fact that he shows just how abusive the state can be.
This latest initiative is controversial in many ways.  There are many people opposed to it because they argue that vaccines can cause autism and other health problems.
Ironically, this new law applies to children who are 6 months old up to just under the age of 5, which would actually be the group most susceptible to harmful effects, such as autism.  Most young children already receive a high number of vaccines at an early age.  If the child’s immune system is already weakened, another vaccine could make the difference between a healthy child and an unhealthy child.
The defenders of the nanny state will dispute any link between vaccinations and autism, yet they won’t leave that choice up to the parents.  There is nothing preventing these people from vaccinating their own children.  They just want to control the lives of other people.
Defenders of the Bloomberg measure say that the flu can be quite dangerous and even deadly.  But the opposition who believe there is a link with autism can make the same argument on their side.  Shouldn’t it be up to parents to decide and not the state?
If you live in New York City or another place that has this requirement, my only suggestion is to either move or homeschool your child.  Unfortunately, the state burdens us with so many taxes and regulations that many two-parent households need both of them to work.  One has to work just to pay all of the taxes, particularly in a place such as New York City.
This latest episode of heavy-handed government provides a good example of how some people simply want to control others.  If they are worried about the flu and they think a flu vaccination is effective, then vaccinating their own child should protect their own child.  My guess is that most of the advocates of this measure don’t even have children in the age range affected.
If people are so concerned about the flu, why don’t they start a public campaign to take vitamins such as C and D, and to take a good probiotic supplement?  There are also other herbs and supplements that can be used in helping to suppress viruses and to boost the immune system.
Of course, such an act might actually help reduce the number of people getting the flu, but it would also help reduce the profits of some of the big pharmaceutical companies that push these vaccines.
The politicians don’t care about your health.  They will sabotage your health in a second if it means taking care of lobbyists and special interests that funnel money to them.
Michael Bloomberg is even worse than the average politician.  I think he simply enjoys exercising power over others for the sake of it.

Obamacare Enrollment Numbers Mislead

The number of people who enrolled in Obamacare has grown to around 365,000 through November.  This includes those who signed up in state exchanges and federal exchanges.  Some Obamacare advocates are actually touting this as good news.
I saw one headline on a newspaper that read “Obamacare Enrollments Quadruple”.  This is not an inaccurate statement.  The number of people who enrolled in November was about 4 times larger than the number who enrolled in October.
If you take almost nothing and multiply it by 4, you get a little bit bigger than almost nothing.
365,000 people is a significant number if you are talking about a gathering of people in one location.  365,000 people is a drop in the bucket when you are talking about a country of over 310 million people.
One of the reasons given for passing Obamacare was because of the alleged crisis in the number of Americans without health insurance.  We would always hear about how many tens of millions of people don’t have access to medical care (even though people without insurance still have access to medical care).
If there are 40 million Americans without health insurance, then less than 1% has signed up through the exchanges.
But here’s the big problem.  There are more people uninsured now, or soon to be uninsured, than before Obamacare went into effect.  Even though 365,00 people have signed up, there were individual states that saw about that many people lose their insurance because of Obamacare.
If this is considered success by the Obamacare advocates, then I will hate to see a failure.
We are facing a major crisis in this country.  This is having a huge effect on the lives of most Americans.  Even Americans with insurance through employers are seeing huge hikes in their premiums.
While premiums were already rising before Obama ever became president, there is no question that Obamacare has just exacerbated the problem.  And this is one government program where it is easy to pin the blame.
I really believe we are hitting a major turning point in this country and it will likely happen in the next few years.  The prices for medical care and insurance are simply unsustainable.  We are likely to face one of two options.
The first option is to go to a single-payer system.  That single-payer will be the government.  The government will get this money through more taxes and inflation.
While a nationalized healthcare system sounds disastrous, the system we have now is already disastrous.  I am just not sure if it will be that much worse.  I think it will be worse for sick people, but nationalized healthcare may actually be better for you if you are healthy and you can avoid seeing doctors.
The second option is to repeal Obamacare and then continue to remove government from virtually every facet of medical care.  While I don’t expect a fully free market, I think small steps in removing government funding and government regulations could help free up the market enough that we might one day see prices decline and care get better.
Ultimately, I would like to one day see a medical care system that is completely free from the government and we get results similar to what we see with computers and electronics.  We could get greater medical care every year, while watching prices go down.
Regardless of what happens with the medical care system in America, your best bet is to do your best to get healthy and stay healthy.

Republican Politicians Keep on Spending

The big news out of Washington DC is that a budget deal was reached.  It was Paul Ryan (Republican) and Patty Murray (Democrat) who supposedly came to the agreement.  Murray is in the Senate, which the Democrats control by majority.  Ryan is in the House, which the Republicans control by majority.
Paul Ryan is well known now because he was chosen by Mitt Romney as the vice-presidential candidate on the Republican ticket in 2012.  While Ryan had a reputation of being a fiscal conservative by some, there should be no more illusions after looking at this budget deal.
Whenever you see something that is referred to as a bi-partisan budget deal, then hold on to your wallet.  Whether it is a budget deal or any other kind of legislation, when it is supposedly bi-partisan, it usually means it is terrible legislation that is taking away your liberty.
While the Republican establishment will go along with this budget deal, some from the more fiscally conservative wing are criticizing it, as they should.  There is a great divide in the Republican Party and it isn’t going to be resolved any time soon.  On one side is the establishment Republicans and on the other side are the Tea Party and more fiscally conservative Republicans.
House Speaker John Boehner is now going up against members of his own party.  Boehner actually said, “If you’re for more deficit reduction, you’re for this agreement.”
The legislation supposedly reduces the deficit by a total of just over $20 billion over a period of ten years.  Just to put this in context, we have been averaging trillion dollar deficits over the last five years.  Two billion dollars per year is a drop in the bucket.
The politicians, and the media who like to cover for them, have this little trick.  They like to talk about reducing the deficit.  But they are trying to confuse people between deficits and debt.
The deficit is the debt over the course of a year.  This gets added to the total debt.  When they say that the deficit is being reduced, it just means that the accumulated debt over the course of a year is less than what was accumulated the year before.
If the deficit is $1 trillion in one year and then $900 billion in the following year, then the politicians will say that the deficit was reduced by $100 billion.  While this may be technically accurate, the debt still went up another $900 billion in that glorious year of cutting the deficit.  So talking about the deficit and how much it decreases is really misleading.
I heard a snippet of Sean Hannity on the radio and he was touting the Mack Penny Plan, named after Connie Mack.  The plan is to cut one penny every year for six years out of each dollar spent and we will supposedly have a balanced budget in something like 8 years.
Hannity compared it to a family budget.  But a family that budgeted this way would be in major trouble.  If your family were running a deficit of $20,000 every year and continuing to accumulate massive debt, I don’t necessarily think a good solution would be to cut back 1% per year for six years, while hoping that you see a good increase in your income.  You will continue to accumulate massive debt over the next eight years and you will probably fall into bankruptcy before you every reach any kind of a balanced budget.
If the Republicans in DC were really serious about getting the debt under control, then they would have simply refused to raise the debt ceiling.  This would have instantly produced a balanced budget.
If this is too radical for the Republicans, they could have raised the debt ceiling by, let’s say, $25 billion per month, and this would at least limit the yearly deficit to “only” $300 billion per year.
Instead, we see the same old games coming out of Washington DC.  It doesn’t really seem to matter which party is in control.  Either way, we get big spending.
I don’t think the spending problem is going to be fixed until we hit a monetary crisis.  When the Fed is faced with higher price inflation and has to stop buying government debt, then the federal government will have to sell its debt elsewhere.
We will likely see higher interest rates and the government will eventually be forced to scale back with less willing buyers of debt at low rates.  At some point, we will see a significant decrease in government spending.  This will be a painful yet much needed time when it finally comes.

The Correlation of Rich and Free

For a long time, it has baffled me how so many people in this world can ignore evidence that is right in front of their eyes.  It just shows the power of propaganda.  Specifically, I don’t understand how so many people can advocate socialistic policies and not think they will lead to bad results.

Economics can be tough in that it is hard to find evidence based on real world events.  While some economists think you can use mathematical formulas to study economics, it is really about reasoning and studying human action.  But if you make specific economic claims, it is usually hard to prove your point with an example.
For example, you could say that an increase in the minimum wage will likely lead to higher unemployment.  But you can’t test this in a vacuum.  You can’t test any economic theories in a vacuum because we don’t live in a vacuum.
The saying is “if all else stays the same.”  An increase in the minimum wage will likely lead to higher unemployment, if all else stays the same.  The problem here is that everything else does not stay the same.  Almost nothing stays the same.  When you have many variables contributing to a certain outcome, it becomes hard to test those variables on their effect.
With that said, I think we can use real life examples in demonstrating the horrible effects of socialistic policies.  Let’s look around the world.
First, let’s take three examples of places in the world where there is a relatively free market economy with low taxes, low government regulations, and strong property rights.  Three places that always come to my mind are Hong Kong, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates.
These places are far from perfect.  I don’t think any of them rank as high as the U.S. in terms of social freedoms such as religious freedom and free speech.  And even economically speaking, all of these places have some central state planning involved.  It is just that these three places are economically free in comparison to most other places on the planet.
(As a side note, some people mistakenly believe that the United Arab Emirates is a wealthy place because of oil.  But oil actually makes up a fairly small percentage of the overall economy.  The UAE, and in particular Dubai, has tourism and international business as the main economic drivers.)
So while taxes and regulations are low in Hong Kong, Singapore, and the UAE, we also see some of the richest places in the world.  These are really wealthy countries and are quite attractive places to entrepreneurs and corporations.  A place like the UAE is also desirable for immigrants, as it is an opportunity for people from third-world countries to make a living.
So even the poor people in these countries will find better living conditions.  And many immigrants can work there and send money back to their families living in a poor country.
While there is certainly a great disparity in wealth and income, I would much rather be a poor person living in Dubai than a poor person living in India.  Your living conditions will be better in Dubai, and at least you have a chance to move up in the world.
And even though property prices are high in Singapore and Hong Kong, you will find a far higher standard of living in these places than almost anywhere else, but especially the third-world countries.
Compare these wealthy countries to almost anywhere in Africa and many places in Asia and South America.  They are different worlds.  Look at Venezuela and the horrible decline of that country from the socialist policies.  You can even look at Greece, a massive welfare state, where many people are struggling just to put a decent meal on the table.
The point here is that the countries that adopt free market capitalism are wealthy and the people there generally have a high standard of living.  In countries that turn away from free markets and resort to socialist policies and major central planning, we see massive poverty and a generally low standard of living.
I don’t understand why so many people can’t see the obvious correlation.  If free markets lead to a better life and socialist/ interventionist policies lead to poverty and suffering, why do so many people still allow the government to enact these socialist and interventionist policies?

It Takes Money To Save Money

There is a saying that “it takes money to make money”.  While there is some truth to the saying, it may also be overrated.  When it comes to starting a successful business, money may help, but it isn’t the most important thing.  In fact, not having much money is oftentimes what makes entrepreneurs creative and cost-conscious from the beginning.

I have come up with a more accurate saying: “It takes money to save money.”  Let me explain further.
Having just a little bit of money can really help you save significant money over the long run.  It is important to have a cushion to allow you some flexibility in your spending.
One example is car insurance.  Some companies will offer you a discount to pay the full premium up front, as opposed to making monthly payments.  You might be able to knock a hundred dollars or more per year off of your bill.  And with interest rates paying almost nothing, it is not as if you are missing out on collecting interest of any significance by leaving extra money in the bank.
Of course, this will not work for someone living paycheck to paycheck, which makes up a large segment of the American population.  If you don’t have any cushion in the bank, you can’t take advantage of the savings.
Just recently, I went to Target to do some shopping.  They had a deal on Black Friday where if you spent at least $75, then you would receive a coupon good for the next week only for 20% off your entire purchase, one time only.
I spent about $80 (just over the limit) at Target and received the coupon.  It was money spent on things I was planning to buy anyway.
The following week, just before the coupon expired, I took my family on a shopping spree at Target.  But it wasn’t to buy junk or to make impulse buys.  We loaded up 2 carts with things we would eventually have to buy anyway.
We bought paper towels, soap, Kleenex, toilet paper, bottled water, garbage bags, sandwich bags, laundry detergent, vitamins, and batteries, just to name some of the things.  If the item we were buying was on sale, we would get more than one.  We bought one toy, but it was a Christmas present that we were planning to buy anyway.
Our total was over $300.  With our coupon, we saved over $60.  In retrospect, we probably could have easily bought more.
The point is, a family living paycheck to paycheck with virtually no cushion could not afford to do this.  They wouldn’t have had the available money to pay for it or they wouldn’t have been able to pay their credit card bill the following month.  And if they didn’t pay off their credit card bill (another example of saving money by having money), the additional interest payments would likely negate any savings.
While 60 dollars is not much money in the scheme of things, this does add up after a while.  And someone who is living paycheck to paycheck really can’t afford to not get these kinds of savings.
So if you are living paycheck to paycheck, my suggestion is to do everything you can to get out of the bad cycle, even if it means severely cutting back for a few months.
If you already have a cushion with your finances, then I would encourage you to take advantage of these types of savings, assuming it is worth your time.

It takes money to save money.  Luckily, it doesn’t take a lot to get started.

The Government and Your Diet

It really is amazing that many things the government tells you are not just wrong; they are the opposite of right.  This includes what you eat and what other substances go into your body.

The government will tell you to avoid eating saturated fats because it can cause heart disease.  But the government is not just wrong that saturated fats are harmful.  What you are being told is the opposite of the truth.  It is not as if you avoid saturated fats that you will get the same outcome as you would have had if you consumed saturated fats.  Saturated fats are good for your health.

In other words, by taking the government’s advice and consuming little or no saturated fats, you are actually making yourself less healthy.  You are not getting the health benefits.

It is not just that the government is wrong.  It seems that the government is actually trying to sabotage good health.

Of course, it is not just politicians and bureaucrats that work for the government.  It is also big pharma, the so-called mainstream media, lobbyists, and even many doctors.  It is a full scale brainwashing taking place.

Let’s also look at sugar as another example.  Consuming sugar, especially in high doses, is not a healthy thing to do.  If you want to have a proper diet and live a healthy lifestyle, it is best to minimize your sugar intake.

With that said, I believe that sugar is far less harmful than high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).  Yet, the government does everything it can to promote HFCS over sugar.  The government puts heavy tariffs on sugar imports, making is far more expensive to import sugar from other countries (where it is cheaper and easier to grow).  At the same time, the government gives huge subsidies (welfare) to the corn industry.

If it weren’t for the government, sugar would be inexpensive to use.  Instead, we have all of these products that use HFCS in place of sugar in order to save on costs.  And then the government will lie to us again and say that HFCS is not any more harmful than sugar.

Seriously, it is as if the government is trying to kill us.

If you want to eat right and be healthy, I wouldn’t listen to anything the government tells you.  You would almost be healthier just doing the exact opposite in many cases.  You should also take this into consideration when deciding whether to cure an ailment with prescription drugs or natural remedies such as vitamins and supplements.

If politicians and bureaucrats are telling you to stand up, you should probably sit down.  If they are telling you to avoid saturated fats, you should probably consume far more.  If the government tells you to stay away from raw milk, you should probably see what you are missing out on.