Donald Trump is highly likely to get the Republican nomination in 2024.  Even if he is removed from the Colorado ballot and a few other states do the same thing, he will still be the nominee.  As long as Trump is alive and healthy, he is going to be the nominee.

2024 is going to be a complicated year, to put it mildly.  The power elite are trying to do everything they can get away with to stop Trump from taking the presidency.

There are many angles to criticize Trump from a libertarian perspective.  But no matter what you think of him, he has all of the right enemies.  The power elite who despise him the most are the most evil and dangerous people in our country.  They hate Trump because they see him as a threat to the status quo, i.e., their protected status as the establishment.

One of Trump’s major decisions in 2024 will be who he picks as his running mate.  It is safe to say that he will not be going with Mike Pence this time around.

Even though the vice president doesn’t seem to do much, this is an incredibly important pick for Trump.  If Biden or some other establishment Democrat is the nominee for the Democratic Party, it won’t make much of a difference who is picked as the running mate.  It will be an establishment figure who parrots the establishment narrative.  Kamala Harris is interchangeable with a lot of other people.

There are two major reasons this matters for Trump.

A Life Insurance Policy

The powers-that-be will literally do anything to stop Trump.  They make up stories about Russia collusion.  They will indeed try to rig the election to the degree it is possible.  They will smear Trump in every way.  They are trying to throw him in jail to keep him away from the presidency.  After all that, there is only one option left.

It isn’t 1963 anymore.  We have the internet.  So, it isn’t as easy to get away with assassination.  But we can’t discount the CIA and other so-called intelligence agencies trying.  They are evil enough to do it, but they will likely only try in a last-ditch attempt if nothing else works.  Even at that, there are video cameras (smartphones) in almost everyone’s pocket, and there is a free flow of information that didn’t exist 50 years ago.

The best protection for Trump is to have someone as his vice president who is even more feared by the establishment.  If Trump picks Tucker Carlson or Vivek Ramaswamy and gets elected, he becomes much safer.  If he picks Alex Jones, the establishment would actually cozy up to Trump at that point to make sure he stays at the top.  Trump should just avoid being in the same place as any of these people.

If Trump picks some establishment figure, then the establishment will really want Trump out.  They will continue to try impeachment, jail, or anything else that might work.

A Signal of a Second Term

The other important reason for picking a vice president that is somewhat radical in favor of liberty is that it is going to tell us what a Trump second (non-consecutive) term will look like.  One of the biggest faults of Trump in his first term is that he surrounded himself by people who hated him.  The few decent people were conveniently prosecuted by the feds.  It’s funny how that works.

If Trump is going to have another term of surrounding himself with people like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, then I have little use for him.  He is still probably better than Biden, but that’s not saying much.  If Trump actually wants to take on the deep state, he can’t surround himself by the deep state.  He appointed all of the wrong people in almost every area last time.

Anyone who was associated with the Bush regime should be instantly taken out of consideration for Trump’s administration unless that person has repented in public.

In fact, if Trump wants to get to the presidency, he probably needs to understand this.

Losing Support

Perhaps this is a third reason that Trump’s VP pick is so important.  It goes along with it being a signal for what’s to come in a second term.

There has been some talk about Trump picking Nikki Haley as his running mate.  We have no idea if Trump is actually considering this.  I heard Tucker Carlson say that if he picks Haley, Tucker will not only not support Trump, but he will actively oppose him at that point.

Trump would lose support from a lot of MAGA people and libertarian-leaning conservatives.  Vivek has taken Nikki Haley down in a big way and exposed her for the corrupt and evil person that she is.  If Trump picks her, he will doom his own candidacy.

I can say personally that I would actively oppose Trump at that point.  I, of course, would never vote for Biden either.  If Trump picks Tucker or Vivek, there is a decent possibility I would vote for him, even if the Libertarian Party has a great candidate.

Even if Trump picks someone like Tim Scott or even DeSantis at this point, I would not support Trump at all.  It would just show that he learned nothing from four years in office.

I can say that I am basing my support for Trump on his pick for vice president.  It is going to tell me whether he figured anything out from his previous time.

There are many books that have been written on building wealth or getting rich.  Some are claimed as hidden secrets, and others are common sense.

You can find all different kinds of advice, such as:

• Save 10% or more of your income.
• Invest in low-cost mutual funds.
• Buy real estate and let renters pay off your mortgage.
• Start a business and invest all of the proceeds back into the business at the beginning.
• Get a good education and move up the corporate ladder.
• Diversify your assets into many categories and watch it grow.

You can probably think of many more.  There are many different philosophies on how to build wealth.  One thing being right doesn’t make another thing being wrong.

There are some people who worked in a corporate job and steadily invested in a 401k and built wealth over time using compounding returns.  There are some people who focus on entrepreneurship and are able to build a business that generates a great income.  There are some who actively invest.  There are some who use real estate and leverage to build wealth and income.

These different things have all worked for different people.  There is one common thing between all of these strategies.  I recently heard Dave Ramsey offer this advice, and I don’t always agree with Dave Ramsey.  I don’t agree with him on his dislike for buying gold.  I strongly agree with this piece of advice that I heard him offer recently.

Do This One Thing

So, what is it?  What is the advice from Dave Ramsey?  It is this:

DO SOMETHING!

That’s right.  If you want to build wealth, then do something.  Take some kind of positive action.  It doesn’t mean to be reckless.  It should still be done with some planning and intention.  But when it comes down to it, you need to do something.  And there are many people in this world who don’t get around to doing much of anything.

You can talk about investing in stocks or bonds or gold or fine art.  But if you never actually take the step of setting aside money and investing it, then you aren’t going to get anywhere.

You can research real estate on Zillow all day long and figure out where the housing prices might be a good deal.  But if you never actually buy a piece of real estate, then all of your research isn’t going to be profitable.

You may try to start a business and fail, but it usually isn’t that big of a deal if you don’t sink too much money into it upfront.  It is worse for the person who thinks about a business constantly and never actually tries to sell anything.

Doing Something in Any Area of Life

This advice of just doing something doesn’t just apply to building wealth.  If you want to get married, you have to do something.  You can’t just sit at home and wait for the perfect person to show up at your door.

If you want to write a book, sit down at your computer and write a chapter.  Set aside a schedule.  If you write one chapter per week for 6 months, then you can have the draft of a 26-chapter book after 6 months.  If you talk about it and never do it, it won’t get written.

If you want to gain a particular skill, you have to start practicing it.  There may be some methods of practicing that are better than others.  But the most important thing is to start doing it.  You can and should make adjustments along the way.  But you can’t make adjustments unless you start doing it.

Just Do It

Nike was on to something when it came out with this slogan.  There is something to be said for just doing it.

Again, this doesn’t mean being reckless.  It doesn’t mean taking all of your money and “investing” it at the roulette table in Vegas.  You should still think things through and plan for roadblocks.  You just can’t let the hurdles you think of stop you from doing something.

If you think of a roadblock that scares you, then think about a way around it.  Think of a way to minimize your risk while still doing something.  Or think of some kind of a variation that takes away the roadblock and allows you to make progress.

Stephen Covey talked about 4 quadrants:

• Important and Urgent
• Important but Not Urgent
• Not Important but Urgent
• Not important and Not Urgent

It is the “important but not urgent” quadrant we are talking about here.  It isn’t urgent that you start putting 10% of your money into a retirement account, especially when you are in your 20s.  But it is important.

So many people in this world just fail to take action.  They could take a few minutes out of their day to do something important that isn’t urgent.  When you do this in life, you usually get compounding results, just like building wealth.

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) released its latest monetary policy statement, which is the last scheduled one for 2023.  As was widely expected, the Fed will keep its target federal funds rate the same, between 5.25% and 5.50%.

This came one day after the CPI numbers were released.  Consumer prices rose by 0.1% in November 2023, and the year-over-year came in at 3.1%.  The median CPI rose 0.4% for the month, while the year-over-year median was up 5.2%.

The biggest news that came out of the FOMC meeting is that they expect at least three rate cuts in 2024.  Fed officials must be rather confident that consumer price inflation will fall to 2% or less in the near future.

Remember that a few years ago, the Fed was saying that they wanted to average out to 2% inflation, although they never gave a time period.  Considering that we got close to 10% price inflation over a year ago and still have not returned to 2%, they should be wanting several months below 2% for an average of 2%.  But maybe all of that averaging stuff – which is never talked about anymore – only applied when prices were rising at less than 2% according to their data.

When Jerome Powell was asked about recession possibilities in his press conference, he gave a diplomatic answer and said that it is always possible that a recession could be coming.  He then said it is unlikely we are currently in a recession, which wasn’t really the question.  The question was whether we should expect one.

I think Powell is trying to not make the mistake of Bernanke and others who dismissed such warnings leading up to the financial crisis in 2008.  Powell knows that the Fed’s tightening is likely to lead to a recession, but he won’t say so directly.  But he also doesn’t want clips played back at a later date with him saying that there won’t be a recession in 2024.

New Bubble Highs

When the FOMC released its statement and the market digested that rate cuts were more likely next year, financial markets boomed.  Stocks went up.  Bonds went up.  Gold went up.  They all went up a lot.

The Dow surged past the 37,000 mark and hit a new all-time high.  It is hard to believe that this Everything Bubble is still going.  It is even harder to believe that the Dow just hit a new high after the yield curve has been mostly inverted for all of 2023.

The only thing that changed is that the Fed is admitting that there may be more rate cuts next year than what they originally indicated.  But the reason they are expecting to cut rates (the federal funds rate) is because the economy will be weak.  If the bubble implodes and we hit a new financial crisis, you can expect more than 3 rate cuts of 25 basis points.

The Fundamentals Didn’t Change

We already knew the Fed would likely return to a loose monetary policy if there was any kind of deep recession or financial crisis.  The Fed’s admission of more possible rate cuts next year is more of an admission that there is trouble ahead.  They aren’t just being generous to stock investors.

The yield curve is still inverted.  In fact, it just became more inverted after the FOMC announcement because long-term yields fell.

Perhaps the bigger thing that is being ignored is that the Fed is still draining its balance sheet by about $95 billion per month.  It is still indicated in its Implementation Note.  The CNBC article linked above does mention it too, and it says that there is no indication the Fed is going to stop this portion of its policy tightening.

The stage is still set for a massive recession.  Meanwhile, the bubble in the investment markets just got bigger.  The faster they rise, the harder they fall.

The damage has already been done.  It was done in 2020 and 2021 with the massive expansion of the Fed’s balance sheet.  You could say it goes back to 2008 with that massive expansion.

It’s not that the Fed’s tinkering doesn’t matter at all now.  You can see the impacts just from the FOMC’s statement.  But the massive misallocation of resources has already happened.  The Everything Bubble is already there as a result.  The only question is how long they can keep it going and how hard it will ultimately fall.

As the government grows and the debt gets larger, there is some pushback happening to the power elite that they haven’t had in the past.  This is what makes politics particularly interesting at this time.

It’s not that we should hold out hope for some great politician to come along and fix things.  Things will get fixed only because things can’t be sustained and because public opinion ultimately matters.

Argentinians recently elected a self-identified radical libertarian to the presidency.  He could end up being a complete disaster, or maybe he will bring about some positive changes in the right direction.  But it doesn’t make libertarians naïve for having some optimism.  Just the fact that someone with a libertarian platform was able to get elected is a reason for optimism.

The same holds true in American politics.  We have the disastrous and criminal Joe Biden in the presidency, but just take a look at the candidates going against him (or whoever the establishment puts in his place in the 2024 election).

There are the establishment candidates in the Republican Party, some of whom have already dropped out. Nikki Haley and Chris Christie are completely establishment, but they are going nowhere.  Ron DeSantis is somewhat establishment, but he obviously holds some views that are against the establishment.  The power elite would probably prefer DeSantis over Trump, but they don’t want either.

Trump is Trump.  He is far from libertarian, but he has some of the right enemies because he is a threat to the deep state and the power elite.  Just by occasionally telling the truth, Trump is a threat to their power.  And he is easily the frontrunner in the Republican Party.

Let’s also not forget about Robert Kennedy Jr., who is now running as an independent.  He is somewhat of an old-school Democrat, but that is challenging to the establishment when it comes to Ukraine and COVID.  He is also a threat when he talks about how the CIA killed his uncle.  He probably won’t win the presidency, but he is out there speaking the truth (for the most part), and it has an impact.

Vivek Ramaswamy

Vivek is a salesman.  He will alter his message a bit depending on the audience.  But I am actually encouraged by this fact now, especially after the last Republican debate.  He called out Nikki Haley, saying she will send your kids off to die in a foreign war so that she can buy a bigger house.

He also took a slight gamble and said that she can’t name three provinces in eastern Ukraine, but she’ll send your money and your kids there to fight.  It isn’t so bad if you can’t name three provinces in Ukraine, but it is bad when you claim credit for your foreign policy experience and you are gung-ho on fighting wars.  Haley stood there stone-faced.  If she could have named three provinces in Ukraine, I think she would have done so.

Thank you, Vivek, for helping to take down and expose this despicable woman.  She is basically a dumber version of a Republican Hillary Clinton.

Libertarians should be optimistic.  Vivek is pointing out truths in these debates.  Even if he is a bit too salesy, it is great that he thinks attacking neocons will sell.  Imagine how utterly boring and disgusting these Republican debates would have been without Vivek.

If Trump is polling around 60% in the Republican primaries, and Vivek is getting another 10%, that means that about 70% are on board with something like an “America first” agenda.  I suppose libertarians are more “individual first” than “America first”, but America first is far better than people promoting interventionism throughout the world.

Even though DeSantis has been very disappointing on foreign policy, he is still somewhat anti-establishment in his rhetoric at times.  Between the three of them (DeSantis, Trump, and Ramaswamy), they probably have the support of over 75% of the Republican Party.  The Bush era people are going nowhere.  This is reason to celebrate.

A Trump VP

There are rumors that Vivek has talked to the Libertarian Party, but I still bet that he is vying for the VP slot under Trump.

I am supporting Michael Rectenwald as of right now, but I haven’t completely decided on where my vote is going.

If Trump picks any establishment person as his running mate, I will not vote for him.  It means he learned nothing after four years in office.  I would consider voting for a Trump/ Ramaswamy ticket.

I would also strongly consider voting for a Trump/ Tucker Carlson ticket.  I think this would be a great life insurance policy for Donald Trump.  Supposedly Melania is in favor of this idea.  Maybe it’s for the same reason.  The establishment despises Tucker Carlson even more than Donald Trump.  Tucker is even stronger on the culture wars, and he is more anti-interventionist than Trump on foreign policy.

Variables

There are so many variables at this point, it is impossible to make any predictions.  We don’t know if Trump will be convicted of crimes.  And if he is, will he land in jail?  Will it impact his being on any ballots?

Of course, there is always the possibility that Trump could die or become ill.  He is like the energizer bunny at his age, but there are obviously people who want to do harm to him.

We also have other variables in third-party candidates.  Kennedy will have some kind of a presence, and it isn’t exactly clear which party he will draw votes from the most.

The Libertarian Party should have an actual libertarian as the nominee in 2024.  This could make it difficult for principled libertarians who are not opposed to voting.  We are almost always voting for who we see as the lesser of evils.  A Trump/ Carlson ticket is far less evil than Biden/ Harris.  Is a Kennedy ticket less evil than Trump/ Carlson?  Or do we just vote for a libertarian who has almost no chance of winning?

These are not easy questions.  We’ll see how things play out in the next few months.  These are chaotic times, but I think libertarians should be somewhat optimistic that there are some candidates who are at least different from the typical establishment candidates that we have seen in the past.  This isn’t Bush vs. Kerry any more.  Many people don’t like the status quo and recognize that the power elite should have a lot less power over our lives.

The dollar price of gold has surged well above the $2,000 per ounce mark.  It briefly touched $2,100 before retreating.  Today it was down, but still holding well above the $2,000 mark.

It has been a frustrating time for gold investors, at least in recent times.  It has been even more frustrating for investors in gold mining companies.  When the price of gold goes up, gold stocks typically do even better.  When gold goes down, gold stocks tend to go down much farther.  In recent years, the mining stocks have not really done well, even when the price of gold has gone higher.

Perhaps the frustrating part for gold investors is that gold has barely kept up with price inflation in recent years.  One of the main reasons for owning gold is to hedge against inflation and dollar depreciation.  When price inflation goes really high, gold generally goes up at an even greater rate.

When price inflation briefly hit over 9% on an annual basis, gold did not surge.  Stocks surged for a while with all of the new Fed money in circulation, but the craze never really hit the gold market.

In fact, gold and other precious metals seem like the only sector that hasn’t been in something of a bubble.  When you think of oil, stocks, bonds, real estate, and cryptocurrency, they have all had their bubble moments.  Some of them are still in a major bubble.  The bond bubble has somewhat imploded, but even here the future is far from clear.

A Recession vs. Deficits and Fed Money

Up until recently, it seems that gold investors – or the lack of gold investors – are betting on a recession.  They certainly appear to be betting on the rate of price inflation coming down, and to a certain degree that has been correct.

It seems that the sentiment has started to shift, especially since the market seems to be betting on rate cuts by the Fed in 2024.  I am betting on rate cuts in 2024 too, but that is because I think there will be a recession.  It will be more than just a slowdown when it finally hits.

There is also a bit of a debt problem, to put it mildly.  Congress is racking up deficits well in excess of a trillion dollars per year, and this is during a time of supposed growth.  Imagine how bad the deficits will get when a recession hits.  Meanwhile, the payments on the national debt have skyrocketed because of the higher interest rates.  Unless the Fed drastically lowers rates back down, this will continue to get worse as bonds mature and are rolled over into new debt at much higher rates.

A recession is typically bad for the price of gold in the short run.  Gold went down in late 2008 with the financial crisis.  It did turn around quickly though with the Fed’s money printing spree.

This is a bit of a tug-of-war game.  There are different factors trying to pull gold in different directions.  A recession would be bad for the price of gold (if you are already an investor), but the reaction of the Fed could be good for gold investors.  A strong dollar hurts gold, but the dollar is falling out of favor with much of the rest of the world.  Still, it is the least bad of the major currencies.

It will also depend on the Fed’s reaction to the next major downturn.  It is usually safe to bet on a loose monetary policy, but it is not quite so obvious if there is still a price inflation problem.

Conclusion

It is buyers and sellers that ultimately determine the price of gold.  But buyers and sellers react to Fed policy and what they think will be Fed policy in the future.

Perhaps it has been frustrating for some gold investors in the last few years, as stocks have seemed to soar with higher consumer prices.  It is during the mania times that it is important to remember your reasons for investing in gold.  The number one goal should be insurance.

It is impossible to know if gold will hold above $2,000.  It probably won’t, but maybe we’ll have some time around that number.  If gold continues to surge and the economy stays out of an official recession for a while longer, then I do expect gold stocks to finally surge with the price of gold.

Just watch out for the crash, as the gold stocks could get hit hard with the rest of the stock market.  The price of actual gold should be far less volatile.  It will actually be a calm in the storm when the economy gets worse.

I sat through the debate between Ron DeSantis and Gavin Newsom that was hosted by Fox News.  It was “moderated” by Sean Hannity.

At the beginning of the debate, Hannity pointed out (about himself) that he is a conservative, but that it was his job to be fair and moderate the debate.  Immediately after that, he pulled up a chart and asked why so many people are leaving California and migrating into Florida.

It seemed like every question asked by Hannity started with some kind of a chart or graphic showing why California is bad and Florida is good.  This included education, crime, the price of gas, and several other things.  Maybe it’s just because most everything is worse in California these days, but you would think Hannity would have at least thrown in a question about something in Florida not doing well.

As a Floridian, I can say that things are far from perfect.  As Newsom pointed out, there is a problem with violent crime in the cities in Florida.  The government school system is mostly a disaster, although I’m guessing it is worse in California.  With all of the new money coming into Florida (higher property tax base and more people), you would think the state of Florida would build new roads and expand existing ones.  Maybe this has happened to some degree, but traffic keeps getting worse and worse, even with more people working at home.

I say all of this only to point out that Florida has its problems like everywhere else.  I thought Hannity might challenge DeSantis with something.  Instead, Hannity was quite obviously on team DeSantis and didn’t even try to hide it with the questioning.

I’m not sure if this helped or hurt DeSantis.  It helped by directing the questions that were tough for Newsom to answer.  The only problem is that it seemed that Hannity was only trying to help DeSantis with the questions, which could perhaps weaken DeSantis.  Some might think that DeSantis can only win the debate because he is being assisted by the person asking the questions.

Winners and Losers

Fox News was a winner just for hosting the debate.  That was probably Hannity’s most watched show ever.  He isn’t exactly popular these days, especially since Fox fired Tucker Carlson, who’s show used to be right before Hannity.

Unfortunately for Fox News, this was a one-time event.  They got high ratings for an hour or two.  Now they can go back to having mostly establishment Republicans watch the channel, and there aren’t even that many of those watching.  Since Tucker was fired, Gutfeld is the only mildly interesting and entertaining show, and even that has seemed to go downhill fast since the October 7^th attacks in Israel.

The end of the debate was kind of awkward where Hannity said they would just keep going for another hour or so.  When they came back from commercial, the debate was declared done because of prior commitments.  I’m not sure what commitments they had at 10:30 at night.  Either way, when you say a debate will be a certain length, you should try to stick to that timeframe, at least somewhat.

I thought Donald Trump would be a winner, just as he has been with the Republican debates.  But I can’t really say that’s the case here.  Trump is still the big favorite to be the Republican nominee, but it wouldn’t surprise me if DeSantis gains a few percentage points in the polls after this.

The one-on-one format was much better for DeSantis, and it is much better in general.  These debates with many people talking over each other and hurling insults is not a good look.  When it is just two people doing the same thing, it is more controllable.

I know how slick Gavin Newsom is.  He reminds me of Bill Clinton (back in the day) in many ways.  Yet, I thought Newsom didn’t do that great.  He tried to sell us some narratives that just fell flat to me.  If anyone thought he was really effective, I’m sorry to say that they just aren’t that bright.  Anyone believing the drivel coming out of Newsom is just not that intelligent or is completely blinded by politics.

For DeSantis, I would give him a “B” for performance.  If there hadn’t been foreign policy questions at the end, maybe I would give him an “A-“.  He was mostly effective on the domestic issues that were discussed (helped by Hannity’s questions), although there were some times where he could have been even stronger.

The Issues

On the question of people leaving California and going to Florida, there isn’t much to say.  The numbers speak for themselves.  Newsom tried to say that more people moved from Florida to California than moved from California to Florida.  I have no idea if that’s true, but it is mostly irrelevant.  What matters is the overall net numbers.  People leaving Michigan and New York are more likely to move to Florida than California (just as an example).  That is the point.

On the question of taxes, Newsom defended the high taxes by saying that we need progressive taxation and that millionaires and billionaires pay more in his state.

I thought a good retort by DeSantis could have been to sarcastically agree with Newsom and say that he’s right.  All of the homeless people in California are spared from paying the progressive income taxes.

There were several times DeSantis referred to Newsom as a lockdown governor and pointed out that his kids were in private school while California public schools were shut down.  He also pointed out Newsom eating at a fancy restaurant while Californians were locked down.  I was surprised that Newsom actually came back at DeSantis one time and said that Florida was locked down, which is true.  But that seems to fall flat, just as when Trump says it, because DeSantis was one of the least bad governors on this issue (unless you have the perspective that the lockdowns were great).

There were a few times that Hannity interrupted the conversations because they were talking over each other, but then Hannity moved on to another question.  I actually wanted to hear them argue it out because it went against Newsom.  Hannity could have simply asked that they speak one at a time.  Instead, he moved on.  It may have been straying too far from Hannity’s range of allowable opinion.

The so-called book banning in Florida came up a few times.  DeSantis did ok with that, but I thought he could have been more effective.  He should have more explicitly pointed out that the only statewide bans are for pornographic material in government-funded institutions.  The more well-known books that some people say are banned are not banned.  If a book is not made available in one school or one school district in Florida, this has nothing to do with DeSantis, and it is false to imply it is a statewide ban.

There was one funny sidebar where Newsom tried to lecture DeSantis on how to pronounce “Kamala” (as in, the vice president).  I can’t imagine this plays well to anyone other than the most diehard leftists.

On abortion, I thought Newsom might get the better of DeSantis.  Surprisingly, I think DeSantis came out on top because of Hannity’s questioning.  Hannity kept asking Newsom if he supports any ban on abortion, even in months 7, 8, and 9.  Newsom couldn’t directly answer the question, and you could tell he was a bit uncomfortable.  Even most people who identify as pro-choice see a problem with aborting a baby that could easily survive outside the womb.

On the subject of gas prices, Newsom just sounded like an idiot.  He is blaming big oil companies for gouging California.  DeSantis rightly pointed out that it is strange that they aren’t gouging Florida and other states.  Why would oil companies only be gouging California?  You would have to be a complete dolt when it comes to economics, or maybe life in general, to believe that oil companies would only gouge California but offer a lower price to everyone else.

Foreign Policy

Ron DeSantis has been terrible on foreign policy.  He hasn’t been Nikki Haley terrible, but still pretty bad.  That is a major reason that I don’t want him as president.

The topic of foreign policy came up briefly near the end of the debate.  They were both bad.  I thought maybe Newsom would be better on this issue from a libertarian perspective, but he is even bad on this.

For this reason, they would both be terrible presidents.  DeSantis showed that he is much better on domestic issues than Newsom.  The problem is that if DeSantis became president, he wouldn’t be a fiscal conservative because he would be too busy funding the U.S. empire overseas.

I will also point out that DeSantis hasn’t exactly been a budget cutter in Florida.  Again, he is just less bad than other governors.

Conclusion

Overall, DeSantis did himself a favor by doing this debate.  It won’t be near enough to overtake Trump, but it does put him in a position to possibly run again in 2027/ 2028.

By doing this debate, DeSantis was not trying to convince independents and undecided voters with regard to Democrats and Republicans.  He was trying to convince the Republican base to support him.  It is easier to go against a leftwinger like Newsom than other Republicans.  It draws a clearer line for DeSantis.  It allows him to rail against leftwing policies.

Newsom did his best to assure everyone that he isn’t running for president next year and that he is all in on the Biden/ Harris ticket.  We all know that’s not true, and DeSantis pointed that out.

As soon as the Democrats (and the establishment in general) decide to dump Biden, Newsom will be more than happy to step in.

I knew he was a slick politician going into the debate, and he played the part well.  But I was surprised at how weak some of his arguments were.  He was not nearly as impressive as I thought he might be.  For that, I am happy.  If Newsom ends up on the Democratic Party ticket in 2024 (or 2028), his fakeness will show through to many people.  I would now give him lower odds of winning the presidency than what I thought going into the debate.

There is still a Keynesian fallacy that consumer spending drives the economy.  This incorrect line of thought is particularly prevalent around Christmas time.

After Black Friday and Cyber Monday are done, we will hear statistics about how great or how disappointing retail sales were.  If sales meet or exceed expectations, the talking points will be that the economy is still strong because the American consumer is spending money for the holidays.

There is a relationship between consumer spending and the economy.  There is a relationship between consumer spending and our overall living standards.  But we shouldn’t confuse a correlation with causation.  Strong consumer spending doesn’t cause us to have a good economy.  If anything, a good economy leads to strong consumer spending.

You Can’t Consume What Isn’t Produced

You can only consume what is first produced.  We can be sure that the people of Ghana or Bangladesh would love to be lining up at Best Buy to purchase the latest 70-inch television for only a few hundred dollars.  The problem is that most people living in these third-world countries simply can’t afford to buy a 70-inch television.  They are more worried about having clean water, a safe shelter, and food to eat for tomorrow.

The reason Americans, in general, are so wealthy as compared to many other people in the world is because Americans are more productive.  It’s not that Americans necessarily work harder and faster.  It’s that Americans have generations of savings and capital investment that make us more productive.

It isn’t so much technological advancements, although they certainly help.  But those technological advancements are available to anyone in the world.  The problem is that they can’t put them to good use.  You have to have the factories and equipment, along with the knowledge, in order to produce consumer goods.

There may be people in Bangladesh helping to produce televisions, but the capital investment is likely coming from the U.S. and other first-world countries.  The people in third-world countries don’t save a lot of money, and they invest very little, at least comparatively.  If you are worried about where your next meal is coming from, you aren’t going to invest in a factory to build electronics.

Savings and Production

Increases in production come from savings and investment.  When you produce something and don’t consumer something in an equal amount, then the difference is in savings.  This is measured in money.  You can produce any number of goods and services and sell them.  If you save some of the profits, then this can go into investment.  It can be used to build machinery or start a new business.  This is done in order to seek profit in the future by producing more.

It is hard to grasp in today’s world because so many people make their money by producing things that aren’t directly consumed.  An accountant or attorney may be helping a corporation, even though they aren’t the ones making the widgets, but it still may be a necessary function.

There are people who produce services too, which is a sign of a wealthy people.  When you think of athletes, actors, and singers who make a lot of money, it is hard to think that they are producing something.  But that is what they are doing, and they are sometimes producing this entertainment for millions of a people at a time.

The person serving you your food at a restaurant or making your coffee at Starbucks may not be directly producing the food, but it is still production that is meeting demand.  There are many things that Americans consume that are not necessities.  Again, this is a sign of a wealthy society.

Government Interference

The problem we have today is that the government (at all levels) interferes in the marketplace.  This is done through taxation, inflation, borrowing, and regulating.  Most government action discourages savings and investment.  It is actually amazing how much people are still able to save and invest in spite of government interference.  It is amazing that new businesses and innovations still come about as rapidly as they do.

The U.S. has built upon previous savings and investment from generations before for over 200 years.  Even the people in the late 1700s were building upon what was built before them.

If the government weren’t taxing and regulating us so much, we would have even more prosperity than what we have today.  It is actually unimaginable what we might have.

Still, even with the government at all levels taking nearly half of our money and misallocating it, most Americans are still able to go out to eat, go to Starbucks, own a smartphone and a big screen television, and go on vacations.  If some of these things aren’t your cup of tea, maybe you have something else where you spend money, even though you don’t necessarily “need” it.

The fact that Americans are spending as much money for Christmas gifts as in past years is almost meaningless.  This could be because consumers are doing well, but it is just as likely, at least in 2023, that it is because they just aren’t saving much money.  In some cases, people are buying Christmas gifts with debt and no ability to pay off the debt within the next month.

We actually want people to save money and spend less so that we can have greater production in the future. We don’t want to consume our capital, which could actually make us poorer in the future.

For the sake of the American economy and our future living standards, let’s hope that retail sales are down this Christmas season.

The people of Argentina have elected Javier Milei as the new president of the country.  Milei is sometimes described as a radical libertarian.  He has even described himself as an anarcho-capitalist and a follower of Murray Rothbard.

Milei won with about 56% of the vote, so it was quite decisive.  Argentina has been plagued with high unemployment and high inflation.  The price inflation there is reported to exceed 100% annually.

It shouldn’t be surprising that the people wanted a change, yet it still is a bit of a surprise.  When socialist governments create problems, they also create dependency.  There is much propaganda to tell people that we need even more socialism and government interference.  Unfortunately, history has shown that people often fall for it and continue to elect hyper interventionists.

Is Milei Really a Libertarian?

This is where the skeptic in me comes out.  Even though Milei has cited Rothbard and likes to rail against the central bank, I have strong doubts that he will govern as a libertarian.

Milei is an advocate of Bitcoin, but that should really play no role in politics other than keeping government out of it.  There certainly should be no monetary system based on Bitcoin unless it is chosen by the market.  Perhaps you could say the same thing about gold, but at least a gold standard, even if it is run by a government, has some basis of being derived by the marketplace.  Gold was chosen freely as a form of money for thousands of years.

Some libertarians have been skeptical, or even critical, that Milei may tie the Argentinian currency to the U.S. dollar.  I actually don’t think this would be a bad first step, because the U.S. dollar is a much sounder currency than the peso.  I don’t think libertarians should expect an abolishment of the central bank in Argentina, and certainly not right away.  There is a libertarian argument to made that it shouldn’t be abolished in just one step because of the chaos it would cause.

Of course, 100% or higher inflation causes utter chaos.  But there are contracts to be concerned about, and the best way to have a somewhat smooth transition to sound and free money is by allowing competition to take place.  Argentinians should be free to use pesos, dollars, gold, Bitcoin, or anything else they want to use for transactions.

In terms of policy positions, my biggest concern with Milei is his foreign policy.  He could probably fit in on the debate stage with the GOP (i.e., war hawk) candidates talking about Israel.  Hopefully Milei will serve as president of Argentina and not of Israel.

Perhaps the fortunate thing about the disaster that is the Argentinian economy is that the government doesn’t have a lot of money to spend on foreign interventions.  That is not yet the case with the United States.

Will Milei Have Courage?

Even if Milei is a fairly solid libertarian to start, there is going to be immense pressure from special interests, from foreign players, and from the establishment in general.  It is tough to stand up against this.

I can think of very few politicians who have mostly been able to stay principled for a long period of time.  There is Ron Paul.  He was in Congress, but never made it to the presidency.  I’d like to think that he would have stuck to his principles if he had become president, but you never know.  But that is what made Ron Paul so unique.  Most people actually believed that he would stick to his principles.

Boris Johnson was supposedly a reader of LewRockwell.com at one time.  I have no idea how true this is.  But he was a total disaster of a prime minister.  He is partially responsible for the war in Ukraine and killing any peace negotiations.

It is easy to be skeptical of anyone who reaches a position of high power.  In fact, it is right to be.  Power corrupts people quickly.  They want to be liked, and they want to maintain their power and prestige.

Even if Milei shows courage and sticks with his convictions, it will still be really difficult.  We all saw what happened to Donald Trump.  He was already smeared relentlessly by the establishment and its media up until the 2016 election.  After he was actually elected, they went after him with just about everything.  The deep state maintained control over every important area and agency.  This includes the FBI, the CIA, the Department of Justice, the military-industrial complex, the medical establishment, and the national security state.

So, while it’s nice that Milei seems to be really solid on economics, the biggest question is whether he will be able to take on the deep state.  Argentina is different from the United States, but there is deep state bureaucracy in every major government.

Reason for Optimism

The main reason I am cheering this election and am optimistic is for the simple fact that the Argentinians elected someone who was running on a somewhat radical libertarian message.  He is popular among the young voters, which is an even better sign.

Even if he isn’t successful in getting Argentina anywhere close to a libertarian society, I think things will move in that direction.  Even if Milei goes against his promises and is a disaster, it is still quite positive for the future of liberty.  It’s not like he was a libertarian while campaigning as something else.  Some might have voted for him as the lesser of two evils, but that means they saw the socialist candidate as the bigger evil.

I wouldn’t expect great things from Milei, but I do expect improvements.  And with the liberty movement alive and well in Argentina, there is great hope for the future there.

The latest consumer price index report came out for October 2023.  The numbers came in slightly below expectations, which drove stocks higher.

The CPI was flat for the month of October, while it was expected to rise 0.1%.  The year-over-year rate now stands at 3.2%.  Overall prices keep going higher, but at a slower pace than before.

The median CPI, which tends to be less volatile, was up 0.3% for October, while the year-over-year stands at 5.3%.

Again, price inflation is not coming down.  The rate is coming down.  Prices are going up at a slower pace than before.

The Bulls are Happy, For Now

U.S. stocks boomed on the news.  Stock investors tend to like inflation, so you may be wondering why this was taken as good news for stocks.  The reason all goes back to the Fed.

If price inflation is coming under control, then that means the Fed is less likely to hike its target federal funds rate.  It also means the Fed is more likely to stop its monetary deflation earlier.  So, investors are banking on a loose – or at least a less tight – monetary policy.

I think the stock bulls are right about the monetary policy going forward, but they are interpreting it wrong.  We will see a looser monetary policy as compared to now because the economy is going to go into a recession.  That may be putting it mildly.  With rates having gone up so fast, and with an inverted yield curve for 2023, we may be looking at a major financial crisis in the near future.  And if that happens, stock investors are going to get the loose monetary policy that they wanted.

The problem is that we will be in a financial crisis, or at least a bad recession.  This isn’t good for stocks.  It typically isn’t good for asset prices in general.  If the Fed is aggressive enough after the crash, then stocks could turn around.  But it won’t be before they take a major beating.

The Fed May Win Against Inflation, Temporarily

Price inflation is still above the Fed’s target of 2%.  They will ignore what they said a few years ago about trying to average 2% over time.  They never specified what time period, but shouldn’t that mean that we will go under 2% for a while to average out to 2%?  It was just over a year ago that price inflation topped 9% year-over-year.

We have seen short-term rates go above 5% along with a declining balance sheet.  This is all in the face of an inverted yield curve.

I think Americans are still suffering terribly from price inflation.  Car insurance prices are up nearly 20%, which tends to be a fairly big line item in most people’s budgets.  Wages are simply not keeping up with consumer prices.  The reason that some prices are starting to stabilize is simply because consumers don’t have the money to buy as much.  They have to prioritize their needs.  And with some needs, such as food, they find cheaper substitutes.

The Fed will be successful in bringing down the price inflation that it created (with the help of the federal government).  The problem is the next side effect (recession/ financial crisis).  Then the problem is the Fed’s reaction swinging the other way.  So, we may get back to much higher price inflation again, but not before we see major economic turmoil.

• Every single presidential candidate I’ve heard, outside of the Libertarian Party, has been bad on the conflict in Israel/ Gaza.  That includes RFK Jr., who has probably destroyed his campaign for taking the establishment position.  Since October 7^th, I haven’t seen or heard much from RFK Jr., probably because he hasn’t been making appearances on the podcasts/ shows that I listen to.  I have had far less enthusiasm for his campaign since that time.

• Vivek is the least bad on Israel.  He won’t admit that the Israeli state has done some bad things to innocent people in Gaza, but at least he says that the U.S. government should remain neutral.  He doesn’t want to stray too far from the establishment narrative on this one because he is running for Trump’s VP in 2024.

• I heard five presidential candidates from the Libertarian Party speak last month.  They all had their strengths and weaknesses, but I can say that they were all good, at least from what I heard, on the subject of foreign policy.  And this was after the October 7^th attacks in Israel.

• Trump’s nickname for Ron DeSanctimonious was never that good.  He should just go with Neocon Ron.

• I recently learned that there are only about 16.1 million Jews in the entire world.  Israel and the United States make up about 14 million of the Jewish population, although estimates vary.  It is incredible that there is so much controversy regarding a group of people that makes up just 0.2% of the world population.

• I understand that last comment can be taken in different ways.  It is incredible that such a small percentage can have such a big influence, especially in the political realm.  It is also incredible that Jews can exist given how much hatred there is towards them.

• I grew up in New York and had several Jewish friends.  I was a kid, so it meant little to me other than the fact that they celebrated different holidays.  I was mostly ignorant of happenings in the world, which is probably good.  I enjoyed playing sports and having fun.  I have little bias for or against Jewish people. As with any other group of people, there are good ones and bad ones.  I do have a bias against government, so I can recognize the crimes of the Israeli state.

• Public opinion is turning against Israel in a lot of ways.  More people are learning about the “open air prison” that is Gaza and the mistreatment of the Palestinians.  Even if you are the biggest fan of Israel and the Israeli state, you should be warning the Israeli state to tread lightly.

• Anyone who uses political arguments based on Scripture should be ignored or ostracized.  Saying that the Bible entitles a Jewish state is not a good argument.  It is even worse when it’s used to justify killing.  That means that there will never be peace when people use religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or anything else) as justification for political acts.

• In Israel, Jews make up about 7 million people.  There are a little more than 2 million non-Jews in Israel.  The Palestinians include Christians.  Unfortunately, all three religions place high value on this little piece of land.  If religion weren’t involved, it should be easy to resolve all conflict.  The U.S. alone takes in about a million legal immigrants every year.  The number of illegal immigrants is even greater.  You would think that one group or another could find just about any place in the world to settle and live in relative peace.  The problem is that there are religious and cultural reasons for the conflict.

• I wonder how much the land itself means to Palestinians.  They feel that the property of their ancestors was unjustly taken.  Some of the Palestinians today have had property taken from them, and they are largely under the control of the Israeli state.  If Palestinians were given the opportunity to immigrate to the U.S. or some other first-world country, I wonder how many would take it.  Does the land itself mean that much to them?  Do they just want revenge against their oppressors?  Or would they be willing to essentially “let it go” if they were given an opportunity to live somewhere else with property and relative freedom?  I genuinely don’t know the answer to these questions.  Maybe it differs greatly for different people.  I suppose one could ask the same last question of Israeli Jews.

• As a libertarian, I am not advocating this, but the U.S. government could relocate every single Palestinian and give each one $10,000 as a one-time payment.  2 million people times $10,000 is $20 billion.  That’s the equivalent of less than 5 days of the U.S. deficit (not spending).  The government spends close to $20 billion every single day.  That one-time payment would be a lot cheaper than continually sending money to Israel and other countries to promote ongoing conflicts.  But the people spending the money aren’t trying to achieve peace, so this will never happen anyway.

• Regardless of where your sympathies lie, nothing good can come from more U.S. government intervention.

• Ron DeSantis wants to ban pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses.  I guess DeSantis only stands up for free speech when it is anti “woke” speech.  Aside from the free speech aspect, what is wrong with being pro Palestinian?  Surely not everyone at these protests are anti Jewish.

• I am pro Palestinian and pro Jews, at least for the innocent people.  In order to achieve peace, we need to criticize all who want violence.

• It is still hard to believe that the Israeli state did not know what was going to happen on October 7^th.  The “intelligence” there is completely inept, or else there were elements within the government that knew the attacks were going to happen.  Either way, it is a not a good look.