With the Republican presidential primary starting to heat up, now is a good time to discuss supporting political candidates.  I am doing this from a radical libertarian viewpoint.

First, the most difficult thing for most people to realize is that our solutions will not be political.  Solutions to our problems and movement toward a more peaceful society and more free market society will not come about with political candidates.  It will come about with a change in public opinion and with technology.

Ron Paul has had a big effect in favor of liberty.  He has been mostly ineffective in getting legislation passed up until this point.  His big impact has been educating others, whether he realizes it or not.  I say that we should not rely on political solutions and yet Ron Paul is a politician (although not a typical one).  But he has used his political position not to pass legislation, but to use it as a podium.  It has given him a platform from which to spread his message of liberty.

My next point is, that while I don’t think we should rely on political solutions, I am not against voting or supporting political candidates.  Even if you consider yourself an anarchist, there is nothing wrong with voting if you think it will further the cause of liberty.

With all of that said, if you are going to support a political candidate, you should make darn sure that he or she is really on your side.  In most elections, you simply should not vote or else you should write in a name that is not on the ballot.  Although it will vary depending on where you live, I would say that you shouldn’t be voting in at least 90% of races.  Voting for the lesser of two evils will not usually get you very far.  Besides the fact that your vote probably won’t make a difference, the lesser of the two evils will most likely turn out to be evil.

If you are going to support someone, I understand that the person doesn’t have to have the exact same thoughts and opinions as you.  I do not agree with Ron Paul on 100% of the issues, but I will support him.  When I say “support”, I mean that I will encourage others to support him and donate money to him.  Whether I switch my party registration to Republican and actually vote for him, I don’t know.

The reason I will support Ron Paul is because I know he is real.  He does not back down and give you some political garbage that he thinks you want to hear.  He has a track record of consistency (in a good way) and he is specific in what he will do.

I don’t think I could support any other Republican candidate for president and I certainly would never support Obama.  Therefore, I will most likely vote third party or not at all, if Ron Paul does not get the nomination.  I would only consider Gary Johnson if he starts offering specifics that I like and he is saying it with force.  For example, if he said he would end the federal war on drugs and pardon all non-violent drug offenders convicted of a federal offense, then I would support him if I thought he was serious.

There are no other Republicans worthy of support if you are a libertarian.  Herman Cain is a fraud.  He will support the bankers.  He is in favor of the Fair Tax because he is not interested in dramatically cutting spending.  If he did want to cut spending, he could advocate eliminating the income tax and replacing it with nothing.

Newt Gingrich is a total fraud.  He sat there with Nancy Pelosi and talked about the dangers of global warming.  Mitt Romney instituted Obamacare in Massachusetts before Obamacare even existed.  Even Michelle Bachman, who sometimes sounds half decent on fiscal issues, cannot be trusted.  She is a militarist and she is not specific and forceful enough on domestic issues.

If you are a libertarian,  I would suggest you support Ron Paul.  Aside from him, there are not many candidates to support for other offices.  Only concern yourself with politics in that it can affect your life and your money.  You should know what is going on so that you will know what is coming.  However, if you want to make an impact in advancing liberty, then try to stay away from too much political activity.  Instead, concentrate on educating yourself and becoming a better spokesman for liberty.  Continue to spread the word and try to live your life in the best way that you can so that you are not dependent on the state.

Austrian economics is a valuable tool in understanding the economy.  There is a lot of bad information in the mainstream when it comes to economics.  The establishment is made up of mostly Keynesians or some variation.  The government school system is much the same way.  That is why we have to hear these ridiculous claims that we need more spending to help our economy.

The policies instituted by the government and the Federal Reserve dramatically affect the economy as a whole.  In turn, the economy dramatically affects your investments.  Can understanding Austrian economics help you be a better investor?

I think the answer is “yes”, but in a very limited way.  There are some good investors out there who do not understand Austrian economics and there are a lot of people who have a decent grasp of Austrian economics who are not good, or at least not above average, at investing.  Warren Buffett is certainly no Austro-libertarian, but he has certainly done well with his money.  Perhaps this is a bad example since his father, Howard Buffett, actually was a libertarian.  Maybe Warren picked up a few things, even if he doesn’t admit it and sounds like a statist most of the time.

If you understand Austrian economics, then the most important thing you should understand is human action.  I’m not talking about Mises’ book, but just the fact that humans act.  The government constantly comes up with some new law or program that is supposed to achieve something and it turns out to be bad.  Often, it turns out that it does the exact opposite of what it was supposed to achieve.  Part of this is because of the nature of politics and the inherent corruption.  But part of this is also because of human action.

The government can double a particular tax and expect to pay for some new program as the politicians expect that twice the amount of money will flow in.  But that is in a static world where nothing changes.  If you double the taxes on some good or service, people may find alternatives or buy it in the black market.

It is important to remember the concept of human action when you are investing.  In fact, this should always be in your mind.  If you think that a particular investment has to be a winner, you should think again.  You may have done some great research and analysis.  The so-called fundamentals may all look favorable for your investment.  The problem is, your prized investment may still end up losing you money.

Just look at the bubbles that occur (primarily due to monetary policy).  If you looked at the fundamentals, housing should not have continued to go up after 2004.  Tech stocks should not have continued going up after 1997.  Yet, these things kept going for a while longer.

At the same time, you might think that some stock just has to go up in the near future.  But if few other people become as bullish as you, then it won’t go up.  It all depends on the thoughts and actions of millions of other people.  It really doesn’t matter what you think should happen.  What matters is how others act.

Austrian economics can definitely help us with our investing.  Most people, including investors, have little understanding of monetary issues.  If the Fed is creating new money out of thin air and the government is running up massive deficits, we can take a good guess that commodities will probably do well.  Again, there is no guarantee because it is all subject to human action.  But we can make a reasonable prediction that most humans will act rationally and the additional money and debt will likely motivate others to buy gold and other commodities.

We should use our understanding of Austrian economics to our advantage in the investing world.  Most others do not understand it or even know of it.  Just remember the most important point that humans act and because of human action it is impossible to predict the future with certainty.

The Irish government has announced plans to tax its citizen’s private pensions.  Ireland has a lot of problems, like many others of Europe, in that the government has been spending way beyond its means.  The government is desperate and is trying to come up with ways to narrow its deficits.  Since some people want a free lunch and the government wants to continue spending, it only makes sense for the politicians to raise taxes (at least from their perspective).

The first Republican presidential primary debate was held last week.  Only 5 candidates participated, two of whom were Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.  For anyone following politics and particularly for libertarians, Ron Paul is fairly well-known now.  That should give us a lot of reason for optimism, but that is a subject for another day.  Gary Johnson is not as well-known by most Americans and even many libertarians.

Gary Johnson was the governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003.  During that time, he vetoed about 750 bills, which was more than the other 49 states combined.  He is in favor of legalizing marijuana and is an advocate of lower taxes and less spending (state and federal).

So what is not to like about that record for a libertarian?  First, I think he did do an excellent job as governor when you compare him to anyone else in the last 15 years.  My criticism of him in regards to his time as governor is only that he did not leave a more permanent mark.  New Mexico is certainly in better shape right now than many other states, especially when you look at nearby California.  But New Mexico is not exactly a libertarian paradise either.  I understand that the governor (just like a president) only has so much power and that the legislature is a major piece of the puzzle.  However, state education continued to be funded along with many other government programs that do not come close to fitting into the libertarian view of things.

This is similar to the way I view the Reagan presidency, although I’m much harder on Reagan because government actually expanded quite a bit on his watch.  But even if Reagan had kept spending under control (which he didn’t) and he had balanced the budget (which he didn’t) and he had not started any wars (which he did), it would still be hard to give him a lot of praise.  If the person leaves office and things go right back to where they were before, how much good did they really do?

If a libertarian is going to become governor or president, I want him to dismantle the government.  If the legislature is not cooperative, then just veto every single spending bill that there is.  In addition, take your case to the American people on an almost daily basis, talking about the proper role of government.  Repeat often that it is not the government’s job to provide education, to eradicate drugs, to provide healthcare, etc.  This is what I would expect from a good libertarian governor or president.

I think Gary Johnson’s presence in the debates will be good.  It adds confirmation to some of what Ron Paul is saying.  I think most Ron Paul supporters will stick with Ron Paul.  Most people who support Ron Paul want someone who is radical in the defense of liberty.  They will not sell out to someone who has a watered-down message.  Ron Paul and Gary Johnson both present common sense viewpoints on why government doesn’t work.  Ron Paul adds in morality.  He is not afraid to point out that government is force.  Ron Paul will speak more philosophically as well.

I don’t think Gary Johnson has much of a chance of getting the nomination.  I think Ron Paul has a better shot, but unfortunately I think there are too many pro-war Republicans to allow this to happen.  Either way, it is good news that both Paul and Johnson are getting some attention.  It is time that Americans start to hear a more libertarian message.

The current debt limit is 14.294 trillion dollars.  You can view the U.S. national debt here.  Right now, it is showing the U.S. national debt and the U.S. public debt subject to limit.  The debt subject to the limit is slightly lower.  It is projected to hit the limit in mid-May, sometime next week.

If the debt ceiling is not raised, the government can keep things going for a few more months using accounting gimmicks.  The politicians are good at accounting gimmicks.  They can continue to run up debt a little while longer while not really counting it as debt.

Many of the politicians are screaming right now that refusing to raise the limit is not an option.  They are wrong.  It just isn’t an option that they like.  It would not necessarily mean default.  It would mean that they would have to drastically cut spending.  This is why the limit will be raised.

If you didn’t have enough evidence already, the next few weeks should tell you all you need to know about the Republicans.  They will demand a few spending cuts.  The actual cuts will just be a small fraction of the total bloated federal budget.  Both sides will compromise on more debt and more spending and the party will live to see another day.

It is even hard to judge your congressman by his individual vote.  Congress has this trick of vote counting.  They just need to come up with enough votes to raise the limit.  They will allow some of their colleagues to vote “no” if they are fighting hard for reelection and they need to prove to the voters that they are tough on spending.  The whole game is rigged.

Obama voted against raising the limit when he was a senator.  He has now changed his tune.  The Republicans (with a few exceptions) are frauds too.  The Republicans have the majority in the House of Representatives right now and could refuse to raise the limit.  This will not happen.

As a libertarian, I believe the federal government should sell off its assets and pay off its debts.  Anything remaining should be repudiated.  I understand this is a radical stance, even for a libertarian.  But for any libertarian, you should at least be demanding that the limit be held where it is.  This would force immediate and dramatic cuts.  If the politicians started shutting down whole departments and dismantling the empire overseas, then the government could probably continue to pay interest on the debt and continue to hand out money for Social Security and Medicare, at least for now.

There is no hope of a balanced budget.  It is going to take a crisis in the dollar.  We will end up in a situation like Greece or we will end up with massive inflation and then we will end up like Greece.  Until the American people make serious demands about drastically cutting spending, including entitlements, the military, education, and virtually everything else, then the politicians will continue to spend as long as the Fed keeps buying debt.  This really isn’t going to be a pretty ending.

After the violent downfall last week for gold and silver, things turned around today.  Gold had fallen below $1,500 and silver had dropped about 30% in less than two weeks.  This was not surprising as silver’s run toward $50 was rather quick, but I think it still scared a few people.

The little bounce back up today is a promising sign.  We will see if it holds or if there is more of a correction to come.  Either way, I still see gold and silver both going to new all-time highs, most likely this year.  If they don’t see new all-time highs soon, that means there is likely to be a severe correction in the stock market.

That is why I like a strategy of owning gold and silver related investments along with a short position in the stock market.  I should emphasize that this is for your speculation money.  If you want to minimize speculation and keep your money as safe as possible, just put it all in a permanent portfolio setup.

But again, for speculation purposes, a long position in gold and silver investments along with a stock market short is a decent bet right now.  If the stock market crashes, your short position should do better than the loss you will get from your gold and silver investments.  If gold and silver do well, then your position there should do better than your loss from your stock market shorts.

The only way this strategy won’t work is if the stock market continues to go up and gold and silver go down.  While anything is possible, I don’t see a high likelihood of this happening over a long stretch.  I suspect the stock market is going up due to the hot money being created by the Fed.  If this continues, then gold and silver should do even better as they are natural inflation hedges.

If the Fed puts on the monetary brakes and the new money stops flowing, I would suspect that the stock market would collapse rather quickly.  Silver and gold might also go down quite a bit in this scenario, but at least you would be making money on your short positions.

There is a possibility that stocks might stay flat for a while or even trend down while gold and silver go up. You would really be a winner then, but just remember to take profits along the way.  As we saw last week, things can correct rather quickly and rather severely.

This strategy is easier than ever with ETFs.  You can buy an ETF that shorts any of the broad stock markets indices.  Again, this should be for your speculative money only.

On Friday, Lew Rockwell ran a piece on his site in which The Gold Report interviewed John Williams of Shadow Stats.  Williams predicts that there will be hyperinflation.  In the interview, he does not define hyperinflation.

While I understand that different people have different definitions for hyperinflation, it is nice for them to define it if they are predicting it.  Some people would say that hyperinflation is when prices are going up 20% or more per year.  Others would say 100% or more per year.  Others would say we are in hyperinflation now because of the huge increase in the monetary base.  Others would say that hyperinflation is occurring only when consumer prices are going up every single day.  This last case would be like Zimbabwe or Weimar Germany where people receive their pay from work and they immediately run to the store to buy food or anything else before prices go up again.

It is certainly unprecedented what the Fed has done in the last few years.  The adjusted monetary base has approximately tripled.  This has never happened since the creation of the Fed in 1913.  But while we are in uncharted waters, I don’t think we will see hyperinflation.  Anything is possible, so we can’t say that it can’t happen, but it seems unlikely.

I do find it plausible that we could see price inflation of 20%.  I would not consider this hyperinflation.  If we define hyperinflation as prices going up every day, then it is highly unlikely.  If we define it as prices doubling in a year, then I might give it a 5% chance at best.

The reason I think hyperinflation (as defined by the more extreme cases) is highly unlikely is because the bankers (who control the Fed) would lose too much themselves.  In a severe case of a currency collapse, the division of labor would break down.  If there are no alternative monies readily available, there will be major chaos.  I don’t think that is likely.  Why would the bankers want to destroy their own pensions and create a world in which trucks stop delivering food to the grocery stores?

In addition, the U.S. dollar is still the reserve currency of this planet.  While that may be slowly changing, I don’t think foreigners will be too happy if the U.S. goes into hyperinflation mode.  I believe that is one of the major reasons that Volcker slammed on the monetary brakes in the late 70’s and early 80’s.  I’m sure foreign governments and other elitists pressured him and the Fed into saving the currency.

Again, I won’t say that anything is impossible, but people should be careful not to be so loose with their language.  To just say that we will have hyperinflation without defining it and without telling us why the Fed and the bankers would allow this to happen, is really shooting from the hip.

The Fed will slam on the monetary brakes again one day, just as Volcker did three decades ago.  When that happens, congress will finally be forced to cut spending and we will experience a very difficult recession/ depression.

I have talked before about investing in silver in comparison to gold.  Silver is referred to as the poor man’s gold.  It is a lot easier for the average American to buy a one-ounce silver coin than a one-ounce gold coin.  In fact, many Americans could not even buy an ounce of gold today with their liquid savings.

Another difference is that, while both have a history of being money, gold still has a better reputation as money.  Silver has a lot of uses in electronics and other things.  Gold has a few uses, but it is mainly used for jewelry and savings/ investment.  I don’t know of any governments/ central banks that hold silver in any significant way.  On the other hand, many governments hold large gold reserves.

This past week has really shown the biggest difference in gold and silver when it comes to your investing.  Silver is far more volatile than gold and that has been demonstrated in a major way.  In the matter of just a few days, silver fell about 30%.  That is a huge drop.  If the stock market dropped like that in such a short period of time, there would be panic and headline news.

While silver crashed, gold has pulled back more gently.  Of course, silver also just had a huge run-up in a very short period of time, so it makes sense that it pulled back as violently as it went up.  Gold has shown itself to be much more stable.

For your investments, I recommend that you have most of your precious metal holdings in gold.  If you want to keep a small percentage in silver, that is fine as long as you can take the bigger swings.  For speculation purposes, silver is actually more fun (as long as you are on the winning side).  There is more risk with silver and there is also more reward.

This pullback in silver will be a great speculation opportunity for those who can handle some high risk.  We are still in a huge bull market in precious metals and the Fed keeps creating new money out of thin air and the government keeps spending like crazy.  There is great reason to believe that the metals will continue to go much higher with big pullbacks along the way as we have just seen.

It is hard to say where silver will bottom out on this pullback, but it really will be a great opportunity for risk takers to do a little speculating.  If silver goes right back up from $40 to $50, that is a 25% return.  That would be a great return considering that your savings account is probably paying a fraction of one percent.

There was an article that appeared at Mises.org titled “Charting the Course to $7 Gas”.  The author hit on some of the points that I have hammered on, particularly the tripling of the adjusted monetary base and the increase in excess reserves.

I found it amusing where he pointed out the blip on the chart of the adjusted monetary base back in 2000.  This was Greenspan and the Fed responding to the dot-com bust.  It is circled in red.  If you look at the recession in 2001, you can also see a small blip there too (just to the right of the red circle).  I believe this increase in the monetary base was a response to 9/11.  It just shows how tiny it was compared to what has happened since 2008.

If the gradual increase in the monetary base from the 1980’s all the way to 2008 could cause a major tech bubble and then a major housing bubble, just think what might happen now.  This is why we could see oil, gold, silver, and other commodities double, triple, or more in a short period of time, even from where they are now.  I’m not making a prediction, but I am saying that it is not unlikely at this point given what the Fed has done in the last three years.

The excess reserves held by banks has slowed down price inflation.  Likewise, unemployment and uncertainty in the economy has increase the demand for money (slower velocity) to a certain extent, which has also slowed down price inflation.  We could easily see this shift quickly.  When more people perceive that their dollars will be worth less tomorrow than today, then more and more people will start rushing to spend those dollars, thus driving up prices.  The Keynesians will get what they want in more spending and the American people will get it good and hard with dramatically increasing prices.

In listening and reading the people I respect the most when it comes to economic analysis, it is scary how much consensus I find.  Certainly people have different ideas on how things will progress (or maybe regress is a better word), but it is almost unanimous that there is major trouble up ahead.  We should hope that the American people (along with the rest of the people on earth) start withdrawing their consent from the federal government and that the troubles ahead will be short-lived.  We should hope that the trouble ahead caused by current policies is the start of a new era; an era of peace and prosperity with more liberty.

Here is what Wikipedia says about devaluation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devaluation

Here is what Wikipedia says about depreciation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depreciation_(currency)

Here is what Wikipedia says about debasement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debasement

Devaluation actually occurs within a fixed exchange rate system.  The last time there was a formal devaluation of the U.S. dollar was in 1971 when Nixon told foreign governments that they could no longer redeem their dollars for gold.

Depreciation occurs in a system of floating exchange rates.  Wikipedia says that depreciation refers to a decrease in the value of a country’s currency with respect to one or more foreign currencies.

When we look at debasement, Wikipedia says it is the practice of lowering the value of a currency.  It goes on to say that, “It is particularly used in connection with commodity money such as gold or silver coins.  A coin is said to be debased if the quantity of gold, silver, copper or nickel is reduced.”

All of these words seem to be used interchangeably.  In the entry for “devaluation”, Wikipedia says this is incorrect, but that they always refer to values in terms of other currencies.  But my question is, how do you refer to an increase in the money supply?  This used to be called inflation, but the definition of inflation was changed by the statists to refer to prices (which is actually just the effect of inflation).

I use these terms interchangeably with the knowledge that it is not technically correct in the financial world.  But I don’t really care about other currencies.  You could say that the dollar is not depreciating against the euro, yen or some other currency at some particular time, but that is not helpful if all of the central banks are creating new money and every fiat currency is becoming worth less in purchasing power.

I am not sure why Wikipedia says that debasement is used particularly in connection with gold and silver.  While these metals have a long history of serving as money, the major governments of the world have changed all of that and most money used today is paper money with no backing.  So just as the kings debased money by clipping coins, today the central banks of the world debase our money via money printing (or the modern version of creating digits on a computer).

Although the term devaluation was generally used with fixed exchange rates (which we don’t have any more), I really don’t think there is anything wrong with this term to describe monetary inflation.  When you “devalue” something, you are reducing the value of it.  This perfectly describes monetary inflation as far as I’m concerned.  The Federal Reserve or some other central bank creates new money out of thin air.  This reduces the value of the money that we already have.  It really is that simple.