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.

The third neocon debate for president was hosted by NBC News.  All of the candidates had great ideas to stop China, defend Israel, and involve America in the entire world.  For a second there, I thought it was a debate to be president of Israel

It makes it rather easy for someone like Donald Trump to step forward and say, “I care about Americans and what is happening in America.”  It’s not that Donald Trump is great, but he looks good when compared to these slithering war hawks.

Ron DeSantis

Ron DeSantis has gone full neocon now that Israel takes center stage.  He lacks charisma, but I don’t think that’s a reason to be against him other than strategy reasons.  But if DeSantis actually became president, I am now of the opinion that he would be bad news.  He wouldn’t be a fiscal conservative at all because he would be too busy sending troops and war planes all over the world.

Tim Scott

Tim Scott is also a war hawk.  Unfortunately for him, he is also a bore.  He speaks, and people fall asleep.  I’m not sure if he is in this race because he wants the VP slot, or if he actually thinks another voice for the American empire can win in this crowded field.  If Trump picks Scott as his running mate, I will definitely not vote for Trump.

Chris Christie

Chris Christie just falls flat on nearly everything.  It’s almost surprising that he was able to qualify for this debate.

Nikki Haley

Nikki Haley is the most evil of the candidates.  Her lust for blood comes out in virtually every issue and every response to a question.  It is actually possible that someone could be worse than Biden, and she is that possibility.

Vivek Ramaswamy

Vivek Ramaswamy wasn’t great, but he was far less bad than all of the other candidates on stage.  The so-called moderators showed their bias with him.  They were quick to shut him down whenever he challenged anyone.  Perhaps they didn’t like it near the beginning of the debate when Vivek said that NBC shared blame in promoting false stories such as the Russian collusion hoax.

(The shills at NBC assured us after the debate that it was a strong night for Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis and had everything negative to say about Vivek.)

Vivek had what was likely a rehearsed line that was funny, but I’m not sure if it landed.  He referred to two people on the stage wearing three-inch heals.  Nikki Haley shot back at that, even though it was a far bigger shot at DeSantis.  This was based on a story last week that talked about DeSantis wearing high-heeled boots in order to appear taller.

Vivek also had to show his Israeli credentials, but he was definitely the least bad.  He called out the neoconservatives, even though, at times, he is borderline one himself.  I think Vivek reads the mood of the electorate better than the others, so he at least knows he has to sell a message of America first.

Summary

Once again, Donald Trump was the winner of the debate.  He made the right decision to not participate in these clown shows.  The only person Trump should consider as a running mate from the presidential race is Vivek.

Trump’s biggest flaw from his presidency is putting people in his administration who hate his guts.  If he puts any one of these candidates, besides Vivek, on the ticket, it will tell me right away that Trump learned nothing from his first term.

Trump will say some things about being friends with Israel and supporting their revenge against Hamas.  But I do think Trump will also make it clear that his number one priority is America.  It isn’t Israel.  It isn’t Ukraine.

The candidates on the debate stage all could have been wearing a “Make Israel Great Again” hat.  Most of the people watching the debate are worried about violence in their own community and the cost of eggs at the grocery store.  They may be sympathetic towards the innocent people in Israel, but they want someone who will represent the American people and their needs.

With the major boom in housing over the last decade, many long-term homeowners find themselves with significant home equity.  For many, it makes up the highest category of their net worth.

If you bought a house 10 years ago in 2013, you might have $200,000 or more in equity with an average house.  If you haven’t taken out any money already through refinancing and you bought the house with a significant down payment (say, 20%), then you may even have more than this in equity.

It would be realistic to have bought a house for $200,000 ten years ago with $40,000 down.  Now that house is worth over $400,000.  With the paydown of principal on the mortgage, you might have $300,000 in equity.

Some people see this as a waste because of opportunity costs.  The problem is: Compared to what?

Maybe there was arbitrage opportunity when mortgage rates were 3%, although it is still a significant risk.  Mortgage rates are now 7 to 8 percent.  In order to put this money to “work”, you would have to take out a loan for almost 8 percent.

You could also take a loan from your credit card company and invest the money in the stock market (or Bitcoin, or whatever).  You could make a return higher than the interest paid to your credit card company.  But you could also lose a lot of money.

Home Equity is Not Wasteful

Your home equity is not just money sitting there.  It is money that you are not borrowing to have an asset that you hopefully want to own.  With your home equity, it is money that is there to keep you from paying interest to a bank or some other financial institution.

It is easier to see that this money is working for you when you pay off your mortgage.  Your principal and interest will go to zero.  You will still have to pay insurance and property taxes if that is part of your monthly mortgage payment.

Let’s say that principal and interest is $1,000 per month.  When your mortgage is paid off, you will increase your monthly cash flow by $1,000.

If you never fully pay off your home loan because you sell the house, then you will get access to that money at that time, unless you opt to use it towards another house.

Your home equity is not a waste because it is “just sitting there”.  It is helping to reduce your monthly expenses now and in the future.

The Bubble Economy

There is more talk of these kinds of schemes in a bubble economy.  Of course, it is more possible in a bubble economy because more people tend to have significant home equity.

But even in rough times, there are people with significant home equity.  But it doesn’t cross their mind to take out a loan to invest the money because they see that most things have a negative return at that time.

When stocks and real estate are going higher, that’s when people become clever and think about taking out equity to invest.  Perhaps it’s better than using equity to take a vacation, but it is better to not tap into that equity unless you have some kind of very special opportunity cost.

If you are borrowing money to own the business of your dreams, then maybe you will have a case for taking on the risk.  But if you are taking out an additional loan to buy penny stocks, or even index funds, then you are probably going to get burned.

The bubble economy gets people to make irrational decisions because they think the good times are going to last.  They don’t think a prolonged bear market is going to happen.

When the bubble economy bursts, you don’t want to be in debt.  Any debt you do have, you want it to be at a relatively low interest rate, and you want it to be affordable compared to your monthly income and your other expenses.

It is never a good idea to borrow money out of your home equity, but it is especially bad to do in a bubble economy with higher interest rates.

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) met this week and released its latest monetary policy statement.  The Federal Reserve’s target range for the federal funds rate will stay between 5.25% and 5.5%.  This is the second meeting in a row where the FOMC did not change its target rate.

While the Fed is hoping this is a Goldilocks scenario (not too hot, not too cold), this isn’t the case.  On the one hand, the Fed fears losing control of the dollar through higher price inflation.  This could ultimately also mean a loss of control over interest rates.

On the other hand, the Fed fears a major financial crisis.  The Fed doesn’t want a recession, but the people at the central bank probably wouldn’t mind an ordinary recession as long as the major banks stay solvent and the bond market doesn’t blow up.

If the Fed had hiked rates more, this would have been more tightening in the face of an inverted yield curve.  If the Fed had lowered rates – which nobody expected to happen – this would have risked much higher price inflation and a bigger blowup of asset markets.

Therefore, the Fed just kept things the same.  It will let the economy come to the Fed instead of bringing the Fed to the economy.  In other words, the Fed will just react to economic news.  It is always reacting to what is in the rearview mirror.

The Inevitable Recession

I think Fed officials understand that a recession is coming.  Even those in the financial media are talking about the possibility, and they almost never predict a recession.  But if you want to be a contrarian, don’t think that there won’t be a recession just because the financial media is talking about a recession.  The contrarian take is that the recession will be far worse than what they are talking about.

The yield curve has been mostly inverted for all of 2023.  It has recently started to somewhat flatten, although the long yields are still less than the short yields.  It just isn’t as much.  But the recession doesn’t typically happen until after the yield curve normalizes after being inverted.

I don’t think most people understand the potential of how bad this could be.  The government is spending over $6 trillion per year with massive annual deficits well over a trillion dollars.  This will continue to get worse with higher interest rates on the debt that is rolled over.  It will continue to get worse as the Fed is paying higher interest rates to banks for their reserves.

The stock market is still a massive bubble.  Housing prices are still astronomical, with mortgage rates near 8%.  This whole thing has the potential to blow wide open.  Throw in some insolvent banks due to the higher rates, and we could be looking at a financial crisis that is even worse than 2008.

Protect Wealth First

I am still an advocate of the permanent portfolio, or something similar.  If we hit a bad recession, rates may fall back to near zero and bonds may actually do well.

If the Fed is essentially forced to go back to easy money to save the banking system, then gold may finally skyrocket with more money creation.  There is always the possibility too that stocks may do well again in such an environment.

Of course, it is also important to have some cash or cash equivalents on the sidelines, as sometimes that is the only thing that holds up in the short run in a recession.  Plus, right now, you can actually earn a decent rate of return on short-term Treasury bills and cds.

If we do get a deep recession and the major asset bubbles pop, it will actually be an opportunity for some people with cash on the sidelines.  It will be an opportunity to buy assets at a steep discount when everyone else is fearful.  This is always easier said than done, but it is good to know going into it.

Warren Buffett said to be fearful when others are greedy and to be greedy only when others are fearful.  On this, I believe Buffett was correct.  But you have to believe this and think about this before the fear hits.

The U.S. federal government spent about $6.1 trillion in fiscal year 2023.  There are about 340 million people in the United States.  There are about 131 million households.

That means that each household, on average, paid about $46,500 towards federal spending just in the last year.  This doesn’t include state and local government spending, which accounts for most of the spending when it comes to roads, police, firefighters, and schools.  Even though these don’t have to be funded by any government, these are things that actually matter to people.

Are you and your family getting $46,500 per year in benefits out of the federal government?

Sure, some of this money does go back into our pockets.  For some people, it might be directly, such as with Social Security.  For others, maybe they consider the small amount the federal government “contributes” to the government schools as important.

Harry Browne liked to ask the question: Would you be willing to give up your favorite government programs in exchange for never having to pay income taxes again?

We are in a situation now where the majority of the money spent by the federal government isn’t even coming from income taxes.  There are payroll taxes, which are really just a different bucket of income taxes.  There are corporate taxes.  There are capital gains taxes.  There are many different types of excise taxes.

Worst of all is the debt/ inflation tax.  The government “only” collected about $4.4 trillion in “revenue” in the fiscal year.  So, nearly $1.7 trillion was just borrowed.  But this isn’t free money.  This money has to come from somewhere.  It is $1.7 trillion that is drained from the private sector and spent by the government.

Would You Give Up Your Favorite Government Program?

I’d like to rephrase Harry Browne’s original question.  Are you getting $46,000 in benefits for you and your family from Washington DC?  Would you be willing to give up your favorite government programs for that amount?  Would you be willing to give them up for just half that amount?

Some people will scream national security.  Some people will scream about Social Security and healthcare.  If the government just spent half as much, say $3 trillion, that would still get you a lot of Medicare, Social Security, and defense.  But you wouldn’t be able to fund Ukraine and run an empire overseas.  You wouldn’t be able to have millions of bureaucrats like Dr. Fauci doing virus research and climate change research and handing out electric vehicle credits.

We could scale back the so-called entitlement programs and just have an actual defensive military.  If that cost $3 trillion, then you could at least save about $23,000 for you and your family every year.

Status Quo Bias

This is a situation where people adjust their thinking and behavior to the new status quo.  The federal budget just goes up nearly every year from the previous year.  We think it is just normal for the government to have its hand in everything.

If you compare 2023 America to the America before 1913 and the income tax and Federal Reserve, the difference is stark.  While the U.S. government had its overseas interventions then, it wasn’t running an empire overseas.  It wasn’t involved in a massive welfare state at home.  Most taxes were paid at a local level, and the overall burden of taxation was a fraction of what it is now.

If the U.S. budget were cut in half overnight, there would be a period of adjustment, especially for those who are so dependent on federal spending.  But after the initial shock, we would see a prosperity that is unimaginable.

Imagine

Somehow, we still see increases in production and great increases in technology in spite of massive government taxation and interference.  Imagine what would be if the federal government were drastically scaled back.  People would be wealthy beyond their wildest dreams in a relatively short amount of time.

Just imagine if you had an extra $20,000 (tax free) in your pocket this year.  Would you pay down some debt?  Would you donate to charity?  Would you save it for a nice vacation?  Would you help fund your retirement account?  Would you upgrade your house?  Maybe it would be a combination of several of these things.

Now imagine that you have that extra $20,000 every single year after this.  Just think of the possibilities.

The American people are getting the short end of the stick from their government.  If the American people free themselves from the chains of Washington DC, they would be far wealthier than they could imagine.

Aside from the prospects of a new world war, there has been much political drama lately.  Even though we are getting close to primary season for the next presidential election, the drama recently has been in the House of Representatives.

When then Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, cut a deal for the budget, Matt Gaetz and a handful of other representatives rebelled and forced McCarthy out of his position.  We went several weeks without a Speaker of the House, yet the American people somehow survived.

Thomas Massie, the most libertarian member of Congress, did not vote to remove McCarthy as speaker, questioning whether it was really worth it.  He also worried that things could actually be worse with someone different, which is always a reality in politics.

Still, while I have much respect for Massie, I disagreed with his take on this issue at the time.  The system is already so broken and corrupt that we shouldn’t worry too much about disturbing it.  McCarthy was, and still is, an establishment guy.  The only reason he ever did anything that seemed to oppose the establishment was because of pressure from people like Gaetz.  There is also much pressure from the Republican electorate, in general, outside of Washington DC.

After going through many candidates and votes, the Republicans in DC have finally settled on Mike Johnson.  It is someone that I was not familiar with, and most people outside of Congress and his district probably didn’t know much about him, if they had even heard of him.

Speaker Mike Johnson

From the little I have learned about Mike Johnson in the last couple of days, he is evidently a conservative.  From a libertarian standpoint, this can be both good and bad.  Johnson’s home district is in Louisiana, and he is quite religious.

I have no problem with Johnson being a devout Christian who wears his religion on his sleeve.  The problem is that most politicians who do this end up being a disaster.  Ron Paul is a Christian, but he never wore his religion on his sleeve.  It is deeply personal to him, but he generally didn’t bring it into his political statements.

The other major issue as it relates to religion is that, unfortunately, most politicians who claim to be deeply Christian are the biggest warmongers in existence.  The politicians who constantly express their Christianity have no issue with the mass bombing of innocent civilians, as long as the “good guys” are doing it in the name of self-defense and democracy.

So it is no surprise that one of Johnson’s first acts as speaker was to support the U.S. government’s involvement in supporting the state of Israel.  In Washington speak, supporting Israel doesn’t mean praying for the Israelis or just issuing statements in moral support.  It means providing money and weapons to the Israeli government.  It means justifying the mass bombing of Palestinians.  It could even possibly mean American troops in the region.

Of course, Johnson’s support for Israel (meaning the bombing campaign by the Israeli government) is supported by most members of Congress.  Thomas Massie is the only one questioning U.S. involvement from a libertarian perspective.

The Good News

There are positive aspects about Mike Johnson taking the position that is second in line for the presidency behind the illustrious Kamala Harris.

When Johnson isn’t helping to send money to fight overseas wars, he is somewhat of a fiscal conservative, at least compared to other politicians in DC.  He initially supported funding for Ukraine, but then voted against every subsequent round of funding.

Johnson supported not certifying the presidential election in 2020.  You might see that as good or bad, but it is significant in the sense that he isn’t just going along with the deep state.  He isn’t going to help the establishment by spreading phony stories about Russian interference.

Maybe every move Johnson makes is for political reasons, but that is actually good news.  Even if he isn’t genuine in his rhetoric, he feels the need to say the things he says because of public opinion, or at least public opinion within the Republican Party and his home district.

Public Opinion – Making a Difference

Some libertarians just blow off all news out of Washington DC saying that all of the politicians are the same.  In this case, there are some people who say that having a new speaker means nothing and it is just politics.

And they may be right in the sense that Mike Johnson is probably just another politician who cares more about his own power than he does about the American people.

But we shouldn’t confuse this with a lack of progress and assume that nothing is changing.  Some libertarians, including myself, say that you can’t gain long-term liberty by electing the “right people”.  It requires changing the hearts and minds of the American people.

But if Mike Johnson changed his position on funding Ukraine to satisfy public opinion, then that means we are making progress.  Even if Johnson is lying about every position he takes, we should celebrate when he takes the pro liberty position on an issue.  It means that public opinion has shifted towards greater liberty and is having an impact.

In conclusion, even though Mike Johnson is probably not much better than Kevin McCarthy or any other previous speaker, he is at least more rhetorically on the side of liberty with many issues compared to previous people.  It means that public opinion does matter.

And if Johnson ends up being really terrible, especially on budget issues, there is no preventing Matt Gaetz and others in Congress from removing him as speaker.  This pressure alone should make a difference and provide us some hope that greater liberty in the future is possible.

When I report on the consumer price index (CPI), I often say that it is likely understated.  It is impossible to get an accurate number when it comes to consumer price inflation because there are so many variables.

Products and services change constantly, and the supply and demand for those goods and services also changes constantly.  The size and quality can change.  The amount used by consumers changes, and not just because of price.  There are also government regulations and taxes that can impact prices.  Also, different people consume different things.

If one person makes a living driving around, then the price of gas will impact this person disproportionately.  For someone who works at home and doesn’t drive much, then the price of gas doesn’t matter much, at least not directly.

There are also issues of weighting.  One of my criticisms of the CPI is that it doesn’t seem to capture the importance of certain goods and services.  For example, insurance costs have risen quite a bit.  One of the few things that has actually gone down in price is certain electronics.

Let’s say the price of car insurance has gone up 10% over the last year.  Meanwhile, the price of televisions has gone down by 10%.  But I haven’t purchased a big new television in 13 years.  And if I do purchase one, it will be for under $1,000 and will probably last me another 13 years.

I have to pay for car insurance every 6 months.  For some people, maybe their policy renews once per year.  The car insurance is more expensive than a television, and it is an ongoing expense.  So to compare these two items is impossible.  You can see the problem with the index.

It is still useful to attempt to measure price inflation.  The government statistics are useful to look at the trend.  Even if they are understated, the trend tells us a lot as long as nothing drastic changes in the makeup of the calculation.

Overestimating Price Inflation

Some Austrian school economists and libertarians like to cite Shadow Government Statistics (shadowstats.com), which estimates consumer price inflation supposedly using the same methodology as what the government used in the past.

I believe there is little basis to rely on these numbers, and they seem wildly high.

If you look at a chart posted at the website of the consumer price inflation using a 1980-based alternate, you can see that price inflation using the ShadowStats method was around 10% since 2008.  There are some years higher and some years lower, but most years are near the 10% line with the exception of the last couple of years, which are much higher.

To say that we have had roughly 10% price inflation annually for the last 15 years is to make a statement that seems wildly contradictory to what most people see in their daily lives.

The Rule of 72

The Rule of 72 is used for investing.  You can take the number 72 and divide it by the interest rate (or investment return).  The result is the approximate time in years it takes to double your money.  So if you have an investment rate of return of 8%, then it would take about 9 years for your investment to double at that rate, assuming all returns are reinvested.

The same formula can work for price inflation.  If prices are going up at about 10% per year, then prices will double after about 7.2 years.  If prices double again in another 7.2 years, then that means they have more than quadrupled in 15 years.

You can also do this with a calculator or and Excel spreadsheet.  Start with $100 and multiply it by 1.1.  Do that 15 times.  After 15 years, $100 becomes $417.

Compounding interest works well for wealth building.  It unfortunately also applies to price inflation.  Your price inflation this year is on top of the price inflation from last year.

Have Your Prices Quadrupled Since 2008?

There are some major areas in life that have definitely more than doubled in price.  Car insurance and homeowners insurance are two areas where some people have seen a more than doubling in the last 15 years.  Medical care costs for some people have more than doubled.  There are certain food items that have probably doubled in the last 15 years.

I can’t think of much, if anything, that has quadrupled.  Housing prices haven’t quadrupled in most areas.  Rent hasn’t quadrupled.  I buy eggs a lot, and they have gone up a lot in price.  But they are not four times as much as they were in 2008.

Therefore, I can safely conclude that we should ignore the ShadowStats website.  Maybe it is an interesting website and has some good insights about protecting against inflation.  But for any claims it makes against government inflation statistics, it is also wildly unrealistic.  Prices are not four times higher for most things than they were 15 years ago.  Most things are nowhere near that.

It is good to question government statistics, but we have to be careful in the alternatives as well.