We are still trying to learn the details of a bombing mission against a hospital in Afghanistan.  The death toll is currently reported at 22, but it will likely rise further as many people were severely injured or unaccounted for.  It also doesn’t take into account that the hospital was basically destroyed and won’t be around any more.

The timing of this event was interesting.  Just days before, there was a mass shooting at a community college that took the lives of 10 people, including the killer.

In a matter of hours, Obama was in front of the cameras.  But he wasn’t just offering his sympathies.  He was babbling on about the need for more gun control.  He sounded like George W. Bush at times, not so much in what he was saying, but in how he sounded like a bumbling fool.  At one point, he was trying to sound out the word “purport” and he couldn’t spit it out, so he used a different word.  He sounded like Porky Pig.

Meanwhile, Putin announced that Russia would get involved in the mess in Syria.  Russian planes started a bombing campaign supposedly against ISIS.  The U.S. government started complaining and warning the Russians of civilian casualties.

I am not one to frequently quote the Bible, but this passage is quite appropriate (roughly translated): ” First take the log out of your eye, and then you’ll see clearly to take the splinter out of your brother’s eye.”

Then the news came of this attack on a hospital in Afghanistan.  12 of the dead so far were staff.  It was run by the organization known as Doctors Without Borders.

The organization is fighting back.  They are not accepting any excuses by the U.S. government of collateral damage, as they shouldn’t.

Let’s hope this is a defining event.  The U.S. military has killed thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq.  None of these people had a trial.  If you take the total deaths from the chaos of the wars, there are hundreds of thousands dead.  The blood is on the hands of the U.S. military and those who commanded them to go to war.

This story is getting more attention than the many wedding parties and businesses that U.S. drones and planes have blown up.  The doctors from the hospital command more respect.  They have more credibility.  They can speak English.

They have also said that the U.S. military was given the coordinates of the hospital to avoid this type of scenario.  It is either a case of total incompetence or a vicious attack.  Even if it was incompetence, which is looking less likely, it is still murder.

The U.S. government has already been changing its story on what happened.  It is already contradicting former claims and claims by hospital workers.  I will take the word of the hospital workers who are the victims, not the ones dropping the bombs and killing innocent people.

But let’s talk about gun control Obama.  Or maybe that is O-bomb-a.  More gun control would likely have done nothing to prevent the murders at the college.  But Obama can directly control what the military is doing in Afghanistan.  He can simply stop the drone bombings and the plane bombings and that will start saving lives right away.

If there is going to be any gun control, it should be for U.S. troops occupying foreign countries.  They cannot have weapons because they are carelessly killing innocent people.  We need bomb and missile control too.  Again, it is something that Obama can put a stop to right away.

But instead, O-bomb-a is going to lecture us on guns while he oversees the murder of innocent civilians in foreign countries.

In the case of the school shooting, the killer would have gone to jail if he had survived.  What will happen with the murderers of the people in Afghanistan?  Will anyone go to jail for this?  We know what the answer should be versus what the answer is.

Obama and Bush should share a jail cell for the mass murder of thousands of people, along with those who did the actual killing.  Or maybe they can spend the rest of their lives paying restitution to all of the families of the victims.  The American people need to put a stop to this killing that is being done in their name.

There was a recent Gallup survey showing that Americans are not too fond of Congress.  49% of Americans rated Congress as bad or poor.  Just 15% rated Congress as excellent or good, while 34% rated it as fair.

The first question that comes to mind is just who the 15% are that rate Congress excellent or good.

But these results are not the most interesting thing about the poll.  The poll also asked the Americans surveyed to answer five questions about Congress.

I could answer all five questions with no problem without resorting to Google.  I’m not sure if I should be proud of that or if I should get more of a life.  But since I write on these topics, it is probably good that I know the basics.

The interesting thing is that the people who answered the most questions correctly were also those who were the most critical of Congress.  For example, for the people who answered 4 or 5 questions right out of the 5, only 7% thought Congress is doing an excellent or good job (as compared to 15% overall).

Out of those same people who answered 4 or 5 questions right, 66% rated Congress as poor or bad (compared to 49% overall).

Meanwhile, for the people who could not answer any of the 5 questions correctly, 27% of them think Congress is doing a good or excellent job.

So when I rhetorically asked the question above about who these people are rating Congress so highly, this gives us some of our answer.  It is the people who have absolutely no clue as to what is happening.  If these people stayed away from the voting booths, then I would have no problem with their ignorance.  The problem is that many of them show up to cast an ignorant vote.  They might know just enough to vote for the candidate promising the most welfare handouts.

I have long thought that it is ironic that libertarians and those who study Austrian economics know more about the Fed than any other group, except perhaps the central bankers themselves.  Yet, libertarians are also the biggest critics.  The hardcore libertarians do not want the Fed.  They don’t think a central bank should exist.

I believe the main reason is that those who understand – whether we are talking about Congress or the Fed – are the same people who understand they are getting ripped off.

Aside from the bankers and insiders, it is the Austro-libertarians who understand that the Fed’s main purpose is to fund the deficits of Congress and to support the big banks.  It is not to smooth out business cycles.  The Fed is the main cause of the boom/ bust cycles.

If you have any group or organization that is doing harmful things, it is going to be the people who know the most about the organization who will be the most critical of it, unless of course they are profiting from it and are not fully honest.

I also believe that libertarians and free market advocates who understand the Fed should take advantage of the fact that they do understand.  While studying economics tells us that we can’t predict human action with any certainty and that we can’t time events in the future or how exactly they will play out, it can help us prepare.

Unfortunately, I think many libertarians just don’t know how to connect protecting their own freedom and their money with their knowledge of the government and the central bank.  Sometimes they know just enough to make a lot of mistakes.

I also find that for as much as most people underestimate the harm that government does, libertarians underestimate the power of the free market.  There are so many gloom and doomers.  It is partially for good reason because they know the damage being done by the state.  But they also underestimate the power of the free market to overcome many of the obstacles.

This latest Gallup poll confirmed what I already thought.  It is the most ignorant people who are the most damaging.  But I also want to say that people who are politically apathetic are often the best targets for libertarians.  To a certain extent, apathetic people are correct not to pay too much attention to politics if it means they are focusing on improving themselves and their own life.  I am not talking about the apathetic people who collect welfare and have little interest in ever bettering themselves.

If we want to have a more libertarian society, the answer is education, and I don’t mean the kind you get in school.  People must be educated on the benefits of liberty.  They must be informed on the damage done by the government and the central bank.  As people get more informed, it will likely benefit the libertarian movement.

Even though I am anti-politics, I still find it entertaining.  I understand that the state – particularly the U.S. government – is brutal.  When you look at all of the death and destruction, both directly and indirectly, it probably isn’t something that should be entertaining.

The entertainment for me is watching these duds get up on stage and squirm through a bunch of questions.  They are so afraid to say something wrong.  In this sense, it is the main reason so many people like Donald Trump.  He mostly just speaks what is on his mind, or at least appears to.

In terms of the race for the presidency, I think a lot of it is show.  It is nice that the establishment is so bugged by Trump.  I actually like Trump in some respects, but that will change quickly if he actually gets elected president.  I can envision him being quite dictatorial.

I always like people better when they are in the so-called private sector, as opposed to politics.  With Arnold Schwarzenegger, I like some of his movies and I don’t care for others.  But I can watch the ones I like.  When he became governor in California, he really disgusted me.  Now that he is out of politics again, maybe I can once again like him one day.

But back to the topic of the presidency, I think the president is a figurehead to a large degree.  These candidates are vetted.  Some are more well liked than others by the establishment, but most of them are acceptable.  Even Ronald Reagan became acceptable to the establishment.  They didn’t like him, but they could put up with him.

Kennedy obviously fell out of favor with the establishment.  It was probably because he opposed a further escalation in Vietnam.  Maybe it was because he was in the way of Johnson and all of his cronies.

I think Rand Paul would have been similar to Ronald Reagan.  There would have been a fight to keep him out of the White House, but ultimately he would have been acceptable to the establishment.  Anyway, that is not a factor now because Paul will be out of the race soon.  His campaign could not have been worse.

I am glad that Rand Paul failed with his strategy of trying to play both sides.  His father was far more successful, in many aspects.  If Rand Paul were sent to the White House, I would be afraid that anything bad happening would be blamed on libertarianism, even though his policies would probably only be slightly less socialist than the others.

Here is a good question for a libertarian though.  Assuming an establishment candidate wins the presidency, who would be the best-case scenario in terms of liberty?

Of course, it is impossible to know for sure.  We really don’t know how someone will behave once in office.  Trump is probably the biggest unknown at this point.  Would he scale back the U.S. empire overseas, or would he feel the need to keep it going to show his strength?

I think any other Republican would be a disaster.  They are all pro war, although some are worse than others.

The Republicans will likely keep majorities in the House and Senate.  From this standpoint, we are probably better off with a Democrat in the presidency.  Gridlock tends to be better than having one party control all of the branches.

I don’t want Hillary Clinton though.  I’m not saying it is the end of America if she wins, but I can’t think of a more corrupt and power-hungry person.  She is a war hawk and she may get away with more war being a woman.  If Republicans opposed her war making, it would be for the wrong reasons.  They would probably say she is not being forceful enough.

Bernie Sanders, while not the peace candidate that many think he is, would certainly be much better in terms of foreign policy.  I am not even really considering him in this discussion though because I am not sure he is approved by the establishment and I also don’t think he can win.

At this point, I think the best-case scenario is for Joe Biden to win the presidency.  He may be a little less hawkish than Clinton.  He would clash with the Republicans and there would be less likelihood of a major war or a major new government program.

The other benefit is that Joe Biden is a bit of a clown.  He has a habit of saying stupid things and doing stupid things.  He puts his foot in his mouth a lot.  The late night shows enjoy his antics.  In other words, I don’t think many people would take him too seriously.  This is the reputation the president should have.

You won’t find me holding a “Biden for President” sign or going to the voting booth to fill in his name, but I think he may be the best-case scenario right now for liberty.  We’ll see.

It is time for me to pick on Thomas Sowell again.  I know he is old and has a good legacy.  He has had a productive life with a lot of writing.  I will even say he is a pretty good economist, at least on some issues.

He is somewhat similar to Milton Friedman.  Sowell is not good when it comes to the Fed or monetary policy in general.  Unfortunately, it is a big piece of economics for an economist to be weak on.  Sowell is good when it comes to things like the minimum wage and tax disincentives.  He is also a really good writer.

I still think Sowell is a statist though.  He wants to force you to stick your kids with needles.  He believes in an interventionist foreign policy.  He dislikes Ron Paul and supported Newt Gingrich.  Is that enough?

Yet many libertarians love the guy.  Maybe they are just trying to find a black person who they can claim as a libertarian.  If they want that, they should at least go with Walter Williams instead.  Williams is not too good on foreign policy, but he mainly sticks to economics and the law, where he is very strong on particular issues.

Sowell’s latest article published on LewRockwell.com discusses the opportunity Republicans now have that John Boehner is stepping down as Speaker of the House.  This in itself is rather naive.  Does he really think the Republican politicians want to reduce government in any way?

Sowell then goes on to talk about the Reagan revolution.  Every respected Republican has to pay homage to Ronald Reagan.

Sowell praises Reagan for his accomplishments, despite not having a majority in the House or Senate.  Reagan did manage to lower income tax rates.  This was his big accomplishment.  This must be what Sowell is referring to.

Other than things Reagan didn’t do, what other major accomplishments did he have?  He didn’t get us into a really major war and he kept things peaceful with the Soviet Union.  After that, Reagan’s actual record is not very good from a libertarian perspective.  He increased spending, increased deficits, increased payroll taxes, and did not shut down any major agencies.

Sowell is right in the fact that Reagan went over the Democrats’ heads in reducing income tax rates.  He brought his message directly to the people.

Sowell says: “Contrary to the thinking — or lack of thinking — among today’s Republican leaders, Reagan did not go to these Democratic voters and pander to them by offering them a watered-down version of what the Democrats were offering. He took his case to them and talked — yes, TALKED — to let them know what his own agenda offered to them and to the country.”

In other words, it wasn’t Reagan talking to Democratic politicians that made a difference.  It was Reagan talking directly to the American people.  The people then overwhelmingly demanded that the Democrats in Congress support Reagan’s tax cut proposals.  Unless a politician was in a heavily Democratic state or district, he felt threatened with his job.  They listened to their constituents because the public opinion was so overwhelming.

You don’t reduce the size and scope of government by convincing politicians of the merits of your philosophy.  You do it by convincing politicians that their jobs are at stake if they don’t go along with you.

The only way to convince politicians is to get public opinion strongly on your side.  If you want to get rid of the Department of Education or end U.S. foreign interventions, you aren’t going to do it by speaking logically to politicians.  You are going to do it by speaking logically to the American people and getting them on your side.  Only then will politicians listen.

Luckily, I think Sowell got this last point correct.  He understands the need to get the American people on the side of liberty (or whatever side he is on) in order to convince Democrat politicians to go along with it.  Unfortunately, Sowell needs to realize that the American people need to put that same pressure on the Republican politicians because most of them are not really interested in reducing government either.  They will do it if they have to do it in order to keep their jobs.

Right after the last Republican debate, I wrote a short analysis of each candidate’s performance.  My shortest comment was on Scott Walker.  I said, “Does anyone even remember anything this guy said?  Do you remember Tim Pawlenty?”  I knew Walker was done, but I was surprised how quickly he dropped out.

There should be a bunch more of the Republican candidates dropping out soon.  All of the candidates that were not in the main debate the last time should already be out.

If Carly Fiorina keeps rising in the polls, we are going to have to pay more attention to her.  Aside from Lindsey Graham, she may be the most likely candidate to bring the country into another war.  And I say that knowing that there are still a Bush and a Clinton in the race.

While I think Donald Trump is still the favorite for the Republican nomination, he is still well below 50% in the polls.  I expect the anti-Trump crowd to coalesce around somebody at some point.  In 2008 and 2012, I did not speak out much about this, but I figured the same would happen to Ron Paul if he became a strong contender for the nomination.  The establishment will push out the rest of the candidates, except one or two people.  So from Trump’s perspective, the longer that more candidates stay in the race, the better it is for him.  They can split up the anti-Trump votes.

It is looking like more of a possibility that the establishment will rally around Marco Rubio.  He has his consistency issues, as they all do, but he is a pretty good talker and he has managed to stay out of a lot of the petty bickering.

I haven’t said anything about the Pope’s visit to the U.S.  I will just say that for anyone who wants to redistribute wealth via the state, they can only do so by using violence or the threat of violence.  If the Pope were calling for people to voluntarily give up their wealth to help poor people, I would have no moral objection to this.  We could argue about whether or not that is the best way to help the poor, but that is it.  But since he wants to use violence to redistribute wealth, I believe this is inconsistent with Christianity and really all of the major religions.

Is Joe Biden going to enter the presidential race on the Democratic side?  It would certainly make for more entertainment.

I wonder if Janet Yellen ever reads anything outside of her own little bubble.  Is she familiar with free market arguments against the Fed?  Does she understand the libertarian arguments against the central bank?  I have had this dilemma for a long time now – at least for as long as I’ve been a libertarian.  Are politicians stupid or corrupt?  Do central bankers know what they are doing is bad for the economy, or do they really believe some of the things they say?  And the same goes for politicians.  I have never figured this out, but I think it is a combination of stupidity and corruptness.  I think they self-consciously, at least to a degree, just purposely ignore opposing views.

And my last random thought for the day:

If one of the presidential candidates wants to win some people over, he or she should spend some time talking about the struggles of the middle class, particularly in terms of rising health insurance premiums.  They could also mention that prices are rising faster than wages, despite what any statistics may say.  There is major discontent in this country because people are struggling.  They work hard every day and they still feel it is hard to get ahead.  It is hard just to pay the bills each month.  Of course, the main solution to this is to drastically reduce the size of government.  So maybe that is why nobody is pushing the issue too much.

I occasionally like to examine the Consumer Price Index (CPI) numbers.  Although they are government statistics, they are useful to us nonetheless.

First, the statistics show us trends.  Maybe the numbers understate actual price inflation, but this is really impossible to measure anyway because the quality of products are constantly changing, as well as what is demanded in the marketplace.  But regardless, we can see if price inflation is picking up, slowing down, or staying steady, at least according to the CPI numbers.

Second, analysts look at these numbers, including Federal Reserve members.  This can affect the Fed’s decisions in terms of monetary policy.  So it doesn’t matter if the Fed is wrong in using these numbers.  We have to take the CPI numbers into account because they give us a better idea of what the Fed may do.

The latest numbers are out for August.  The CPI is down 0.1% in August from the previous month.  But this doesn’t tell us the whole story.

Over the last 12 months, the CPI is up just 0.2%, which is well below the Fed’s supposed target of 2%.  However, the CPI less food and energy is up 1.8% from a year ago, indicating that oil is largely responsible for the flat number.

Just as with many other statistics, we often get a better picture using the median instead of the average.  The median CPI is up 2.3% from a year ago.

Of course, the CPI numbers can be quite misleading because they largely don’t take asset inflation into account.  The big run up in stock prices since 2009 is not reflected.

This is similar to what happened in the lead up to the stock market crash that marked the beginning of the Great Depression.  There was an easy money policy in the mid to late 1920s, but consumer prices were not rising much.  Meanwhile, there was a bubble in stock prices.

This isn’t to say we are going to get another Great Depression.  The initial stock crash was just one event in the Great Depression.  If the government had let the markets clear and done nothing about it, then there probably would have been a quick recovery.  There certainly would not have been a 12-year depression, or longer if you count the hard times during World War 2.

If you are looking to invest or speculate in gold or gold stocks, then you could really take these numbers in two ways.  The relatively low CPI numbers indicate there is little fear of inflation, which is bearish for gold.

On the other hand, the low CPI numbers make it more likely that the Fed will have a looser monetary policy in the future if it does not deem price inflation as a threat.  This is bullish for gold.

My overall sense is that we should be really cautious right now.  There is a good chance for an economic downturn.  This could be bad for gold investors in the short run.  However, if the Fed turns back to its quantitative easing (money creation), then I believe gold will shine shortly after that.

We’ll keep watching the CPI numbers as part of watching what the Fed is doing.

The Federal Reserve – along with any other central bank that has a government-granted monopoly over money – does great damage to the economy.  It hurts production and lowers our standard of living.

Unfortunately, it gets away with this to a large degree because it is hard to trace.  Many people – some libertarians included – think the Fed’s primary damage is causing rising prices.  While this is one possible symptom of the Fed’s monetary inflation, it does not really pinpoint the damage that is being done.

Worse, when we are in an environment of low price inflation (according to government statistics) as we are now, many people assume that there isn’t damage being done.  The Keynesians will say that the Fed can keep interest rates low and even increase its balance sheet (through more money creation) because there is no immediate threat of price inflation.

But everything the Fed does is damaging to the economy.  Unless it is doing absolutely nothing, which is never the case, it is distorting the economy.  Whether it is manipulating interest rates or changing the money supply, it is distorting the price of money and how resources are allocated.

If the Fed weren’t centrally planning the economy, then we would likely have falling prices due to increased production and technology. But we don’t get this benefit because of the Fed.

The Fed also greatly misallocates savings and investment.  In most cases, the savings rate would likely be higher if we had a free market in money and interest rates.

The Fed also continues to redistribute wealth.  Again, it is unfortunate that most people cannot recognize this, although I think there is more of a sense of this happening, even if people can’t quite explain it.  The Fed is paying banks 0.25% on their reserves.  If the Fed raises its key interest rate, the banks will get paid more by the Fed.

Where does this money come from?  It comes from the Fed’s own balance sheet, which it built up by creating money out of thin air.

When the Fed increases the money supply, it is redistributing wealth, even if it does not result in price inflation.  Even if the newly created money goes into excess reserves at banks, it is still a redistribution of wealth and a misallocation of resources.  If nothing else, it is funding the government’s debt, and the government’s spending is a misallocation of resources.

While government regulation and taxes stifle the economy to a great degree, the Federal Reserve is really the worst culprit of all.  It enables the debt to grow over a long period of time.  It is more deceptive, as it takes away people’s money without them really knowing what happened.

In other words, don’t be fooled like the masses into thinking that the Fed isn’t doing much damage because consumer price inflation is low.  Some people probably never even think about this.

On the optimistic side, I believe many more people are aware of the harmful effects of central banking than at any other time in the Fed’s existence.  Let’s hope this trend continues.

The FOMC recently released its latest monetary policy statement.  This was a much-anticipated meeting because there was no consensus on what the Fed was going to do.

It turns out that the Fed will not raise its key interest rate this time around.  Apparently 7 years of near zero interest rates is not enough stimulus for the economy (in the eyes of the Fed).

You can read my expanded thoughts on this here.  I bring up the possibility that we may see the Fed eventually raise its key rate while also turning back on its digital printing press, something I have already mentioned here before.

The Fed is in a bind.  Stocks are really shaky and a possible economic downturn is looming.  The Fed has already tightened its monetary policy when it ended QE last year.  It is afraid to go a step further and attempt to raise interest rates.  But by not raising rates, it is also signaling that it does not trust the so-called recovery.

And if the Fed does “raise rates”, it may actually lower rates.  It can raise its key rate by paying a higher rate on bank reserves, but market interest rates may fall if there is a major economic downturn.

The second Republican debate for this political season is just wrapping up.  I could say it is the second debate, as there has been no Democratic debate.  I am not including the Republican debates with the second-tier candidates.

Below is my analysis of the candidates and their performance.  This is from a libertarian point of view and from a general point of view of how I think others will perceive the candidates.

Donald Trump: He had a lot of time on stage.  A lot of the discussion was on his personal remarks, his business practices, his temperament, etc.  In other words, there was not a lot about his actual positions, although he did touch on those.  This is what the audience wants to see though.  They want drama television.  Overall, I don’t think Trump was hurt any in the debate.  Most of his positions are terrible from a libertarian perspective, but people like the fact that he speaks his mind.  It is encouraging that he proudly points out the fact that he opposed the Iraq War.  This would have been a non-winning position in previous Republican races.

Jeb Bush: He continues to have to defend his brother’s actions.  He says he is his own man.  The problem is that he doesn’t repudiate anything his brother did.  The CNN moderators pointed out that his foreign policy advisors come from his brother’s and father’s administrations.  Bush said that his brother kept everyone safe.  I wish someone had pointed out that the hundreds of thousands Iraqis that died at the hands of the war were not kept safe.  And the thousands of U.S. soldiers who died were not kept safe.

Scott Walker: Does anyone even remember anything this guy said?  Do you remember Tim Pawlenty?

Ted Cruz: He sounds like a robot alien from Mars.  I’m sure some hardcore conservatives will like him.  His economic/ domestic positions are decent, at least relative to the rest of the field.  On foreign policy, he is as bad as they get, if you don’t include Lindsey Graham.  Cruz is so pro war, no libertarian should consider supporting him at all.

Marco Rubio: He was about the same as the first debate.  He is a good talker.  I don’t expect him to move dramatically up or down in the polls.

Chris Christie: He played a different strategy of trying to get along with everyone.  I do agree with him that entitlement spending is the major economic issue that is being largely ignored.  Aside from that, he is probably the most liberal (in the modern sense) Republican of the 11 candidates.  I am not counting the other 4 that were in the warm-up debate.

Mike Huckabee: He was also about the same as in the first debate.  He will get some support from social conservatives, but I don’t think he will be the nominee.

Rand Paul: He came out with a much more libertarian message.  When he isn’t fighting with Trump, he actually can sound intelligent and reasonable.  Don’t get me wrong here; he still didn’t sound anywhere near as libertarian as his father.  But if Rand Paul had come out early on in his campaign the way he did in that second debate, then he would actually be a significant presence.  His poll numbers would be far higher.  Unfortunately for him, I think it is too little, too late.  He spoke up when Trump said he was the only one against the Iraq War.  Paul finally said that he was against it too.  Why didn’t he do that in the first debate?  Paul sounded really intelligent when talking about states’ rights and the 14th Amendment.  But hardcore libertarians don’t trust him and will suspect he is just changing his message for political reasons, which is probably the case.  It’s too bad he didn’t come out with a more libertarian message in the beginning of his campaign.

Carly Fiorina:  I can understand why she was so popular from her first debate.  She is a decent debater.  From a libertarian perspective, I had no idea she is such a war hawk.  In response to dealing with Russia, she said she would not talk to Putin, she would ramp up military exercises in the region, she would send more troops to Germany, and she would arm the Kurds.  Maybe she gives some competition to Cruz as the most hawkish candidate.

Ben Carson: I am not sure what the polls will show after this debate.  He had his good moments and his bad ones.  I don’t agree with him that there is no link between vaccines and autism.  From a political perspective, the government should stay out of the business of vaccinating people.  This is a very divisive issue though, and he may lose a few supporters for his position which is in line with the medical establishment.  His stance on the minimum wage was terrible.  In terms of foreign policy, it was nice to hear a less pro-war stance.  Again, it is a bit encouraging that more candidates are taking a less hawkish stance.

John Kasich: I don’t think there will be a big change in his numbers, but again I am encouraged that he is taking a less pro-war stance.  He went up slightly on my own scale for this.  Overall, his positions are terrible, but it is nice that candidates can take a softer stance on foreign intervention and not feel shunned by the Republican electorate.

Lastly, I didn’t love the job that CNN did.  There were a lot of questions that weren’t asked that could have been quite relevant.  There were too many personal things, but they may just be giving the audience what they want.  I would like to see some questions on the Federal Reserve and on the unfunded liabilities.  With that said, I thought CNN did a better job than Fox News, especially in terms of staying more objective.  At least it wasn’t as blatant as Fox News, where the anchors tried an attack job on Donald Trump that failed miserably.

There was a recent article by Charles Hugh Smith (also linked on Lew Rockwell’s site) explaining why the Fed would be insane to raise rates.

This is one of those situations that I have to criticize someone who generally seems to be on the pro-liberty side.  I have read Smith before and he often has some interesting insights.  But on this recent article, I dissent on virtually everything.

This isn’t a situation of criticizing an author on economic policy such as Paul Craig Roberts or Pat Buchanan.  I typically don’t agree with them on economic matters, but I like their writings on other issues such as foreign policy or civil liberties.

Smith typically focuses strictly on economic issues, so it is interesting that I find so many points of contention in his latest piece.

I dissent immediately just on the title.  I don’t think it would be insane for the Fed to raise rates.  I’m not sure that it matters much at all, except that the Fed will be paying a higher rate on bank reserves.

What is insane is the Fed’s policies over the last 7 years.  It approximately quintupled the adjusted monetary base over this period and has served to greatly misallocate resources, thus setting us up for another bust.

Smith says that the strong U.S. dollar is the core driver of the global recession.  But this is just ridiculous.  There may be a correlation, but the strong dollar isn’t the cause.

If there is a global recession, it is because all of the major central banks of the world have been engaging in massive monetary inflation.  This has severely misallocated resources, run up debt, and allowed governments to spend recklessly.  It also discourages saving and investment, which growth and productivity are ultimately built upon.

The only reason the U.S. dollar is strong is because it is the least bad of the major currencies right now.  All of the other major central banks are destroying their currencies at a greater pace than what the Fed is doing to the dollar.

Smith says that as the dollar gets stronger, capital will flee emerging markets and China.  But why is now any different than in the past?  If China wants to attract capital investment, then the bureaucrats there should open up the markets, stop the central bank money printing, and stop rigging the markets.

To blame China’s problems on the U.S. dollar is rather silly.  A homeless man can blame the weather for getting all wet, but someone sitting in a house isn’t going to help him by suggesting to change the weather patterns.

It is amazing how so many people will blame China for our problems and then some people will blame the U.S. for China’s problems.  I think everyone needs to take a look in the mirror here.

I blame the Fed for a lot of things, but most of China’s problems are a direct result of Chinese government and central bank policies.

People can talk about “exporting inflation” and “currency manipulation” all they want.  But the strength of a currency is a direct result of the central bank’s policy for that currency.  The supply of money and the demand for it by the people (which is largely dictated by supply expectations) determine how strong a currency is.  If a country has high price inflation, it can’t blame another central bank or another country for this problem, barring an actual war.

Smith thinks the Fed is insane to raise rates because it will deepen the global recession.  Sorry, but the insane policies were already enacted years ago.  The Fed has actually been less insane over the last year with its tighter monetary policy.  This has more to do with monetary inflation than it does interest rates.

I encourage people to read diverse opinions on different matters.  But it is important to recognize when someone’s arguments are way off base.