The latest Consumer Price Index (CPI) numbers were released this week. The CPI rose 0.5% in January 2023 from the previous month, which was a little higher than expected. The year-over-year CPI now stands at 6.4%.

The more stable median CPI rose 0.7% in January from the previous month, while the year-over-year median CPI stands at 7.1%. This is the highest year-over-year rate in the median CPI that we’ve seen in this era of higher price inflation.

To use the jargon of the financial media and so-called experts, it seems that inflation “remains elevated”, but that it is “cooling” a bit.

The most important point here is that prices continue to go higher. Even if the CPI numbers are slowly coming down from previous months, prices are still rising. They are just rising at a slightly slower pace.

We aren’t ever going back to the prices that existed a few years ago for most goods and services. Houses and stocks, which are the face of the asset bubble, are perhaps the exception.

But the price of eggs isn’t going back to where it was two years ago. It probably isn’t going back to six months ago either.

Even the 0.5% that came in for January is significant. That means that something that cost $100 in December cost 50 cents more in January. Maybe that doesn’t seem like much, but it is a lot when it compounds each month.

Standard of Living

Prices going up at 6% per year is quite significant. If you get a 6% raise at your job (most people aren’t), you will pay more in income and payroll taxes, so you still aren’t even breaking even.

In our world today, the general trend is that you are supposed to be getting better off as time goes on. It may happen slowly, but it compounds over time. Each generation should have a higher standard of living than the last.

We are much better off today in terms of technology. We have smartphones that didn’t exist a generation ago.

Unfortunately, the cost of living for basic necessities hasn’t gotten much better. It may actually be worse, especially when you consider the costs for housing and medical care.

I think it is a secret within middle class America right now that the struggles are real. We can read statistics about jobs, wages, disposable income, and everything else. The bottom line is that it is difficult for many middle-income people to pay their bills. Even for those making a higher-than-average income, times are tighter than they have been in the recent past.

It is tough for people to save money and still be able to afford some luxuries like traveling or eating out.

This isn’t to say that you can’t make it these days on a middle-class income. It’s just that it isn’t so easy. Times are a lot tougher than they need to be. But we have to fund vaccine ads and weapons of war for Ukraine.

When Will Relief Come?

The Federal Reserve has adopted a tight monetary stance over the last year. The balance sheet is slowly declining, and interest rates have gone up from where they were.

The yield curve is still highly inverted, which means a recession is coming if history is any guide.

If we hit a deep recession and the Fed doesn’t respond with creating new money out of thin air, then price inflation really will cool. We may actually see prices stop going up for a while.

Of course, the Fed probably will respond at some point, especially if there are problems with the big banks or the bond market. But the Fed likely won’t go crazy again with its monetary inflation unless price inflation really has cooled down to somewhere around its supposed 2% target.

Middle class America actually needs a recession. It won’t be fun, but it is the only solution for the longer run. The average American is getting hammered with higher prices. Wages aren’t keeping up with the rising prices, which can only mean a decline in living standards.

We need a correction from the malinvestment. We need a reallocation of resources towards things that are actually in market demand.

The problem with the correction/ resource reallocation is that it is disruptive. It can lead to unemployment. It is a hard time, but it is a consequence of previous bad policy of monetary inflation and government spending.

If the Fed is forced to keep a relatively tight policy, it might actually force Congress to reduce spending, or at least stop increasing it so much. It doesn’t seem like there is anything stopping the federal government from spending like crazy. But even here, there are limits.

The Fed had it easy for the first 20 years or so of this century. The Fed created new money like crazy from 2008 to 2014, but there were no direct consequences in the form of high consumer price inflation (comparatively speaking). Now the Fed has to deal with higher price inflation and interest rates that are now way above zero.

The American people need a period of tight money and reduced government spending and intervention. Only then will we see a return to real prosperity that is sustainable.

Ridicule is a powerful weapon if used correctly. We underestimate the influence of peer pressure in our world. And almost nobody likes to be ridiculed and suffer public humiliation.

The story of the emperor not wearing clothes is a good example of where arguing is pointless. The little boy doesn’t start explaining to people the merits of wearing clothes. He just points out the obvious, that the emperor has no clothes.

This came to mind when the evil Joe Biden gave his State of the Union address.

I confess I didn’t watch the speech, but I did see some highlights. Apparently some Republicans were heckling Biden and not exactly being polite. Of course, the conduct at the State of the Union speeches has deteriorated in more recent years. Remember Nancy Pelosi tore up Trump’s speech while sitting behind him.

I can see libertarians arguing either way on this one. I’m not sure that being rude is an effective way to sell your message or to shut down someone else. At the same time, I realize that the office of the presidency shouldn’t get the respect it does (or did in the past).

There was one particular moment in the speech that I liked though. Joe Biden was talking about the oil companies. He said, “When I talk to a couple of them, they say we’re afraid you’re going to shut down all the oil wells and all the oil refineries anyway. So why should we invest in them. I say we’re going to need oil for at least another decade.”

That’s when many Republicans attending the speech started laughing. Biden then said, “and beyond that”. It is actually amazing that his speech writers were that stupid to write that part of the speech. I’m guessing Biden added the last part when people started laughing at him.

I thought it was a great moment. There was no more powerful expression at that time than laughter. Biden expects oil companies to invest tens of millions of dollars in new refineries when he is threatening to shut them down.

And even if they were allowed to continue uninterrrupted for the next 10 years, that isn’t very long when you are talking about such capital-intensive projects. The laughter just pointed out the absurdity of it all, in case anyone missed it.

A Libertarian Lesson

Sometimes libertarians just want to debate or argue. This is not typically effective in winning people over. It isn’t even that effective for an audience watching a debate.

Imagine you see someone outside wearing a mask and the person starts talking to you and wondering why you aren’t wearing a mask. And for this example, it doesn’t even matter if you know the person or not.

You want to stand your ground and convince this person that wearing a mask, especially outside in the sun, is stupid and ineffective at best.

So you have two options. One, you can start talking about some studies you’ve read on the effectiveness of masking and how many experts actually believe that masks don’t help in stopping the spread of a virus.

Two, you can just start laughing at the person. “You are wearing a mask outside in the sun. Do you know how ridiculous you look? Yeah, I’m sure everyone outside today not wearing a mask will be showing up in the hospital in a matter of days. Ha ha.”

Imagine having a group of ten people playing basketball and some guy in a mask shows up to play. Talking about studies on the ineffectiveness of masking probably isn’t going to convince the guy to take it off.

You know what will convince him? When the guys start making comments ridiculing him for it. “Hey mask man, are you going to be able to play defense, or are you afraid to get too close to anyone? Or are you just covering up your ugly face?”

I really prefer not to be rude in almost any situation, but I don’t feel bad about being rude to people who are trying to use force to ruin other people’s lives.

So if anyone can mock Biden, I am all for it. But it should be done in a way that sells to other people. The laughter at that one comment at that one moment in his speech was extremely effective. It was better than anything anyone could have said to counter argue the issue.

We need facts, history, and logical arguments to form a good basis for our libertarian principles. Sometimes for your Facebook friends, a funny meme is far more effective than any other argument you could put together.

I have been reading some of Caitlin Johnstone’s articles reprinted on LewRockwell.com. Johnstone comes from the political left, but she is very good on issues of war and civil liberties. She is incredible at poking through the establishment’s false narratives and propaganda.

When you read her material, you have to deal with the occasional throwaway line criticizing capitalism or hyping up so-called climate change.

Overall, I like her writing, and I think most libertarians will enjoy her writing. She focuses on the areas where she tends to be really good. She goes against Murray Rothbard’s dictum that most people tend to specialize in the areas where they are the worst.

There is one interesting thing I caught in her byline. Johnstone writes, “Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.”

When it comes to articles, I generally think it is good when authors grant permission to republish material. This is especially true when you are trying to spread the truth. If you want to get your message out, why not let people assist in spreading your message?

The interesting part is where she excludes “racist platforms”. I don’t really know her definition of racist, so I guess it is up to each person or organization to decide for themselves.

The Definition of Racist

Racism is the belief that one race is superior over another. A racist is one who advocates such beliefs.

There are other definitions of racism that could be used, but in today’s world, it is almost anything goes.

Some people define a racist as anyone who is white.

Some people would call others racist because they don’t believe in affirmative action. They might call someone racist because they don’t want open immigration. There are even some who would call others racist because they don’t support Obamacare.

So you can see where this becomes a bit of a problem. Racist almost doesn’t mean anything anymore because it is used so loosely. If you just happen to disagree with anyone on any issue, you might be a racist.

Why Exclude Racists?

Still, for the sake of argument here, let’s say that it was easier to identify and label people as racists. Why does Caitlin Johnstone only want to exclude racists from republishing her works?

Johnstone spends much of her time writing about blood-thirsty war hawks who have little regard for innocent human life. Are these people allowed to republish her work?

Maybe the thought is that someone with a pro war platform won’t republish her work. Or if they do, even if it is to criticize her, they are putting her work out there for the readers of the platform. So maybe some pro war person reading the site will read Johnstone’s work and start to rethink some of his positions.

But then couldn’t the same thing be said about a racist platform? If someone spouting off racist things republishes Johnstone’s work, maybe someone who is kind of racist who is reading the site will see her words and start to rethink his worldview.

Or maybe some racists will continue to be racist but oppose war after seeing one of her articles.

So if she wants to spread her message, wouldn’t it be better to allow anyone to republish her work, including racists?

Who is Worse?

If Johnstone simply doesn’t want bad people republishing her work, then why is she just mentioning racists? What about murderers? And what about the people who promote the wars that she correctly opposes?

In today’s world of cancel culture, I have heard people point out that you would be better off committing a crime than saying something politically incorrect.

You can commit a crime and serve your time and somehow get yourself back into society. If you say something politically incorrect and you don’t already have a large audience who doesn’t care, then it seems that you may pay the price forever.

For some, it is easier to serve jail time and recover than to say something politically incorrect that the “woke mob” doesn’t like.

Is Johnstone just trying to be politically correct (in this one instance) by mentioning racists? I’m hoping she just hasn’t thought it through.

Someone who is racist doesn’t necessarily advocate violence. You can have a racist who simply doesn’t want to be around someone of another race or around a group of people with a particular characteristic.

Does Johnstone consider being a racist the worst possible thing? She has been writing frequently lately about the risk of nuclear war with Russia and how irresponsible these people are who casually inflame tensions with Russia.

Is it worse to be a racist than someone who is promoting nuclear war and a possible end to the human race? I think the question answers itself.

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) released its latest statement on monetary policy. As was widely expected, the Federal Reserve is hiking its target range for the federal funds rate by 25 basis points (0.25%).

This was exactly what the financial media and investors were expecting. The only questions that really remained were the words to be spoken by Jerome Powell and any changes in expectations for future rate hikes.

There were slight changes from the previous statement. For example, in the previous statement, it said, “In determining the pace of future increases in the target range…”. In the latest statement, it says, “In determining the extent of future increases in the target range…”.

So the word “pace” was replaced with the word “extent”. This one word difference implies that instead of worrying about how much rates will increase each meeting, it is more a question of how long the rate increases keep happening.

This was a slightly “dovish” sign from the Fed, and investors seemed to like the signal that maybe the Fed won’t be quite as tight in the future. Stocks were mostly up, and gold also went higher for the day.

The Implementation Note with the statement was as expected. The amount paid on bank reserves went up (this is how the Fed controls its target rate now), and the roll off of assets will continue at a pace of $95 billion per month.

The Fed’s rate is now above most of the yield curve, which is the first in a long while. But real (inflation-adjusted) rates are still incredibly low. They just aren’t negative any longer.

Powell’s speech seemed rather conventional as usual. He said that it would be premature to declare a victory over inflation and that there could still be more rate hikes ahead to bring down inflation. Of course, the price inflation being referenced was caused by the Fed’s reckless monetary policy in the first place.

Does the Fed Ever Deviate from Expectations?

One thing I’ve noticed is that the Fed always falls in line with market expectations. But it’s not like these market expectations are coming from the Fed.

It’s not like the Fed announces what it is likely to do at the next meeting. Powell doesn’t say, “Expect another 25 basis point hike at the next meeting.” That never happens.

So it is the financial media and the “expert” economists who seem to set the expectations. They interpret words the way they want, and then say that we should expect this or that at the next meeting.

I can’t remember ever when the Fed has surprised everyone and done something drastically different that what “the market expected”.

There may have been times where there was some debate within the financial media. “Will the Fed hike 50 points or 75 points?” So maybe it isn’t always known precisely what will happen. But going into this latest meeting, it was quite clear that we would see a 25 basis point hike in line with market expectations.

It makes you wonder if the Fed is actually making any decisions other than making up the wording for its justifications to meet market expectations.

It’s kind of like how the president doesn’t really make many decisions. I’m not just talking about the current zombie who is told what to do and say. I mean that every president seems to be handed an agenda, and they have to work within the limits of what is allowed. Perhaps this is why Trump was so hated by the establishment. He occasionally went off script and said his own thing.

Is the establishment blob dictating monetary policy too? It isn’t any one person. It is just the establishment, which admittedly is hard to define. It is made up of those who have power and have an interest in maintaining the status quo to the greatest degree possible to enable wealth and power to continue to flow to them.

I really don’t think Jerome Powell is making any big decisions. He is following the lead of “market expectations”, which is really the financial establishment. Powell just has to make sure he does a good job of communicating his “actions”.

Economic Outlook

The powers-that-be really are worried about price inflation and a declining dollar. They realize that they still want the dollar to be king of the world in terms of currencies. So they are willing to risk a deep recession to make sure that the dollar reigns supreme.

The yield curve is still highly inverted. Short-term rates are generally higher than long-term rates. This is a signal of a hard recession coming.

In the face of this, the Fed continues to hike rates and slowly drain its balance sheet. We are going to get a recession good and hard.

The Fed will not reverse course until price inflation is way down or until the bond market or major financial institutions need bailing out. They will let a deep recession happen. They will allow stocks to fall a lot more than they already have.

The totalitarian United States of America, under the evil and pathetic Joe Biden, still won’t allow foreigners to enter the country if they have not been jabbed with a COVID “vaccine”.

Novak Djokovic has lost many millions of dollars due to this policy. He has not been allowed to enter the U.S. due to his non-vaccinated status, which means he can’t play in tennis tournaments in the U.S.

While it has cost him a lot of money, that probably isn’t what matters most in terms of missing tournaments. Djokovic is trying to win the most number of major tournaments ever for a man. He wasn’t allowed to play in the Australian Open or the U.S. Open last year, and if U.S. policy stays the same, he won’t be able to play at the U.S. Open this year.

Djokovic was allowed to play in the 2023 Australian Open, and he handily won the tournament on the men’s side. He is now tied with the vaccine enthusiast, Rafael Nadal, who was able to win last year when Djokovic wasn’t there.

Defying the Rulers

It was a bit entertaining watching Djokovic win the Australian Open and then watching the so-called media have to deal with it.

John McEnroe, to his credit, addressed the situation and said that he should have been permitted to play, while his fellow commentator Chris Fowler said that Djokovic “made choices” that led to this situation.

Yeah, he had a choice to obey the state and the ruling elite and inject something into his body that he assessed as potentially harmful. He chose not to obey the totalitarians.

Djokovic hasn’t always been likable for some, and he has lost his temper in the past on the tennis court. But it is easy to imagine that every tennis fan (and many people who don’t follow tennis) who were criticized for not being vaccinated feel good about this one.

A Victory for Djokovic and the Non-Vaccinated

After his win, Djokovic didn’t directly talk about the COVID “vaccines”. He didn’t need to. He hasn’t been going around telling people not to get vaccinated. He wanted the freedom to choose. He wanted to make his own health decisions. He was deported from Australia last year before the tournament, even though he thought he had received the proper permission to enter the country and play.

One year later, he stood on Australian soil and was declared the champion. He was incredibly thankful and gracious. He acknowledged that he had been through a lot. His words were perfect. He didn’t need to preach about the unsafe and ineffective shots. His words and actions spoke for themselves, and people understood his position. He took a stand and stuck to it.

This was one more thing that will continue to help shatter the narrative. How incredibly embarrassing will it be for Biden and company if he is not allowed in the U.S. later this year to play when just about everyone has moved on from COVID and COVID hysteria?

Despite not being able to play in many tournaments in 2022, I hope that Djokovic gets his record for the most major wins. He can do it with his head held high, knowing he didn’t sell out. He stood strong against the critics, and we need more of that.

Although I was heavily influenced by Harry Browne in terms of political thought and investing, I also read his book How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World. You could call it a self-help book. It pointed out the many traps that people put themselves in and the ways to escape them.

I enjoyed the book when I read it (probably almost 2 decades ago), and it was interesting to see where he changed his views on certain things from when he first wrote the book. Overall, the book points out the many choices we have to make in life, and sometimes that is a choice of not falling into conventional wisdom or accepting cultural norms.

I remember in his discussion of going around government interventions, he was surprised decades later how intrusive government had become and how difficult it was to get around many government taxes and regulations.

It is important to not box ourselves in. It is important to not fall into false choices, or to think we have no choice at all in certain matters. Sometimes it is a matter of choosing the least bad option.

Over the last year, I have seen countless times people describe how they were forced into getting the COVID “vaccine”. There certainly were (and still are) elements of government force. The government was telling employers that they had to have their employees vaccinated. They were (and still are) restricting certain people from traveling.

There was never a time that the government actually went to anybody’s house (that I know of) and pinned them down and put a needle in their arm. Sure, the government was using its preferred method of violence in threatening people, but nobody was technically forced to get jabbed.

Even Elon Musk recently was complaining about the COVID shots, and he said that he had to take the injections because of his business dealings overseas. But the guy is a billionaire. He didn’t have to get jabbed. He could have not visited his Tesla factory overseas. He had a number of options, even if none of them were particularly good.

If someone had to choose between their job and getting jabbed, it was a terribly unfortunate choice, and it was probably directly put on the person by government force. Again, it’s a bad choice that shouldn’t have to be made, but it is still a choice.

Harry Browne on Rights

I remember a radio show Harry Browne did one time where a caller asked him about his thoughts on rights. I wish I could find the clip. It was a quite interesting response. I can only paraphrase based on my memory.

Browne said he certainly sympathized with those who argue based on rights. Those people are generally fighting for the same thing, which is liberty. “I have the right to own a gun. I have the right to free speech. I have the right to my property.”

The problem is that rights only extend as far as others are willing to recognize them. Browne used an example. Maybe it was Iraq or some other war-torn country at the time. He said that it doesn’t do much good for some kid born in Iraq (or wherever) to say that he has natural rights.

You can tell someone they have natural or God-given rights, but it really does them no good if others around them don’t recognize those rights. It won’t get you very far.

I can say I have the right to my property, but if I deliberately don’t pay my taxes, I am likely to go to jail.

I can say that I have a right to freely associate with any other person or business, but it doesn’t do me much good if the state is making threats against others with whom I want to associate. At the very least, it severely limits my choices.

Imagine living in primitive times. Imagine that there was absolutely no respect for people’s lives or their property. I’m sure this is a false assumption, as there has always been human cooperation to some degree since humans have existed, but just go with me here.

Let’s say you build a shelter and catch some food. Some other guy comes along and tries to take your food and take over your shelter. Are you going to sit there and declare that you have a right to your property? It doesn’t do you much good.

Meaningless Freedom Chants

I read this or hear this from many people in the liberty camp. I hear that you just have to choose your own freedom. They falsely say that if you ignore the state, then the state doesn’t exist.

This is different from Harry’s Browne’s message in his book and elsewhere. Browne wanted you to live in reality. He just pointed out that you had choices. You had the freedom to make your own decisions, even if those decisions were bad because of state interference.

It is also different from Étienne de La Boétie, who, many hundreds of years ago, wrote about withdrawing consent. He said that if people withdraw their consent, then the state’s power collapses. But this was collectively speaking. If you, just one person, withdraw your consent, it doesn’t mean that the state collapses and Joe Biden’s proclamations no longer mean anything.

It is rather stupid to say that you just have to not obey the state and they will go away. This may be collectively true, but it does no good for any one individual.

You can try to just ignore the state, but you will pay a heavy price. Eventually, that price will be your entire livelihood.

It is also a stupid message in trying to sell liberty because it is obvious to most people. It doesn’t convince any non-libertarians of being more libertarian because they know that it is not true. They cannot just ignore all state edicts. They can’t just not obey when they feel like it.

It is beneficial to point out the use of state violence wherever it is happening (which is almost everywhere). But to say that you should just ignore it and choose your own freedom is naive at best. It is also hypocritical because anyone writing these words does not follow their own advice. If they did, they would be dead or in jail.

Conclusion

It is important to distinguish between have choices and having liberty. You can have your liberty restricted but still have choices.

In places like the Soviet Union, some people did make the choice to die because it seemed like the least bad choice. It is a choice to die instead of living as a slave.

But let’s be clear that your rights only go as far as those around you are willing to recognize. If nobody around you values liberty, then you will not have liberty.

The only way for us to have long-term liberty is to convince those around us that it is the moral thing to do, and that human cooperation provides for the greatest prosperity and happiness. Most people aren’t going to enjoy a world filled with violence or violent threats. Most people value liberty at least to some extent.

2022 was not a good year for stock investors, or at least for long-term, buy-and-hold investors.

If you are a day trader, you can make money or lose money in virtually any environment. If you trade individual stocks, there is always money to be made (or lost). And you always have the option of shorting stocks as well.

But for the typical buy-and-hold investor who purchases broad-based index funds on the assumption that the stock market always goes up in the long run, 2022 was not a good year.

The technology sector was the hardest hit. The Nasdaq lost about 33% in 2022, which is a massive loss.

Not to get too nerdy with math here, but it is important to realize that you don’t need a 33% gain to offset the 33% loss. You need a 50% gain from here. If you go from 100 to 66.66 (33% loss), you need an approximate gain of 33.33 to go back to 100, which would be a 50% gain from your new base.

Since the Nasdaq was down so much in 2022, some people say it is a great time to buy. After all, it is better to buy when stocks are down.

It is true that it is a great time to buy in early 2023 compared to what it was in early 2022. You get far more shares of stock or index funds for the same price. But just because it is a great time to buy now relative to a year ago, it doesn’t mean it is a great time to buy if stocks could fall more.

The Previous Tech Bubble

History does not repeat, but it can rhyme. So let’s review the tech bubble that happened in the late 1990s and came crashing down in the early 2000s. It’s not to say that today’s market will follow this, but only to show what is possible.

Wikipedia shows the Nasdaq’s performance from 2000 to 2002.

• In 2000, the Nasdaq lost 39.28% of its value (4,069.31 to 2,470.52).
• In 2001, the Nasdaq lost 21.05% of its value (2,470.52 to 1,950.40).
• In 2002, the Nasdaq lost 31.53% of its value (1,950.40 to 1,335.51).

This means, if we were to follow a similar trajectory today, we would be somewhere around the end of 2000, with 2 years of losses still to come.

It is even worse than this if you look at the absolute peak of the Nasdaq, which very briefly went over the 5,000 mark in March 2000.

It is also interesting to note that the recession of 2001 was not considered a severe recession. The financial crisis of 2008/ 2009 is considered to be much worse. After the attacks on 9/11/2001, the Fed injected new money out of thin air, yet stocks continued to fall for another year after that.

Today, we have a highly inverted yield curve, and the Fed is battling the inflation that it created by raising its target interest rate and slowly draining its balance sheet. The recession we have coming will likely be far more severe than what happened in 2001.

The Fed Won’t Save the Stock Market

Some people think the Fed will just reverse course when needed. This may be true. But the Fed will reverse course if there is a major problem in the bond market or if any major financial institutions are facing bankruptcy.

The Fed isn’t going to intervene to save the stock market. The Fed will save the dollar before saving the stock market.

Plus, as written above, the return to a loose monetary policy in 2001 did not stop stocks from falling. They kept going down for another year after 9/11.

So if you think the bear market in stocks is over and it is a good time to buy at these new lows, you may want to think again. We may be only at the beginning of a major bear market in stocks.

Consider that the Nasdaq is still about 11,000 right now. It hit 10,000 in 2020 when we were likely already in a massive bubble. The Nasdaq bubble in the year 2000 hit the peak just above 5,000. We are more than double that number now. Of course, the money supply has gone up a lot since then, but it puts it in perspective.

People who have mapped out their retirement on the basis of buy-and-hold index funds, with the assumption of 8% or more annual returns, are going to be in for a rude awakening if that hasn’t happened already. In addition, they have to deal with higher consumer price inflation than was expected.

People who are not libertarians (or libertarian leaning) probably see most libertarians as pessimistic people.

I don’t like telling people that there will probably be a recession in 2023, but it is just based on the facts on the ground.

I don’t like telling people that they are getting ripped off by their own government (as if this is a secret). We are getting ripped off far greater than most people can fathom. I point it out in the hopes that more people will stop consenting to those who are abusing them.

Because I point these things out, it is easy for others to look at me as being a pessimist. I don’t think it is being pessimistic to point out truths around you, but I understand I am attempting to shatter people’s view of the world. Sometimes ignorance really is bliss, although I don’t think that was as much the case in 2020 until now with COVID hysteria.

If I were to always point out the bad situations, then it is understandable that others would look at me as a pessimist. I don’t want to ruin the party when everyone else is having fun.

There are some people with whom I just won’t discuss politics. I know better. I know they won’t be receptive. So as long as they are not challenging me, I leave them alone.

But even for those who may be receptive, there is a time and a place. It isn’t always easy to get those things right either. There have been times that I pushed too hard on a political issue that I regretted. Of course, there are also appropriate and not appropriate times to bring up a host of other issues that aren’t political as well.

The True Libertarian Pessimists

For some reason, I have become more annoyed by the libertarians who just can’t see anything good in the world. They see nothing to be optimistic about. They are just downers all the time.

Even if the political system is totally corrupt and irredeemable, it doesn’t mean we should live miserable lives all the time. There are many aspects of life to enjoy, even with the presence of a massive state. There is family, music, art, sports, and just the company of others.

I also get tired of libertarians who just constantly think everything is getting worse. And they are so skeptical that they talk themselves out of anything that should be seen as positive.

For example, some libertarians dismissed the political drama of Congress choosing a Speaker of the House. It really was mostly political drama, and who knows if it will make any difference. But there were a few Republicans in Congress who were tired of the establishment and pushed back a little. These people aren’t perfect, and maybe they partially did it for their own political reasons. But why should we just completely dismiss any pushback against the establishment?

We may get more investigations of the intelligence agencies because of this. We may get more investigations into COVID and the lockdowns and mandates. Maybe nothing will come of these committees and hearings, but at least there is more light being shed, which is better than before.

I hear the same thing with voting in general. Some libertarians will say that they don’t want to endorse the corrupt system, so they don’t vote. They may also say that it would make no difference anyway because they are all corrupt, as if every person running for office is exactly the same.

The reason for not voting often changes, but most of the time it comes back to pessimism. Some libertarians won’t vote at all because everyone is corrupt and there is no hope in changing anything.

But change can and does happen, even for the better. It is also important to acknowledge how much worse things could be. While the U.S. maintains some of the most draconian vaccine mandates (non-American residents/ citizens cannot enter the country without proof of “vaccination” against COVID), the U.S. has been far better off with other COVID policies compared to other major countries.

It was Americans who led the world away from COVID hysteria by opening things back up. Are these libertarian pessimists going to say that it doesn’t matter at all who is elected when Florida was opened up by the end of 2020 while most other states had major restrictions still in place?

In 2021, we started to see sporting events again with packed stadiums. It made it impossible for the hysterics to continue with draconian lockdowns.

There is a saying, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

I think it is sometimes used as an excuse to support bad things. At the same time, there is an element of truth to it. I can criticize Ron DeSantis for things he does that are opposed to liberty, but I can also recognize that he is much better than most other governors.

I can disagree with Tucker Carlson on certain things, but I can’t just say that he is the same as Sean Hannity. There is a big difference between the two. If you can’t recognize that, then you aren’t paying attention or you just simply don’t understand what is being said.

In general, I think it is important to recognize the many gains in liberty and the shift in public opinion.

Homeschooling has exploded in the U.S. Gun ownership by everyday people is quite high. Marijuana has been largely legalized or decriminalized by a majority of states despite the laws of the federal government.

Even with technology, things are much better. It can be used against us by the spying state, but it is also a tool to spread the message of liberty that didn’t exist 30 years ago.

There are probably more radical libertarians today than there have been at any time during the 20th century. In fact, the libertarians of today are probably more radical (in a good way) than most of the American colonist of the late 1700s.

There is a lot to be pessimistic about, but there is also a lot to be optimistic about. We should recognize both. And don’t bring everyone else down when they are having a good time. It doesn’t help our cause anyway.

Joe Biden seems to be in hot water. It’s amazing how the establishment will eat its own when its convenient.

With everything that Biden has gotten away with, are some leftover classified documents from when he was vice president going to be his downfall?

The Biden regime has had control over most of the media and the intelligence agencies. The only thing it hasn’t had full control over is alternative media, a few members of Congress, and, at times, the courts. It is hard to believe that all of a sudden they have found Biden doing something wrong.

This guy has only been president for two years, yet he has been an absolute disaster at every level. He tried to force 100 million Americans into choosing between getting jabbed or losing their job. He has funded the criminal organization that is the Ukrainian government (from one criminal to another). He has used the FBI and other agencies as his personal Gestapo to raid and destroy the lives of people who oppose him.

He has gotten away with murder, literally and figuratively, and now he is in trouble because there are a few boxes of documents in his garage? It tells me that the establishment may be using this to put him on notice that his time will be up soon. He will be gone from office by January 21, 2024 at the latest. They will put someone else up against Trump or whomever is the Republican nominee.

The rich thing about Biden and these so-called classified documents is just what an obnoxious and pompous jerk he was last year when talking about Trump. He wondered how anyone could be so irresponsible.

Now, when Biden is asked about documents with his Corvette, he points out that it was a locked garage. He said it’s not like they were out on the street. The right question back at him would have been, “Were the documents in Trump’s home out on the street?”

I really don’t care about classified documents. I only care to the extent that they probably shouldn’t be classified at all. Most things shouldn’t be classified. What happened to government transparency?

It is amazing how much the government wants to keep secret. Even the JFK assassination files from nearly 6 decades ago haven’t been fully released. It makes you wonder what they’re hiding.

After 9/11, I remember hearing that you should have nothing to hide if you haven’t done anything wrong. That was completely wrong, as you should be fearful about what the government may do to you. But why doesn’t this apply to the government itself? You shouldn’t have anything to hide unless you’ve done something wrong. Most of these classified documents have nothing to do with nuclear codes or anything related.

Biden and his handlers are despicable people, and they deserve to be held up as criminals. I don’t think the case of having possession of classified materials is any great crime in itself. I wonder what the powers-that-be have up their sleeve with this one. They already had full control of Biden, so that can’t be it. They could also easily force him not to run in 2024 and just cite age and health as a reason.

I’ve heard the theory that if they get Biden on this, then they can also go after Trump. The establishment doesn’t care about Biden at all. They will use him until he is no longer useful. He has already served their purpose of defeating Trump (whether legitimate or not), and helping to enact their tyrannical agenda. They are ready to toss him aside at any moment if it can help stop Trump in 2024.

The CPI report came out for December 2022.  Price inflation came in right where it was expected to be.

The CPI came in at negative 0.1% for December, while the year-over-year now stands at 6.5%.

The median CPI, which is less volatile, came in at 0.4% for the month, and it is up 6.9% year-over year.

Most asset classes finished the day higher, probably due to expectations that the Fed can be a little less hawkish on inflation.  Gold was higher.  Bitcoin was higher.  Bonds were higher with longer-term interest rates going down.  Stocks finished higher.

I think the little rally, particularly in stocks, is going to be short-lived.  The Fed could stop raising interest rates and stop draining its balance sheet right now, and I don’t think it would change the fact that there is a recession coming.

Unless the Fed goes ballistic and starts doubling its balance sheet again, as it did in 2020, then I don’t think the coming recession will be stopped.

The Treasury yields are still highly inverted at this point.  The 30-year yield is more than 100 basis points below the 3-month yield.  This is bordering on absurdity.  I can’t ever remember seeing the yield curve this inverted.  It wasn’t this inverted in 2006 or 2007 before the financial crisis hit.

The bond market is screaming recession, while the Fed will like continue to raise its target federal funds rate, even if more slowly.

And let’s not pretend the era of inflation is over.  We are still at 6.5% year-over-year, which is way above the Fed’s supposed target of 2%.

I have not taken the position that some libertarians and Austrian school economists have taken that price inflation will continue to roar, and possibly even go higher.  I am more in the camp that price inflation will fall in the short run, at least until the Fed goes on another massive money creation spree.

I believe there is going to be a deep recession in the near future.  It will likely start before the end of 2023.  This is going to reduce consumer demand for many things that aren’t necessities.  The prices for food at the grocery store may not come down, but a lot of other things likely will fall in price.

Fear will quickly take over in the economy.  People will become more conservative with their money.  For those who maintain their income, they will likely save more money where possible.

The U.S. stock market was hammered in 2022.  The Nasdaq was hit especially hard.  It was down about 33% last year.  This does not at all mean we are anywhere near a bottom.  I will discuss this in a future post, but I think there is a lot more room to fall.

So while consumer price inflation seems to be cooling a little bit, the economy is still in major trouble with the past misallocations.  The bond market says a recession is coming soon.  This is the best warning you’ll get.