It is possible that the U.S. federal government will borrow more this year than it will collect in taxes.  In other words, more than half of its expenditures will be financed through debt.  And to be sure, most of this debt will be financed by the Federal Reserve (the Fed) through new money creation.

The Fed’s balance sheet has exploded since the end of February.  It is up almost $3 trillion over the course of three months.  It has blown past the $7 trillion mark, and while it is slowing down, there are no signs of it stopping.

Tax collections by the federal government have almost seemed to become irrelevant.  Sure, they’ll take what they can get, but there are 40 million people who have filed for unemployment benefits.  These are people not paying any payroll taxes. They will not be paying income taxes, although many of them weren’t paying them anyway.  Businesses that have been shut down are not paying taxes because there are no profits.

Even if half of the unemployed people are back to work by the end of the summer, that is several months of tens of millions of people not paying taxes.  And if half return to work soon, that still leaves something near 20 million people who are unemployed.

That is the tax collection side.  It gets far worse when we look at the government spending side.  The big piece of legislation was the misnamed (on purpose) CARES Act. That is over $2 trillion right there for unemployment, business bailouts, and direct “stimulus” (among other things).  We will probably end up getting another piece of legislation with more direct “stimulus” payments. They will certainly stimulate the Fed’s balance sheet more.  We will probably see more corporate bailouts, and we may see some bailouts for state and local governments.

This is on top of the massive annual deficit.  During our supposed economic boom, the deficit was already projected to be somewhere around $1 trillion.  I don’t know what it will be now for this fiscal year, and neither does anybody else.  Maybe it will come in at $4 trillion.  We can be certain that the federal government will not be collecting $4 trillion.  It wasn’t collecting that much before March.

Stocks are one thing that are booming with the Fed’s balance sheet.  Amazingly, some indexes are not that far from their all-time highs. Stock investors just shrug off 40 million unemployed people.  They love the easy money from the Fed.  The bulls think that Fed inflation is more important than corporate profits. So far, they have been right, but I don’t think that will last.

Either way, tax money collected from dividends and capital gains will not be up.  Maybe it won’t be down as much as would have been expected two months ago, but these aren’t really major tax items anyway as compared to the total federal budget.

Have a Problem? Just Create More Money

Interest rates on U.S. government debt are very low.  The 10-year yield has been below 1% for several months now.

There are still investors in U.S. government debt.  People buy bonds in their 401k plan.  Other investors buy bonds.  Corporations buy bonds.  Insurance companies buy bonds.  Foreign central banks buy bonds.

I don’t know how much has changed over the last few months, but I can’t imagine demand has spiked that much.  People do look for safety during times of uncertainty, and U.S. government bonds are seen as safe, especially during a time where there isn’t a perceived threat of significant price inflation.

Still, the reason that interest rates have dropped so low isn’t because of massive demand from investors and foreign central banks.  The reason is because the Fed has driven them down, particularly with massive buying of debt.

So we still have all of the same entities buying debt, including private investors and foreign central banks.  But we have added the Fed into the mix with its massive buying.

It is important to remember that there are always loans that are maturing and being rolled over. I expect much of this is being financed by investors and foreign central banks, just as it was before.

But there has been in increase in the national debt by several trillions of dollars over the past few months.  While we don’t know the exact details, it is obvious that the Fed is financing most or all of this additional deficit spending.  There is a reason that the Fed’s balance sheet has exploded by nearly $3 trillion in just three months.

Congress acts as if there are no limits at all.  In a sense, they are correct.  The Fed can keep creating new money out of thin air.  Of course, the question becomes what the money will be worth.

I have discussed this topic long ago in terms of the Fed just financing the budget.  I have pondered the question of what would happen if the Fed just financed the entire federal budget and all tax collections were eliminated.

We actually aren’t that far from that reality now.  The Fed is financing the government more than taxes are at this point. I’m not saying that will last forever, but that is the reality today.

Imagine if, last year, someone had proposed just getting rid of all federal taxes and financing the whole budget through monetary inflation.  I’m sure someone in the MMT camp was saying this, but they wouldn’t have been taken seriously.  Anyone proposing such a thing would have been laughed at.  They would have been proposing (last year) for the Fed to create something like $4.5 trillion per year.

Meanwhile, that is our reality today.  The Fed may end up creating more than $4.5 trillion this year.  The only difference is that tax rates have not been reduced but spending has exploded more.  Some taxes are still being collected, especially from those still employed, but we have the massive Fed inflation on top of it.

As a side note, I recognize that nearly everyone pays some federal taxes, even when they aren’t working.  They pay for excise taxes such as on gasoline.  They may indirectly pay taxes on things that are priced higher because of tariffs and corporate taxes.  Of course, the biggest tax, which people will eventually feel, is the inflation tax.  Whether you call it at tax or not, it sucks up everyone’s wealth.

As a libertarian, I prefer to focus on the spending side of government.  This is really the best measure of government confiscating resources.  It doesn’t matter how it’s financed because the government is extracting these resources in some way.  Whether it is through debt and inflation or through direct tax collections, the government is consuming resources, which means it is misallocating resources.

At this point though, it is almost pointless to fight against massive government spending. We can blame Congress and the president, but they are really just doing what the people are asking for. They may not be asking for massive deficit spending, but most are not opposing it.

We have seen this in the past for a long time.  Polls will show that Americans oppose deficit spending.  But when they are asked what should be done about it, they don’t want taxes hiked and they don’t want their favorite programs cut. Many will say they would favor stopping federal foreign aid, but that is practically a rounding error at this point.

I don’t see any stop to the madness in spending until it is forced upon us by economic laws. As I have previously written, you can’t consume something until it has first been produced.  And central bank inflation does not create any new wealth.

At this stage, I might rather just have the Fed print money (digitally speaking) to finance everything.  We know the budget would have to be cut drastically if the government had to just rely on direct taxation.  So we are going to keep getting massive monetary inflation for a while regardless.  It might be better just to bring it on sooner rather than later.

We may finally reach the pinnacle of government madness when people start feeling and seeing the consequences of inflation.  They are already having their wealth stolen, but it isn’t as obvious now. They may see the price of food going up, but it isn’t rampant yet.  If we start getting general price inflation above 10%, maybe more people will call this whole thing into question.

But it will really come down to the actions of the Fed.  At some point, Fed officials will be faced with a choice of risking runaway inflation or telling Congress that the Fed will have to stop or dramatically slow down its financing of their spending.  I hope it is the latter.

I really don’t think the Fed wants hyperinflation.  I doubt that most politicians want hyperinflation.  The only alternative at some point will be a massive drop in government spending.  I am looking forward to that day.

The Libertarian Party has nominated Jo Jorgensen as its presidential nominee.  It took several ballots before she finally got a majority, which all took place online.

There was some controversy over whether having an online nominating convention violated the Libertarian Party (LP) bylaws, but it happened anyway.

My first choice was Jacob Hornberger, who came in second.  I think Hornberger could be a bit stronger in his messaging, especially in selling liberty to the American middle class.  But overall, Hornberger would have been a really good nominee, and I believe he would have stuck strong to libertarian principles.

I don’t know a lot about Jo Jorgensen.  She sold herself as a cross between the principled and the pragmatic.  I have no problem with this as long as she stays principled.  I think you can remain true to libertarian principles while also conveying a populist message, which is really what I was saying above about what Hornberger needed to do.

Jorgensen was the vice presidential nominee in 1996.  She was Harry Browne’s running mate.  When you are the vice presidential nominee for the LP, it doesn’t mean you necessarily fall in line with the presidential nominee.  The vice presidential candidate is nominated separately.  It isn’t like the Republicans and Democrats where the presumptive nominee picks his or her preferred person as a running mate.

The vice presidential nominee ended up being Spike Cohen.  He was endorsed by the Mises Caucus (the libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party).  He identifies himself as an anarchist.  This shows that the two nominees can and will often have differing opinions.  I have no problem with the vice presidential candidate being an anarchist, but I hope he is prepared to answer tough questions about it.  I hope Jorgensen is prepared to answer questions about her running mate.

Even though the two offices are nominated separately, it is a good sign that Jorgensen ran with Harry Browne.  Hopefully she picked up many of his good traits.  I believe Harry Browne is the strongest nominee the LP has ever had, and I say that knowing that Ron Paul was the nominee in 1988.

Ron Paul’s two runs as a Republican were far more influential than Harry Browne’s two presidential runs on the LP ticket.  But I believe that Harry Browne was one of the people who was critical in building a sold libertarian base that almost needed to exist when Ron Paul’s campaign took off in 2007.  I can speak for myself and say that Harry Browne was the most influential libertarian in my life.

It is also a good sign that Jorgensen has been around for so long.  She joined the LP in 1983.  When you’ve been in the LP for many decades, it is a reasonably good sign. The last three presidential cycles saw people coming from the Republican Party to the LP to run for president, without a lot of time in between.  It happened in 2008 with Bob Barr.  It happened in 2012 with Gary Johnson.  It happened in 2016 with Bill Weld running as Johnson’s VP. It almost happened again in 2020 with Justin Amash.  Even though Amash was an independent, it wasn’t long ago that he was a Republican.

So overall, I have reasonable expectations with Jorgensen.  I think she will likely be the best LP candidate since at least 2004, which is the last time I voted for the LP presidential candidate in the general election.  She doesn’t have to be perfect, but I want her to keep a principled message while trying to appeal to the average middle class American.  If she can remain principled, I may just vote for her in November.

Where are the Hillary Voters?

In 2016, I heard it said multiple times about how women should vote for Hillary Clinton because she is a woman.  I heard it said that everyone should vote for Hillary because she is a woman. I heard different variations of these themes.  I heard insinuations that it was sexist not to vote for Hillary Clinton.

In 2019 and 2020, there were several women running for the Democratic Party nomination.  This included Kamala Harris, Tulsi Gabbard, Elizabeth Warren, and Amy Klobuchar.  While none of them were really successful in the primaries, they did attract a decent number of women voters when you combine their numbers.

Now here we are in 2020 with a woman on the ballot.  But she is on the ballot for the Libertarian Party.  Unless Biden is dumped before the convention (which I think is a good possibility), then there will be no woman running for president on the Democratic ticket.  Biden has said he will pick a woman has his VP candidate.

I’m sure all of those women who voted for Hillary in 2016 because she is a woman will be flocking to vote for Jo Jorgensen in 2020.  Obviously that is sarcasm.

They don’t really care about voting for a woman.  They care about voting for a woman who promotes big government and establishment policies.  They care about voting for a woman who will talk about women’s rights, even when she couldn’t care less about bombing foreign countries into oblivion.  I guess women in Middle Eastern countries don’t count when it comes to Hillary and her supporters.

Just the same, many women, even on the Democrat side, would never support someone like Tulsi Gabbard because she dares to question the establishment narrative on war and foreign intervention.

There may be a few women who do vote for Jorgensen because she is a woman, but it isn’t going to be your typical Hillary voter.  They will vote for Biden, or whoever is the Democratic Party nominee.  They will say at the very least that we need to defeat Donald Trump.

Anyway, I do think it adds an interesting dynamic that the LP candidate is a female.  I do think it presents an opportunity to reach out to some women who are not libertarians but may be somewhat open to hearing the message.

My recommendation to Jorgensen is to remain strong in her principles because we don’t just want votes.  We want to move the needle of public opinion towards liberty.  We want to build on what Ron Paul did in his last two presidential campaigns, which was to convert tens of thousands of people towards radical libertarianism.

With that said, I also believe Jorgensen should have a populist message too (while remaining principled).  With all of the massive government spending, debt, and money creation just over the last few months, Americans will be hurting really bad.  She needs to explain that we need a drastic reduction in government in all areas of our life if we wish to significantly improve our living standards.

People will be receptive to this message.  I am cautiously optimistic that Jo Jorgensen can deliver this message. If she can deliver it effectively, then she will get my vote in November.

The Federal Reserve’s balance sheet went below the $4 trillion mark in 2019.  In September 2019, the “repo” market started blowing up and the Fed intervened.  The Fed’s balance sheet went a little above the $4 trillion mark again.

With the coronavirus and the reactions to the coronavirus – particularly most state and local governments shutting down businesses – the federal government and the Fed have intervened in a major way.  The government has spent trillions of dollars, and it is being financed by the Fed.

The Fed’s balance sheet is now above $7 trillion.  It went up nearly $3 trillion in the matter of less than three months.

Government spending is going parabolic.  Government debt is going parabolic.  The base money supply is going parabolic.

When things can’t go on, they have a tendency to stop.  That is not an original quote by me.

I can’t emphasize enough that this whole thing is going to blow up.  I just don’t know when and in what form.

We think that just because they have gotten away with it in the past, that they will get away with it in the future.  I’m not saying that there were will be major personal consequences to those who have gotten us into this mess.  But I am saying that the current system in its current state cannot go on.

This could end up in a deflationary depression.  It could end up with stagflation where there is massive inflation and shrinking productivity.  It could end up with one and then the other.  It could end up with major defaults.  Actually, I know that it will end with massive defaults.  It is just a question of how those defaults come about.  There will be many broken promises that were previously made by politicians.

I have long been a fan of Atlas Shrugged. However, I was never big on actually adopting a strategy of dropping out of society.  I think liberty is more likely to succeed with commerce going on, even if that commerce has to take place in only a semi-free market.

With that said, I am taking a position that it is likely better to just get the collapse over with. I am talking about the federal government more that state and local government, although the latter two also deserve a major downsizing.

I don’t want to see a collapse of society.  I don’t want to see a collapse of the division of labor.  I want to see a collapse of the federal government as a major presence in our lives.

As long as I have been a libertarian, I have advocated education as being the key.  I don’t mean the school system.  I mean educating others on the benefits of liberty.

I am still advocating liberty education, but it isn’t to directly change the current policies. The current system is on autopilot, and it is heading over a cliff.  It wouldn’t even matter now if you try to slam on the brakes.  It’s still going over a cliff.

The reason that liberty education is so important is because we want to be able to pick up the pieces when everything falls apart, and we want to make sure that we turn towards liberty instead of turning to a new (but not much different) system of statism.

I don’t cheer what is coming in terms of major pain for the large majority of Americans.  I just recognize the reality of what is coming.  It is going to be a difficult time.  This is just the beginning.

We just need to do our best to point out the problems to people now so that they will be more likely to listen to us when things really fall apart.  When the government defaults on its promises – whether through inflation or outright default – then libertarians may find that they have a receptive audience that wasn’t there before.

This may seem like a rhetorical question, and it should be.  Unfortunately, the economic ignorance of a large portion of the population is so bad that some of them really do think something like this.

They don’t literally think it is magic, but they think that food will just keep appearing no matter what government actions are taken.  They believe you can shut down the entire economy, yet food will still appear on the shelves.

To be sure, there are many people with some sense who will say that we need to keep “essential” things open so that food is produced, packaged, and delivered to the grocery stores.  They at least understand there is a chain of production and that there are multiple players in making food appear.  They probably haven’t read I, Pencil, but at least they have some basic understanding that things still have to be produced.

I have long said that in order to consume something, it first has to be produced.  This is such a basic economic point, yet there are so many people who just don’t get it.  It took Elon Musk, who has been a proponent of government subsidies for his work in the past, to point out this basic point.  If you actually want things, then they first have to be produced.

I saw a meme floating around Facebook saying, in part, “If a medically-informed response to a pandemic creates economic hardship so serious that the economic impacts are more deadly than the virus, you change your f***ing economic system not your response to disease.”

My response: “Is this in reference to our economic system where people work and produce things and food appears on the shelves at grocery stores?”

The purpose of this meme is not to criticize the anti-liberty aspects of our economic system, such as the Federal Reserve, massive government spending, and government regulations.  The purpose is to criticize the free market aspects.

The “response” creates “economic hardship” because businesses have been shut down by governors and mayors across the country.  Businesses have been forced to close that otherwise wouldn’t have, and people are forced out of jobs who otherwise wouldn’t have been.  On top of that, now the rest of the productive class (those who are allowed to keep working) has to support all of the people not working.

There are now something like 38 million people collecting unemployment benefits who were not collecting in February.  These people are being paid to sit home and produce nothing.  Even if they weren’t the highest skilled people, and they were working in jobs deemed “non-essential” (by the dictator politicians), they are still producing nothing as compared to before.  That is a lot of production out the window.  So even if food keeps showing up on the shelves at grocery stores, there are many goods and services no longer being produced that were previously being produced.

An even worse aspect is that the local and state governments chose the winners and losers here. In a more normal economic downturn, even if originally caused by central bank monetary policy, at least the businesses going bankrupt and people being laid off are being chosen by consumers, to the extent there is still a free market.  In the current situation, there will be some businesses closed down permanently that would not have closed down in a more typical economic recession.

Stimulus and Production

The most basic economic point that must be understood is that you can only consume what is first produced.  It is simple to understand, yet this basic point is being overlooked.

There is a second point that must be understood.  It should be simple, but even many economists seem to not understand it, or they choose not to address it.  The point is this: Central bank inflation does not produce anything of value.

The central bank – the Federal Reserve (the Fed) in the United States – can create all of the new money out of thin air that it wants, but it doesn’t produce anything. It doesn’t grow food.  It doesn’t package food.  It doesn’t deliver food.  It doesn’t create any new wealth.  It doesn’t produce anything that can be consumed.

Central bank monetary inflation does redistribute wealth.  It can enable some to live at the expense of others.  When the government hands out “stimulus” checks to nearly everyone, it is a form of wealth redistribution.  It doesn’t create any new wealth.

In fact, the central bank inflation will actually serve to destroy wealth, as it misallocates resources.  Instead of savings and investment going towards the highest demands of consumers, it just redistributes the existing wealth and prevents money from being saved and invested. Without this savings and investment, wealth creation will be greatly harmed, and society as a whole will be poorer for it.

I was watching a YouTube video of someone discussing the various plans in Congress to provide additional stimulus in the form of direct payments to individual Americans. The person on the video seemed to favor additional stimulus.  He is obviously no libertarian, but I want to emphasize that he isn’t someone who would typically be labeled a leftist.  He would criticize the so-called democratic socialists, yet he seemed to favor more government stimulus in the form of direct payments.

It may be preferable to see direct payments as opposed to some government program that flows through a massive bureaucracy that results in major corruption and just a tiny fraction of the funds actually reaching the people who were supposedly the beneficiaries.  Still, anyone who favors liberty should not be cheering on more stimulus, unless you are taking the position that you just want to see a quick collapse of the whole system (i.e., the federal government).

When I read the many comments to this video on YouTube, most of the people were demanding more stimulus.  I saw many comments saying that $1,200 (the original stimulus) wasn’t enough.  One person said it didn’t even cover his mortgage for a month.

In the video, the presenter mentioned that food prices had gone up 40%.  I think this is an annualized number, although I have discussed how I saw the price of chicken go up by about 50% over the course of about a week.

Unbelievably, while there was all of this clamoring for more checks from the government, someone commented on the outrageous price hikes in food.  The person asked rhetorically why this is not considered price gouging.

I saw no responses to this person’s comment.  I didn’t feel like getting involved because I have to pick my battles.

Did nobody commenting on there see the irony in this?  Businesses have been shut down (involuntarily) and 38 million people have essentially been forced into unemployment.  The federal government responds with trillions of dollars in bailouts, including direct payments to Americans.  This is all being financed by the Fed, which is buying the debt with newly created money.  And while people are clamoring for more, someone comments about the outrageous increase in food prices.

Where do these people think the money comes from?  Can they not stop for one minute and think about the costs?

It seems like a rhetorical question to say: “Why not give everyone a million dollars?”  This is supposed to be a reductio ad absurdum, although I fear it may eventually come close to reality.  Still, it is a useful question to get people to answer.  If you encounter someone who favors more massive government spending, ask why the government shouldn’t just give out a million dollars to everyone?  See if you can get a serious answer.

If someone is willing to have a serious conversation about it, it is an important question for them to answer.  They will have to admit that there is a cost to it.  Don’t let them get away with saying, “Well, I don’t want a million dollar stimulus check.  I was just talking about a couple thousand dollars.”  Pin the person down and get them to explain why a million dollar check to everyone would be a bad idea.

Conclusion

You can’t consume something until it has first been produced.

Central bank inflation does not create any new wealth.

With the coronavirus, government lockdowns, and crazy actions from the federal government and the Fed, there has been much to talk about.  I haven’t written a lot about electoral politics lately.

I recently wrote a piece critical of Justin Amash, and he has since said that he will not be seeking the Libertarian Party presidential nomination this year.  I don’t think it was because of me and other hardcore libertarians criticizing him.  He may just see the writing on the wall.  It is possible that he received orders from the establishment because they fear he will take more votes from the Democrats than from Trump.  The establishment got Buttigieg and Klobuchar to withdraw right before Super Tuesday, so it is not beyond the realm of possibility that there was pressure put on Amash.

This opens the door for Jacob Hornberger to be the LP nominee.  He would be a much better salesman for liberty than Amash.  I have no grand hopes for a Hornberger run in the general election except that he can convert some more people towards liberty.  It is doubtful he will impact the actual race between Trump and the Democratic nominee.

Trumped

Trump has been beaten down.  The coronavirus and the push by the media finally did to Trump what Russiagate and Ukrainegate could not.  The impeachment of Trump was mostly meaningless.  It was seen as partisan.  It did not badly damage Trump.

What damaged Trump was him playing down the virus in February and then having it hyped up as much as possible by his enemies.  Trump was pushed into relenting and joining the chorus of the government having to take drastic measures to “flatten the curve”.  More accurately, I should say governments, as state and local governments have been as bad or worse as Washington DC.

With regard to lockdowns, Trump has actually been a federalist on this issue.  He has respected “states’ rights” to a large degree.  The left, for three years, warned us that Trump wanted to be a dictator.  When he refused to shut down the whole country, the left complained about him not being dictatorial enough.

Trump’s big issue was the economy.  That is now wrecked. I don’t think the economy was in good shape before March.  In that respect Trump is better off with a horrible economy due to coronavirus reactions than a horrible economy without the coronavirus.  He can use the coronavirus as his excuse. But let’s face it; his number one issue has been taken away from him.

Trump looks defeated. He will still send out messages on Twitter criticizing people and media organizations.  But his overall demeanor has changed.  Listening to him at a press conference about the coronavirus is not the same thing as listening to him speak at a rally in front of 30,000 people.

I think Trump’s reelection chances have diminished significantly over the last 3 months. Maybe he will get back some of his spunk and find new life.  He should fire Dr. Fauci, but I don’t think that will happen.  For some reason, Trump is afraid of the media criticism that would come from that.

Trump should be out there speaking the truth.  He can take the virus seriously and be compassionate, but he can also explain the statistics.  He can point out that the deaths being attributed to the virus are likely way overstated and that many of these people would not have lived much longer had they not had the coronavirus.  He can point out the severe damage being done by shutting down the economy.

I know Trump would take a beating for continually saying these things, but he’s taking a beating anyway.  He might as well go down swinging.

If Trump doesn’t change his whole demeanor quickly, then I don’t think he has much hope of being reelected.  His only hope is that Biden is so incredibly incompetent that Trump wins by default, and barely so.  But, he shouldn’t put his hopes behind Biden and all of his gaffes.

Biden Served His Purpose

I am making a bold prediction here.  I don’t think Biden will be the Democratic Party’s nominee for president in 2020.

I cannot be certain of this, but I think there is a better chance that Biden won’t be the nominee.

Biden had one purpose for the Democratic establishment and the establishment in general. Biden was the tool they used to defeat Bernie Sanders.

If you go back a few months ago, the number one goal of the establishment at that time was to get rid of Bernie.  I think they might have even preferred Trump over Bernie.  While I think the establishment could have largely controlled Bernie, they didn’t want to take that chance.  It wasn’t because of his economics.  We have mostly gotten Bernie economics since March. They feared that he might actually follow through with parts of his foreign policy.  They didn’t want to take that chance.

Now that Bernie is gone, Biden is expendable.  The top goal now is to defeat Trump.  If some other candidate has a better chance at defeating Trump, they will get rid of Biden.

Biden is a train wreck for the Democrats and all of the establishment anti Trumpers.  Biden can’t make a video message from his home without fumbling his words.

I have noticed that the establishment media has not been quite as kind to Biden lately.  The allegations of sexual assault actually did get a little bit of coverage with everything else going on.  They haven’t gone so far as to point out Biden’s seeming senility, and I don’t expect them to, with the exception of Fox News.  But Biden is easily expendable at this point, and he has no choice in the matter.

If Biden is given orders to step down, he probably isn’t going to fight it.  If the media turns heavily on him, it would destroy him.  He doesn’t look good with the media’s protection.  You can just imagine if the media tries to destroy him.

Don’t be surprised if Biden just suddenly steps down one day.  I think it would probably happen before the convention.  It would happen before he officially becomes the nominee.

I have little idea of who would replace him.  It could be Michelle Obama, or Hillary Clinton, or Andrew Cuomo.  I am certain it won’t be Bernie Sanders. It probably won’t be anyone who was running in the 2019/ 2020 race.

Biden will step aside for the good of the party, or at least that is what he will be told to say. Maybe he will say he has some health issues.  It would probably be true.  It wouldn’t be unbelievable at his age.

The Democratic National Committee will make it clear that, although Biden won’t be the nominee, the people made it clear that Bernie should not be the nominee.  There was an obvious preference for someone more mainstream.

This will all have a major impact on the 2020 election.  This is my prediction.  I could be wrong, in which case Trump still has a decent shot at reelection. I think Trump would prefer to go against Biden than almost anyone else.

There is already massive monetary inflation.  The Federal Reserve’s balance sheet continues to increase.  It is now close to $7 trillion.  It’s up about 60% from where it was two months ago.

The bigger question is whether this will translate into massive price inflation for consumer products.  An even bigger question is what we can do to protect ourselves from massive price inflation.

One thing I am absolutely certain of is that real wages are going down.  If nominal wages return to about where they were in February, then I expect overall prices to go up.  Overall prices are going to go higher than wages.  It’s possible that wages will go down while prices will go up.

Price inflation is not uniform.  Some prices will go up more than others.  Some prices will go down.  Some products or brands could become nonexistent.

The harmfulness of price inflation will not be uniform.  While most everyone buys food, everyone’s consumption habits are different.  Some people buy new clothes every month.  Some people are wearing clothes that are five years old.  Some people drive a lot, although this is less so these days.  Some people buy food at restaurants, while others always cook at home.  People are in different stages of life.  Someone who just had a baby is probably buying a lot of diapers.  Someone who just retired may be downsizing in terms of house size.

Even for consumers of food, which is almost everyone, there are varying tastes.  Some people buy a lot of fruits and vegetables. Some people eat a lot of meat. Some people shop for packaged foods that are more processed.  Not all food prices go up equally.  Maybe the price of lobster will go down because it is more of a luxury item. Then again, if people decide to not go to restaurants, maybe lobster will be a nice treat at home and demand will go up.  It’s hard to say.

The key takeaway is that prices are not uniform.  People will be impacted in different ways.  We can see the variations looking just at the latest CPI numbers.  In the month of April, the CPI fell by 0.8%.  The median CPI was up 0.1%.  But according to this CNBC article, grocery prices were up 2.6% just in the month of April.  At this pace, food prices would be doubling every couple of years.

Protecting Wealth and Protecting Income

It is very difficult to protect yourself from the impacts of high price inflation.  In fact, it is virtually impossible.  I would argue that it is easier to protect your wealth from inflation than it is to protect your income.  But most people rely on their income more than their wealth.

I don’t think Jeff Bezos is worried about the impacts of inflation.  Even if prices started to double every year, it would be a rounding error in his bank account.  It could hurt his business, but I don’t think it will have a major impact on his standard of living.

Let’s take an example of someone who makes a middle class salary of $75,000 per year.  This person has $50,000 in savings outside of any retirement accounts and not including home equity.

This person’s main concern is not protecting the $50,000.  The primary concern is the income side.  What happens if his company gives no raise next year but his cost of living goes up by 10%?  This is a significant drop in this person’s standard of living, assuming he was spending most of what he earned.  If the same thing happens again the following year, this will really be significant.  Of course, it will be more significant for those who don’t have a job.

Now take someone who makes $50,000 per year but has $500,000 in financial assets.  He was planning to retire soon.  Hopefully that plan has changed or he has a plan for generating some kind of passive income other than the stock market. This person’s focus should be just as much (or more) on protecting his wealth as compared to his income.

Most Americans would be closer to the first example than the second.  Most people don’t have significant savings, especially outside of retirement accounts and home equity.  The retirement accounts don’t do a lot of good unless you can actually access the money.

If someone is retired and has a million dollars or more, then that person is in seemingly good shape.  Wealth protection is the number one financial priority.  This person can protect against rising prices by investing in inflation hedges. Gold is the most obvious one, but having a diversified portfolio that includes investments tied to hard assets can go a long way to protecting wealth.  But how many people know this?  How many people with a million dollar or more net worth has more than 5% invested in gold or gold-related investments?

Generally speaking, I think people in their prime working years are better off than most right now. They are even better off if they have no debt and substantial savings, but the key part is that they are able to work and able to be productive enough to make a decent salary.

Wages are going to lag behind the rising prices of consumer products.  This means that almost everyone will suffer a decline in living standards.  But at least someone who is 40 years old and productive can keep making income.

I don’t know what retirees will do.  They will get their Social Security checks, which are supposedly adjusted for inflation.  These checks will not keep up with inflation.  People with fixed-income pensions will find that they are able to buy less and less with the money.

Someone on Social Security and a fixed pension can’t catch up to the rising prices.  When you are working and making money, you can ideally eventually catch up to the higher prices with a higher income.

Some people will be better off than others.  More accurately, some people will be less worse off than others.

Most people are going to suffer.  We don’t know how long this will last.  If the Fed keeps creating new money out of thin air to monetize the government’s debt, then this could last a long while.

This is bad news. Most people don’t understand the economics.  Some understand the concept that there is no free lunch.  They intuitively understand that checks from the government are going to have some bad consequences.

Worse, people don’t know how to protect themselves.  In some ways, there isn’t a lot to do except to be productive in your job and hope that your salary is maintained.

A Strategy

There is something that you can do to help a little.  If you have significant wealth, I already mentioned investing in gold and gold-related investments.  I advocate a permanent portfolio, or something similar, which would include a substantial portion (25%) of your investments going towards gold-related investments.

When price inflation is a big threat, the problem is that your money is continually being devalued. It sits in your checking account (or wherever) and it won’t buy as much as the day before.

Therefore, I recommend buying things that you know you will need in the future that can be bought now.  You can’t buy a lot of food for the longer-term future.  Some people have freezers where they store meat and other foods.  But you can only take this so far.

You can buy toilet paper, if you can find it.  You can buy paper towels.  This does take up space, but it may be worth it if you can find an extra closet to load up on goods.

Think through your daily life.  What do you use? This isn’t going to be huge savings, but you can at least buy one or two items ahead on everything if it doesn’t expire quickly.  I am thinking of things like shampoo, laundry detergent, dish soap, razor blades, etc.  These are things you will use.  Do you think any of these items will actually be cheaper in one year than they are today?  I don’t.  Therefore, there isn’t much to lose with this strategy.

A bonus to this strategy is that it is a little bit of preparedness.  We saw in March how quickly shortages of certain items can happen.  Back in January, who would have thought that the toilet paper shelves would be empty?

Now move to some bigger things.  While I don’t recommend paying a lot for a car, I would imagine that there are some good deals out there if you really need something.  If you are any good at negotiating, I have to imagine that you can get a better price on a car in May 2020 than you could have in February 2020.  It is hard to say where car prices will be in 2021.  On the one hand, demand will be way down.  On the other hand, if the raw materials used to make cars go up in price, this could help drive prices higher.  Fewer cars will be produced as sales have obviously declined. So it is hard to say what car prices will be like next year and the following year.

There are other things where I believe prices will eventually go higher.  If you own a house, I’m sure you have things you already wanted to do.  I am not recommending you buy new granite countertops for your kitchen because they will look nice.  This is something you probably just shouldn’t do right now unless you are really well off.

There are things that would be considered as necessities.  If you know you will need a new roof in the near future, maybe you should shop around now to see if you can get a good deal.  If it would cost $15,000 today, maybe it is worth paying the price now instead of waiting until it costs $20,000.

What about your air conditioning unit?  If it is on its last legs, maybe it is better to get a quote now.  If prices will be double in a couple of years, it would be better to replace it now.  Of course, we don’t know that, but it is worth considering.

I don’t think you should force anything.  If what you have works perfectly well and is likely to last for many years to come, then don’t replace it.  But you can often see the writing on the wall with certain things.  You may have an appliance on its last legs. You can shop for deals now. It doesn’t mean you have to buy right now.  Just get a few quotes and make a decision.

The smaller items like dish soap and razor blades are almost a sure thing.  You won’t be wasting money by buying them now.  It is harder with the larger and more expensive things.  However, you can also potentially save many thousands of dollars if we eventually get the significant price inflation that is likely.

Air conditioning units are not likely to go down in demand much.  On the margin, there may be a few people who just decide to get a cheap window unit.  But most people are going to get their central air conditioning unit replaced if they need to.

Again, this isn’t going to fully protect you against the horrible effects of massive price inflation, if it comes.  But you can take action in some areas where it will help alleviate the difficulties.

If you have any suggestions on how to protect against inflation, please comment below or send me an email.

Congressman Justin Amash is running to be the presidential nominee on the Libertarian Party ticket. Amash was originally elected to Congress in 2010 when he was just 30 years old.  He was elected as a Republican, but he has been known as having a libertarian outlook.

In 2019, Amash left the Republican Party and became an independent.  Amash had taken a hard stance against Donald Trump. He would have been the only Republican member of Congress to publicly advocate for the impeachment of Trump, but Amash saw the writing on the wall and left the party.

Amash joined the Libertarian Party (LP) just before announcing his run for the presidency recently.  This practice of joining the LP just before running for president or vice president has not been uncommon in the 21^stcentury.

It is still not clear why Amash took such a hard stand against Donald Trump.  His defenders will say he did it on principle, and I can’t completely discount that possibility.  Many of his critics saw it as an opportunity for him to gain favor with the press, to gain notoriety, and to launch him into his current presidential bid.  I can’t completely discount that possibility either.

There is one thing I do know.  Amash, in taking this opposition to Trump, was essentially siding with the establishment.  You can call it the deep state too, but establishment is accurate enough.

Amash was supposedly against Trump because of Russian collusion.  He was against Trump for supposedly withholding foreign aid to Ukraine in order to get the Ukrainian government to investigate Joe Biden and his son.

If Amash had favored impeachment against Trump for placing sanctions on Iran, that would have been great.  If he had favored impeachment against Trump for continuing the bombing of countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria, that would have been great.

But Amash publicly supported the impeachment of Trump based on the narrative put forth by the deep state and the Democratic hacks in Congress.  Amash sided with Schiff and Pelosi.  He sided with the intelligence agencies (the CIA, FBI, NSA).  He sided with the war hawks.  He sided with the deep state.  He contributed to the stoking of tensions with Russia.

When Amash spoke about Russian collusion (a hoax) and Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian president, he did not sound much different than a typical establishment Democrat in Washington DC.  For this alone, it would be hard for me to ever support this man for president.

If Amash rolls over for the deep state when he is a sitting member of Congress, you can just imagine how easy it will be for him to roll over for the deep state if he were actually president.

Voting Record and Rhetoric

Amash’s voting record has been very good over the years, relatively speaking.  I don’t think he has been nearly as good when compared to Ron Paul’s time in office.  I will certainly concede that if there were more Justin Amashes in Congress, we would probably be better off.

In terms of just looking at voting records and the promotion of liberty, I would certainly put Amash in the top five for members of Congress over the last decade.

From a libertarian standpoint, Amash has been on the wrong side on some issues.  For example, in 2017, Amash voted against an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act to prohibit taxpayer money being used to provide gender transition support to the military.  He could have supported this amendment with a different rationale than his fellow Republicans in Congress.

I can nitpick on his voting record over the last 10 years, and maybe I will look at more of these specific issues at another time.  But you really just have to look at his recent stances on certain issues that should not give a warm and fuzzy feeling to principled libertarians.

Congress just recently rammed through what was perhaps the biggest government domestic spending bill in the country’s history.  It was the over $2 trillion CARES Act, which provided massive company bailouts, crazy unemployment benefits, and checks to nearly every adult American. Thomas Massie was the only member of Congress who publicly questioned this legislation, and he called for a recorded vote.  Massie took a ton of heat for this, including from Trump and his own party.  Where was Amash on this?

Amash can be critical of parts of the bill now that it is over, but he didn’t have Massie’s back when it counted.

In a recent interview with Reason, Amash talked about climate change.  He stated the following:

“And I believe climate change is happening.  I want to be clear about that because you sometimes hear from elected officials and it’s not clear where they stand on that.  I believe there is climate change.  I believe it’s very important.  I believe that humans do affect it, and that we should take action with respect to climate change.  But we have to be smart about the actions we take.  And some of the things we can do, for example, would be to look into further nuclear power, and finding ways to get nuclear power in this country because it is a relatively safe form of production and very low emissions compared to other forms of energy.”

Who does Amash mean when he says “we”?  Is he talking about himself personally, or is he talking about the federal government?  I could say that, we, as a society, need to do more about heart disease.  But I wouldn’t be saying that when running for political office, unless it involved repealing regulations and spending that could actually contribute to heart disease.

Later in the interview, Amash says that the federal government has an important role in remedying discrimination.  Amash talks about the importance of the 14^thAmendment.  I wonder if Amash takes the Gary Johnson position that a baker should be forced to sell a cake, but he doesn’t have to decorate it.

I have seen some of Amash’s appearances on the establishment media, such as his interviews on MSNBC and NBC (Meet the Press).  I am not impressed.  I don’t want Amash being the spokesperson for Libertarians or libertarians.

This is his opportunity to sell the message of liberty.  Instead, we get a bunch of slogans that could be said by most politicians. Amash just has the luxury of throwing in that we don’t need to support the same two parties.

Amash has said that he favors some kind of universal basic income in the wake of the government (state and city) shutdowns.  Meanwhile, he seems to offer no opinion on the lockdowns themselves, even though I would agree that it is not up to the federal government.

But even if you take out all of the things in which I disagree with Amash, he still falls short.  He has an opportunity to attack the state, and he doesn’t take it.  He should be hitting hard against the issue of war and interventionism, and he doesn’t do it.  He should be hitting hard against the intelligence agencies.  He should be hitting hard against the Federal Reserve.  He should be hitting hard against massive government spending that has severely hurt the American middle class.  Yet, Amash has done little of this.  And when he does discuss these things, he doesn’t do it boldly.

At this point, I don’t even know if Amash will be any better than Gary Johnson in terms of promoting a libertarian message.  If Amash is folding over this quickly when he hasn’t even received the LP nomination, what will he be saying three months from now?

I don’t think Amash is Bill Weld, but that isn’t saying much.  However, there is something to be said for the fact that Amash just joined the LP.  He thinks he can just enter the race at this late stage and get the nomination. He may be right, but it doesn’t make it right.  Meanwhile, someone like Jacob Hornberger has been working within the LP and for libertarianism for decades.

I will not support Justin Amash in his bid for the presidency.  I will not vote for him in the general election if he is the LP nominee.  There are too many positions he holds that are contrary to libertarianism.  And for the positions he takes which I believe are correct, he puts no emphasis behind them.  It is not completely unlike Bernie Sanders and his foreign policy views.

In the same way I wouldn’t have trusted Sanders to enact his foreign policy views as president, I have the same concern with Amash.  Even if Amash were to miraculously win the presidency, I don’t believe he could stand up to the deep state effectively.  Amash already sided with the deep state in its attempted coup against Trump.

I will only support a Libertarian Party candidate for president if the person is advancing the cause for liberty.  The LP nominee should use the platform as an educational opportunity. Getting millions of votes means very little unless you are actually converting people towards libertarianism. At this point, I don’t think Amash is a good spokesperson for the libertarian message.

The Federal Reserve’s balance sheet continues to go higher, although at a slower pace than in March and April.  For the last recorded week, it went up by $65 billion.  This is a considerable improvement from my point of view, but it is still going up a lot, and major damage has already been done.

Meanwhile, as the Fed’s balance sheet approaches $7 trillion, stocks are booming again. After a devastating March, stocks have roared back.  The Dow is above 24,000.  The S&P 500 is nearing 3,000.  The Nasdaq is over 9,000.  It wouldn’t take that much for the Nasdaq to reach its all-time high again.

In other words, stock investors have just shrugged off 30 million newly unemployed Americans. They have shrugged off trillions of dollars in new debt.  They have shrugged off the fact that governors and mayors can shut down businesses with the acceptance of a large portion of the population.

Stock investors love monetary inflation from the Fed, and they are getting plenty of it.  I believe that is the main explanation for the partial recovery in stocks.

Here’s one of the problems with that.  The Fed could expand its balance sheet to $20 trillion, but if major companies can’t make a profit, then how can investors justify elevated stock prices?

If we get massive price inflation, then business expenses will go up.  So even though the products being sold might fetch a higher price, it doesn’t mean profits will go up.  It doesn’t mean there will be any profit at all.

What happens to this market when the bankruptcies start?  Can the federal government really bail out every single business?

Even if the large majority of bankruptcies happen with small businesses, the impacts will be widely felt.  Even with that, we know that some large publicly traded companies are going to suffer terribly. There are going to be some bankruptcies.  There will be a select few companies that may actually do better in terms of profitability. Amazon, Walmart, and grocery stores may find they do better, but even here there is no guarantee.

When the lockdowns finally end – assuming they will – not all of these people will be going back to work.  Some will find they don’t have jobs to go back to.  They may enjoy their higher pay from the federal government for a while, but it’s not going to last forever.  Meanwhile, the taxpayers (and holders of U.S. dollars) pay the bills.  It is one giant waste of resources that could have been used for investment and productivity.

I find it hard to believe that this stock rally will last.  There is just no justification for it except Federal Reserve inflation.

At some point, the Fed will have to further slow down or stop its inflation.  It seems like it can just continue forever, just like the national debt, but there are limits.  If the Fed doesn’t back off eventually, then maybe we will see high price inflation.  Either way, the Fed is misallocating resources on a grand scale, and it is making most everyone poorer in the long run.

I think we are still in a major bubble in stocks.  There is going to be massive pain everywhere, and that includes stock investors.  Stocks aren’t just completely immune to the rest of the economy.

If you have doubts, just remember these two key points.

Number one, even the Fed has limits, and it will eventually have to drastically reduce its rate of inflation.

Number two, the Fed’s money creation doesn’t bring back profitability to companies that are on the brink of bankruptcy.  Even with direct bailouts, there are limits as to what can be done.

The other day, I had CNBC on the television without any volume.  I walked by once, and the caption for the segment was “Cities in Crisis”.  I walked by later, and it said, “College Crisis”.  These captions actually cheered me up.  There may be some good things that come out of this.

I am not against all college, but I am against the wastefulness of it.  I am against the politically correct garbage that is taught in most colleges.  I am against the federal government’s backing of student loans.  I am against the Fed’s artificially low interest rates that make these loans even more enticing.

I think we will be seeing a segment called “Stocks in Crisis”.  Maybe they already had that back in March, but we will see it again.  I fully expect stocks to drop below their March lows.  I expect they will go far lower than that.

If I am wrong, then this means the Fed will have gone to even more massive monetary inflation. I don’t think we’ll get hyperinflation, but I can’t be certain about that any longer.  It is amazing what has been done in the last two months.  I don’t know if stock investors would like hyperinflation, but we would have far bigger problems at that point than what is happening with stock prices.  At that point, we will be worrying about whether trucks deliver food to the grocery stores.

A reader of my blog sent me the following email.

********

“I invest in the Permanent Portfolio and have for a few years. I chose it principally because I agree with the Austrian economic philosophy that you cannot predict the future with billions of individuals making billions of daily decisions. So you should have money in all 4 assets to be prepared for most circumstances. 

“However, there is a subset of Libertarians who believe that the total collapse of the US markets, financial system and the dollar is inevitable. I am talking about people like Peter Schiff, Jim Rickards or Jim Rogers. I will admit that as unpredictable as life can be, it is difficult to see how a citizenry with an appetite for “free” stuff combined with a political class willing to give it to them could ever not turn out in disaster.  

“If their prognosticators are correct then physical gold is the only asset you would want to own because if the dollar collapses then every paper asset like Treasuries or US stocks would go under as well. 

“I would love to hear your take on these doomer Libertarians. Are they on to something?  Or [are] they as crazy as mainstream financial pundits paint them?”

********

First, I will address the investment aspect here.  I advocate a permanent portfolio, or at least some kind of modified version of it, for the majority of financial assets for most people.

There may be special circumstances where, say, someone owns a business and it might make more sense to invest money in that business so that it can prosper.  There are also scenarios where maybe someone is young, with no dependents, who wants to take a chance on an investment or business that has a good chance of taking off.

With that said, for most people, I recommend a permanent portfolio approach to invest money that you cannot easily afford to lose.  It is a strategy of wealth protection.  You can still speculate with other money, but I recommend that it be a small percentage of your net worth.

We don’t know if there will be a total collapse of the U.S. markets, the financial system, and the dollar.  While these three things are highly related, they also aren’t the same thing.  You could have a major meltdown in one category without necessarily having a major meltdown in everything else.

I can’t really define “total collapse”, but you could certainly have a scenario where stocks go down by 90% while the dollar remains somewhat stable.  You could have a meltdown in the financial markets where banks are insolvent, yet not see a total collapse of the dollar.  We already saw something similar to this in 2008/ 2009.  The banks were bailed out, but the dollar didn’t collapse.  In fact, we never got anywhere near 10% annual price inflation.

As the reader says, you cannot predict the future with billions of individuals making billions of daily decisions.  So, for investment purposes, it isn’t a question of whether a collapse in these categories is inevitable, but whether it is possible.

I don’t think there is a high likelihood of a total collapse, but I think the odds are higher now than they were two months ago.

The key is that there is a possibility, so that is why the permanent portfolio is important. Diversification is important.

The permanent portfolio is designed to hold up in any economic environment.  Of course, I have to add that there are even exceptions here.  It won’t protect you from an asteroid hitting the planet.  It won’t protect you in a complete breakdown in the division of labor.  But nothing will protect you except living out in the country with a farm, and even that isn’t a sure thing.

We have seen how fragile our system is over the last two months.  There is a shortage of toilet paper.  There is a shortage of certain kinds of food.

Almost all of the population is dependent on our high division of labor society.  We depend on trucks delivering goods to the grocery stores.  If this doesn’t happen, even a lot of the preppers will be in major trouble after a few months.  We depend on electricity and running water.

I am talking about worst-case scenarios here.

From an investment standpoint, there are other risks to the permanent portfolio.  If the government declares an outright default on all of its debt, then there goes the bond portion.  If the government declares that holding gold is illegal, then your gold portion is in major trouble.

And while it’s good to consider all of the possibilities, we can’t be completely immobilized due to fear.  There is a very low probability that the U.S. government will outright default on all of its debt. It is unlikely that gold will be made illegal.  We are in a different situation than in 1933 when the dollar was still tied to gold.

So I think that the permanent portfolio is the best that I can come up with in terms of wealth protection.  This includes a collapse of the financial markets and the dollar.

Inevitability

There were three people mentioned in the email.  They are Peter Schiff, Jim Rickards, and Jim Rogers.  I am most familiar with Schiff out of these three.

By the way, I wouldn’t refer to them as Libertarians (large L), as I don’t think they are members of the Libertarian Party.  I am not even sure if they consider themselves small L libertarians. All three are definitely sympathetic to the free market though.

I don’t know if any of them have actually used the terms “inevitable” and “total collapse” together.  They are certainly known for their doom and gloom outlooks.

I have to say that there is little in this world that is inevitable, especially when it comes to economics and politics.  Things can change quickly.  How many people saw the coming downfall of the Soviet Union in 1991 five years before?  How many people saw it one year before, even with the fall of the Berlin Wall?

How many people predicted the election of Donald Trump in 2016?  There were a few, but not many.

With all of the lockdowns across the country in response to a virus, how do we know how many people have withdrawn their consent to the state?  If there are a lot more than we know, then it could change things significantly down the road.

We also don’t know what will happen economically.  State and local governments are going to run out of money.  They probably won’t be able to keep promises that were made, especially in regard to generous pensions.  If there are defaults across the country, we may see a radical shift in public opinion.  At the very least, some people will not be so trusting of the government next time.

We may hit a scenario where price inflation does start to go up by 10% or more per year.  The Fed may be faced with a choice of hyperinflation or a pullback.  When the Fed is essentially forced to stop creating money and buying up U.S. government debt, then Congress will be forced to drastically reduce spending. It will be forced to modify its previous promises, especially to retirees.

It’s possible that the dollar could collapse, but it isn’t likely.  We aren’t Venezuela, and I don’t think we are going to become Venezuela.  There are much deeper roots for liberty in the United States.  I don’t think the middle class will give everything up that easily.

The dollar may lose its status as the world’s reserve currency.  But there won’t be a defining moment when this happens. It is already gradually happening. When the Chinese or Russians trade without using U.S. dollars, this is part of the process.  With the low price of oil, countries like Saudi Arabia become less significant.  Countries don’t really need to use dollars to trade for oil.

If price inflation hits double digits, I think this will provide enough vindication for Peter Schiff and others without having a complete collapse of the dollar. While the popularity of gold has certainly increased over the last two months, most people are not talking about double-digit price inflation across the board.  But I think this is a good possibility in the next few years. It’s also possible that the fear will cancel out the massive monetary inflation and general prices won’t go up significantly.  Again, this is why it is important to diversify.  Nobody really knows.

If we get double-digit price inflation similar to the 1970s without a collapse of the dollar, I think this will be good enough to point a finger at the Fed.  I have already been pointing a finger at the Fed for many years, but most people don’t pay attention because they don’t see the impact it has on them.  If prices are rising quickly, then they may be more prone to notice.

In conclusion, I don’t think anything is inevitable at this point in U.S. markets.  I don’t think the dollar has to collapse. However, we should prepare for these types of scenarios, which is why gold is a major component of the permanent portfolio.

The Federal Reserve’s balance sheet went up “only” $82.8 billion in the last reported week.  This would have been considered unprecedented two months ago. But after seeing the balance sheet going up over $500 billion per week a couple of times, $82 billion seems mild.

For context, the balance sheet did jump extraordinarily after the financial crisis hit in late 2008, although never at $500 billion per week.  During QE3 that lasted until 2014, the Fed was certainly not creating anything close to $82 billion per week.

Here is the FOMC statement from September 2013.  It says the Fed will continue to buy $40 billion per month in mortgage-backed securities and $45 billion per month in Treasury securities.  So the Fed was creating $95 billion per month. Compare this to the recent $82 billion in one week, which was a great improvement from previous weeks.

Better yet, compare that to the past two months where the Fed has increased its balance sheet by well over $2 trillion.

In other words, the Fed has been massively inflating for the last two months.  But the rate of creating money out of thin air has decelerated now.  The balance sheet is still going up significantly, but at a slower pace than before.  I expect this will continue for a little while.

Meanwhile, I can speak anecdotally about food prices.  I know there has been talk of a meat shortage, so maybe this is not a fair example.  But it is still a valid example of how we are already paying higher prices for certain things.

I went to the grocery store the other day.  I bought some chicken.  The store was limiting purchases of chicken to two items.  So this already indicates a shortage.  But on top of this, prices had gone up significantly.  I can’t give an exact percentage because prices are based on weight.  I don’t typically look at how much it is per pound.  However, based on my experience, I am guessing the price went up by about 50% as compared to a couple of weeks ago.

So there is temporary hyperinflation in chicken.  I consider a 50% increase in prices in less than two weeks to be hyperinflation. If general prices were behaving in this manner, it would be hyperinflation.

I hope the rise in price is temporary, or that at least it will stop going up for a while.  It is a supply and demand issue.  More people are buying at grocery stores instead of eating at restaurants.  Due to regulations (of course) and the difficulty in switching where production goes, supplies at the grocery store are not meeting the new increased demand. There is also a question of whether supplies will be maintained, as some food producers have had temporary (hopefully) closures.

It makes sense that prices would rise.  I would prefer to have the option of paying a higher price than not having it available at all.

Monetary Impacts on Prices

Still, at what point does this also become a monetary phenomenon?  There are more dollars chasing the goods and services in existence.  If anything, there are fewer goods and services in existence.

It is difficult to say if we will have imminent price inflation.  There is a lot of fear out there, and I think this fear will continue.  It means people will tend to buy fewer things.  This is deflationary.

On the other hand, the government is spending money like crazy, and it is all coming from debt monetization by the Fed.  The only way the federal government is able to run a massive deficit is because the Fed is willing and able to buy that debt.  It buys the debt by creating money (mostly digital) out of thin air.

People are getting their $1,200 (or however much) stimulus checks.  Unemployed people are starting to get their “benefits”, which includes $600 per week from the federal government.

Imagine someone working as a hair stylist.  You don’t spend money on a hair stylist because you are not allowed to (per the government).  Therefore, you have some extra money from not going to the hair stylist.  But the hair stylist is still getting income in the form of government payments.  Maybe this replaces what you and other customers would have paid.

So you and other customers have extra money from not going to the hair stylist this month.  The hair stylist has income from the government (maybe more than before).  The extra $600 per week came courtesy of the federal government, which is really courtesy of the Fed.  So there is no question that there is extra money floating around out there.

I don’t think there is any question that at least some prices are going to go significantly higher.  Real wages are going down, and they will probably stay well below where they were in February for a long time to come.

Life is going to get even more expensive.  The lockdowns certainly didn’t help.  But even when the lockdowns are over (hopefully at some point), there will have been great damage done by the reckless spending and monetary inflation.

This will have to proliferate in the form of lower real wages.  There is no free lunch.  I don’t know if nominal wages will stay down or if the inflationary pressures will push them up.  Either way, life will be more expensive.  If nominal wages go up, prices for goods and services will go up that much more.

I expect the changes in price levels will vary greatly depending on the product or service. Food prices are going to continue to go higher.  Everyone has to eat, so it is hard to reduce demand much in this category. Maybe some will eat more inexpensive foods than before, but the overall demand will still be there.

I expect most asset prices to decline.  I am less clear on real estate.  I think real estate prices will most certainly decline in the short term. If people expect high price inflation, then some may move back into real estate as a form of wealth protection.

Again, I don’t know how this whole thing will play out, but I am certain that real wages will go down.  I expect that price inflation will rise significantly at least in certain sectors.  It may take a little time to play out.

The name of the game right now is income preservation and wealth preservation.  A few people may come out of this whole thing ahead, but it will be a small fraction of the population.