Who are the presidential candidates who have done surprisingly well?  This isn’t a question of who you think will win or who is winning in the polls.  Who is doing better than expected?

I think there are three obvious choices: Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Bernie Sanders.  They are not establishment candidates.  They are outsiders, at least compared to most of the rest of the field.

Sanders is a senator, but he is a little out there in more ways than one.  The establishment could deal with Sanders, but they don’t really want to.  He actually shows some opposition to war and the spy state.

The establishment could learn to live with Ben Carson.  Again, they would much prefer someone they can fully control such as Bush or Rubio.

The establishment hates Donald Trump the most.  They would prefer Rand Paul at this point over Trump.  It isn’t that Trump holds a lot of views unfavorable to the establishment.  It is just that he can not be bought with money.

It is obvious that many American voters are fed up with the status quo and want to see something different.  This is why these three are doing well in the polls.  I don’t expect Sanders to overtake Clinton, but he is still doing surprisingly well.

With Trump and Sanders in particular, there is a common theme.  They are resonating with the public because they are feeling their pain.  Obviously Trump has nothing in common with the average middle class American in terms of dealing with financial struggles.  But he at least acknowledges their pain.

Sanders and Trump are continually saying that Americans are taking it on the chin.  I think people want this recognized because it is true.

Now their solutions are horrendous – Sanders more so than Trump.  But at least they are offering something.

If someone feels sick and goes to the doctor, most people would prefer a doctor who prescribes something or gives some kind of suggestion to get better, even if it ends up being wrong.  Most people will resent a doctor who tells the patient that it is all in their head and that they really aren’t sick.

In other words, many Americans are looking for some empathy.  They at least want it acknowledged that times are tough and that the middle class is getting royally screwed.

This is where Rand Paul really blew it.  He messed up a lot of things with his campaign, but this was such an easy message that he missed.  He should have simply agreed with Trump on the struggles of the middle class and then gone on to offer a different solution.

Rand Paul’s strategy from the beginning was to appeal to his father’s libertarian base, while also bringing in other conservatives who are far less libertarian, such as some Tea Party people.  Instead, Paul just turned off both factions with his wishy-washy answers.

But here was one issue where he could have told the truth and he really could have appealed to both factions.  He just needed to strongly acknowledge the plight of the middle class.  And his answer should be less taxes, less spending, and less inflation.  Paul and his advisors completely missed the boat on this one.

The basic problems in the economy right now is too much government spending, too much government regulation, and too much Federal Reserve monetary inflation.  This has resulted in the cost-of-living rising faster than incomes.  In other words, real incomes are falling.

The consumer price index can help us see trends in consumer prices, but it is not an accurate reflection of our cost-of-living in comparison to our wages.  In most cases, the cost-of-living raises that people are getting in their jobs are not even enough to offset the increased premiums in their health insurance.  And while prices aren’t skyrocketing for things such as food and cars, they are going up.

Life is expensive and wages are not keeping up.  They especially aren’t keeping up when you take out all of the taxes.

This is really where most of the candidates fell short.  Trump and Sanders have exploited this opportunity just by pointing out reality.  Sanders wants to tax the rich and have a bigger welfare state.  Trump wants to tax the rich too, although to a lesser extent.  He wants to start a trade war with China.

They are both bad on economics.  But at least they recognize that the patient is sick.  The patient wants a doctor who believes him.  The patient doesn’t want to be told that everything is fine when he knows that everything is not fine.

When it comes to money advice, I take a lot of pieces from a lot of different people.

With Dave Ramsey and Suze Orman, there are pieces of valid advice.  I generally don’t like their investment advice.  They are usually anti-gold.  They do not have a good understanding of the fiat monetary system that we deal with in today’s world.

I agree with Ramsey and Orman on buying term life insurance, as opposed to whole life insurance.  I tend to agree with them on issues of debt, particularly credit card debt.  So while I don’t agree with some of their investment advice, I still find you can learn something from listening to them, as long as you know what not to learn also.

I believe people should attempt to live below their means.  This means spending less than they make.  There are exceptions to this rule.  I have less sympathy for someone earning a high income.  Someone who is single and on their own making $40,000 per year or less is probably struggling quite a bit to get by.  I can understand that it is hard to live below their means, even though some people are able to do it.

There are families making $200,000 per year that spend almost everything they make.  This is a big mistake.  Unless they are living in a really high cost of living area such as New York City, there is no reason they can not cut back comfortably.  They are probably wasting money at this level.  I know taxes will take up a big chunk, but there is no reason a family in this situation can’t start saving at least $10,000 per year while still living quite comfortably.  It should really be more at this level.

Sometimes people just simply need to make more money though.  Someone earning $40,000 per year is just never going to get rich, barring some stroke of luck with a very low probability.  Most people aren’t going to win the lottery no matter how much they dream about it.

Even at $80,000 per year, you are probably never going to be rich.  If you are frugal and make good decisions, you will live comfortably.  You may even get to retire one day in some comfort.

Still, I think a lot of people just simply need to make more money.  This means adding value to other people’s lives.  People like Suze Orman and Dave Ramsey are good on the spending side of things.  If you want to get extreme, you can look at Mr. Money Mustache or the Penny Hoarder.

But you can’t neglect making more money.  Sometimes this just means investing more time in yourself, even if you don’t initially see a monetary payoff.

I look for inspiration from different people such as James Altucher, Robert Kiyosaki, Peter Voogd, Tim Ferriss, T. Harv Eker, and various other people.  I don’t need to agree with someone on everything to get inspiration from them.

Sometimes you need to explore other options on making money.  This may mean a side business or a different career.

It doesn’t mean you take out a loan and start a business.  It means you explore your options.  You invest minimal money.  Instead, you invest your time.  You can always invest in yourself by learning more.  You can always learn new marketing skills, computer skills, or people skills.

So while spending less than you earn is important, it is even more important to increase the amount you earn.  If you make a lot of money, it is easy to spend less than you earn if you have any decent amount of discipline.

While U.S. government regulations are in some ways more burdensome now than ever before, there are also more ways to make money now than ever before.  Don’t ignore the opportunities that are out there.  Even in a bad economy, there are people out there with money to spend.  You just have to figure out what they want.

I still occasionally turn to the late Harry Browne for wisdom.  I just read an old article from 1997 entitled What do Libertarians Want?

While not specifically mentioning anarchy, Browne essentially addresses the topic in this article.  I had also heard him discuss this on a radio show one time, and this article seems consistent with what I remember him saying.

The last paragraph is the most telling.  Browne states:

“If we can reduce government to a fraction of its present size, it will become profitable for the best minds in the world to discover and offer methods of replacing the remaining governmental programs with non-coercive market institutions.  We don’t have to devise those solutions now, and we don’t even have to wonder whether it’s possible to devise such solutions.  It simply isn’t relevant – and it won’t be until we’ve moved much closer to our goal of reducing government to a much smaller size.”

I don’t get into this topic a lot, but it does occasionally come up in libertarian circles.  I have written before on the subject of panarchy.

I think some libertarians who consider themselves anarchists make a major mistake.  They can wish for anarchy for themselves, but they should never seek to force this idea onto others.  If someone else wants to live under a particular type of government, they should be free to do so.

The problem with the state as we know it today is that we can’t opt out.  If we could opt out or choose a different state to live under, then we would have liberty, assuming that other states respected this view.

I have not been involved in many discussions on the idea of anarchy with non-libertarians, although it has occasionally come up.  Even with the concession that anyone should be able to live under a government of their choosing, I tend to struggle with the issue of the courts.  How would a justice system operate in a society without a state?  Who would decide on putting someone in jail who is a violent threat to society?

It’s not to say that I haven’t attempted to answer such questions in my own mind.  I just have trouble articulating the answer to my own satisfaction.  I believe this is one area that libertarian anarchists have failed to answer.  I have tried to read what has been written on this subject, even by greats such as Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and Tom Woods.  Still, nothing has satisfied me yet on this topic.

That is why, as of right now, I basically default to Harry Browne’s position, along with the position of panarchy.  With the occasional discussion with a non-libertarian on the idea of anarchism, I get asked questions about how the roads would work, how the fire department would work, how the country would be defended, how the court system would work, etc.  I feel I can adequately answer the first three questions, but I still struggle with the court question.

But in such a discussion, I ask the non-libertarian if he favors getting the state completely out of education.  In other words, parents should be free to send or not send their kids to school.  And if they do send them to school, they will have to pay for all of it, or rely on charity.

I will also ask the person if he believes we should abolish the FDA and rely on the free market for regulation.  I will ask if he believes in getting rid of Social Security.  I will ask if he believes in legalizing all drugs.

If the person takes the non-libertarian position on any one of these – which it is highly likely he will take the non-libertarian position on most of these – then I have my response to get away from the question of anarchy.  I will say that if I can’t convince him to get the government completely out of education, then I am certainly not going to convince him to get the government out of building roads or defending the country.

I think this is similar to Harry Browne’s point.  It is ok for libertarians to have friendly debates about these topics amongst themselves.  We like to philosophize.  But there isn’t much point with non-libertarians unless you are just hitting them with a moral argument that the initiation of force is never acceptable.

I believe Harry Browne was correct in saying that we need to significantly reduce government, which will in turn allow the best minds in the world to figure out the rest.

When Browne wrote that article, the internet was just starting to take form.  We live in a different world now.  At that time, there were probably some libertarians who thought the state had to at least provide a postal service.  Now, we can see that the Post Office is becoming obsolete, and the little that the Post Office does do could easily be done by institutions in a free market.

Maybe one day we can get to a point where government is such a small part of our lives that the main political arguments in society will be between minarchists and anarchists.  We can only hope.

We know the government – particularly the U.S. government – likes to rack up a lot of debt.  It has the privilege of relying on the Federal Reserve to create money out of thin air to help purchase the debt.

The politicians also have the privilege of not taking responsibility for the debt.  The worst that will happen to them is that they are kicked out of office.  They don’t have to pay back any government debt, even though they spent the money.  If they ever do pay it back, it will be from taxpayer money.

While politicians can accumulate debt and leave it to the next person to figure out, you as an individual cannot do this, unless you are single and planning to die in a short timeframe.

I don’t agree with everything that Dave Ramsey says, but I do agree that you should stay out of debt for the most part.  I also generally agree with Suze Orman on this point.

I think it is acceptable to have mortgage debt, assuming it is done wisely.  If it is for a house you can afford, and the monthly payments are manageable, then buying a house with debt is ok.  It still may not be the right decision for you, but it is one of the few acceptable forms of debt that I see.

Car payments are tricky.  Some people say you should never buy a car with debt because it is a depreciating asset.  Still, I don’t completely believe this because it is something of a necessity for most people.  I don’t think debt is so much the issue with buying a car.  I think the big problem is that too many people buy more than they should.  They pay too much for extra luxuries.  You can buy a brand new car that is decent for under $20,000.

Student loans are also tricky.  I am generally against them.  Again, I think the biggest problem is people (not always kids) going to an expensive school that they can’t afford.  You hear horror stories about some young adult waiting tables who has $100,000 in student loan debt.  If you have to take on student debt, it should be for a particular goal in mind.  It should be for something that will likely increase your earning potential.  You also don’t need to spend so much money.  You can often find in-state schools that are cheaper and you can even take exams that will give you some college credits.

After that, I strongly advocate staying away from debt unless it is an emergency or a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

I have heard stories of entrepreneurs who put $5,000 on their credit card to start a business because they didn’t have any money.  The business ended up becoming worth millions.  You could say this was a good use of debt.

The problem here is that you don’t hear the many more stories about people who went into debt to start a business only to see the business fail.  I am all for starting a business.  But you should do it with no debt or very minimal debt in most cases.

Credit card debt is the worst, other than perhaps the big horror stories of student loan debt.  Paying interest every month to your credit card company is just throwing money away.  You should stay away from doing this in almost any way possible.  You should try to pay off your credit card bill in full every month.

When you get into significant debt, it really puts you in a rut.  It is hard to get out of it.  It is eating up your cash flow that you could be using to actually save money.

Some people don’t worry about debt.  They act like politicians, saying that they will deal with it another day in the future.  But their day of reckoning will come and it won’t be pretty.

There are some who think you should just enjoy life today because you could be dead tomorrow.  I agree that you should try to enjoy life today, but it doesn’t mean being reckless and irresponsible.  I find that people who are not in debt are typically happier anyway.  Taking a short-term outlook on life is a lower class attitude.

Unfortunately, there are even some people who think it makes financial sense to go into debt (outside of real estate).  This even includes a few libertarians who think they will depend on inflation to eat away their debts.

But the problem is that you are still paying interest.  If you are paying out $300 per month in interest payments and the purchasing power of the dollar is cut in half, you will still be paying $300 per month in interest.  Even in inflation-adjusted terms, you will still be paying out $150 per month.  So unless you went into debt to buy an income-producing asset, how are you going to get ahead with this game?

It is also important to remember that inflation in wages tends to lag behind everything else.  And your debt payments won’t wait for the inflation numbers to kick in that you want.

In addition, our economy today is one of booms and busts.  We have inflationary periods and we have corrections.  It is not just straight inflation (monetary or price) all the time.  Our booms and busts may be getting more severe, but that is still our reality.

In conclusion, I advocate that everyone stay out of debt if at all possible, with a few possible exceptions.  Nobody ever became rich by paying interest to someone else.

As a libertarian, I am quite optimistic for the long-term future.  I believe that technology and open communication are mostly on our side in the fight for liberty.  I consider myself more optimistic than the majority of libertarians.  One of the many things I learned from Harry Browne is that human nature is on our side.

There are no guarantees.  We can’t be certain there won’t be a nuclear war that ends the world.  We can’t be certain that there won’t be a major terrorist attack that will once again convince Americans to cede liberty for more authoritarianism.  But generally speaking, I think the odds are in our favor.

With that said, I do see economic trouble ahead.  Many people who are not libertarians think I am a pessimist for this.  But this really isn’t pessimism.  It is realism.  It is just dealing with the facts as I see them.

I could certainly be wrong.  It is my opinion.  But it is my opinion based on my own knowledge and based on the facts as I see them.

I know that when the Federal Reserve quintuples the adjusted monetary base over a period of 7 years, it is not a good thing.  Even though we have not seen a commensurate rise in consumer prices, the previously loose monetary policy has misallocated resources.  This leads to activity that does not meet the highest priorities of consumers.  At some point, the resources need to be more aligned to actual consumer demand.

We have a combination of a massive national government debt, massive unfunded liabilities (particularly Medicare and Social Security), and all of the malinvestment created from the Fed.  It is not going to be pretty when things fall apart.

Ultimately, we need some kind of a major correction so that capital is not continually misallocated.  The average American family is really struggling right now and a correction is actually what is needed for the long term.  The problem is the short term.  We can try to avoid the short term by kicking the can, but that will only lead to a bigger day of reckoning in the future.

The biggest problem for the average American family is not their stock portfolio.  Most don’t own individual stocks.  It is just their 401k retirement plans.  The biggest issue is employment.  A big correction will likely lead to higher unemployment and a drop in real wages, at least initially.

We have to consider what things will be like if and when we do hit a major recession.  For this, we have to use some common sense and also use a bit of history.

I think back to 2001.  It was a time when I often went out to eat lunch with a group of coworkers.  We usually had a good time getting away from the work building for lunch.

After the attacks on September 11, 2001, business slowed quite dramatically for a period of about three months.  I’m still not sure exactly why there was such a great impact.  If anything, there should have been a much greater impact after the fall of 2008.  We didn’t stop going out for lunch, but a lot of other people did, at least for a while.

I remember talking to a restaurant owner a couple of months after the 9/11 attacks.  He said that business had been really slow.  He was worried about the survival of his business at that time.  Of course, Alan Greenspan turned on the digital printing press, which helped revive the economy, but also led to the housing bubble and the great recession that was to come.

Anyway, the point of this story is that if we have a significant economic crisis, we should be prepared for how things will take shape.  I think the restaurant business is really going to take a hit.

Fast food restaurants may still do ok.  It is almost just as cheap to eat lunch at McDonald’s as it is to buy food at the grocery store for lunch.  I think more people are trying to eat healthier, so this has cut into McDonald’s business a bit, as well as some other fast food places.  But there are still a lot of people who will indulge for the price and convenience.  If we are in a deep recession, the family treat on Saturday night might mean eating at McDonald’s.

Sit-down restaurants will struggle a lot unless they have a special niche.  This is one of the easiest things for people to cut out of their budget.  They can save a few bucks by buying food at the grocery store instead of going out to eat.  People going to work can pack a lunch instead of buying food in a cafeteria or going out.

People will cut back on vacations.  If gas prices stay relatively low, as they should in a deep recession, then people will seek short getaway vacations for a little relief.  They will drive instead of flying.

Cable television would be one of the hardest and easiest things to give up.  It is easy in the sense that it is almost completely for entertainment.  It is not a necessity for at least 99% of the population, although many more than 1% would label it as that.  I think some people would cut back on the amount of food they eat before they give up cable.  (By the way, it might be something of a necessity for some people.  If you are sports broadcaster on the radio, you are actually expected to watch some of the big sporting events on television.)

Then there are cell phones.  It is true that smartphones didn’t exist all that long ago.  In this sense, it is not a necessity.  But I think this is one of the last luxuries that people would give up.  And for some, it actually is part of their work.  It can be terrible for time management as people waste time playing games and checking social media.

But smartphones can also be a very efficient use of time.  You can use them to do business or read or listen to educational and useful podcasts.  You can listen and learn during commutes.  And if you are ever waiting in line or waiting to see a doctor or whoever, you can make good use of your time.

While I am an advocate of saving money and not always living for today, I am also not one who thinks you should be overly frugal if you don’t have to be.  Some people like their $5 cup of coffee in the morning.  If you can afford it, and you are still saving money, and it makes your day better, then go for it.

I think the biggest thing that makes me cringe is just how much people spend on cars.  I see people spending $30,000 or more on a new car when they barely make that much in a year.  How can you justify paying even 6 months worth of a salary to buy a new car?  This is going to be an expense that many people regret when times get even tougher.  It is also going to be an industry that suffers a lot.  I expect a lot more people to be buying cars that sell for under $20,000.  There are no longer a lot of new cars that sell for this much.

If and when the next economic crisis hits, you will probably have to adjust your budget, even if you don’t lose your job.  It might be better to make some minor adjustments now so that it is not as painful when the time comes.

The most important thing is income preservation.  If you can keep your job or your source of income, you can probably weather the storm, even if you have to take a pay cut.

It is also good to be mentally prepared for an economic downturn.  This doesn’t mean walking around with a bad attitude or being paranoid.  It just means being aware of the possibilities.  Then when the time does come, it may not seem so bad.

I recently listened to a podcast on the Tom Woods Show.  Tom Woods interviewed Jim Babka, one of the founders of DownsizeDC.org.  I am a strong supporter of both men and their work.

The entire podcast is great, but I was especially thrilled listening to the segment when they discussed Harry Browne.  One thing Tom Woods mentioned is that many of his young listeners are probably not too familiar with Harry Browne.

It is hard to believe that he passed away over 9 years ago, but Harry Browne was such a great influence on me in many ways.  He shaped my thinking in investments and he made me more of an optimist in terms of hope for a more libertarian future.  I was lucky to meet Harry in person one time in 2004.

I was already somewhat libertarian when I became familiar with Harry Browne.  But he brought me over the edge on foreign policy and I have been strongly anti-war since about 2003.  It was Browne’s writings and talk show that convinced me of a non-interventionist foreign policy.  I listened to him frequently in 2002 during the run-up to the Iraq War.

I was sympathetic with American intervention when it supposedly involved helping people under a brutal dictator or when a weaker group of people were being abused or slaughtered by another group.  Browne made the point that any individual should be free to help others in any way they want, whether it is donating money or taking up arms and going overseas.  But nobody should be forced to pay for it or be forced to fight.

I also quickly realized that things were not clean cut.  It was not usually good vs. evil.  It was more often evil vs. evil.  Or sometimes it was just the U.S. government completely lying about the situation.

Harry Browne wrote some magnificent books and I also remember always looking forward to his new articles.  I really do miss him and I wish he could have been alive to see the great success that Ron Paul had in 2007/ 2008.  The libertarian movement is a lot bigger now than it was in the early 2000s.

I can’t emphasize enough just how much of an impact Harry Browne has had on the libertarian movement.  He was one of the few people who reached a relatively wide audience (for those days) and taught them how to be principled while also selling the message.

Ron Paul has created more libertarians than probably anyone in human history.  It was mostly from his 2007/ 2008 presidential campaign.  But we can’t ignore that this likely would not have happened – or at least to the degree that it did – if there had not already been a core base of hardcore libertarians.

When people first discovered Ron Paul, they needed somewhere to go for more information.  They needed books and articles to read.  They turned to places such as the Mises Institute, LewRockwell.com, and even Harry Browne’s website.  They relied on books by hardcore libertarians such as Murray Rothbard, Thomas DiLorenzo, Tom Woods, and Harry Browne.  They also turned to some who were in some way part of the liberty movement such as Ayn Rand.

People such as Harry Browne helped lay the groundwork for what was to come.  Harry even impacted Ron Paul, as Ron Paul gave great praise to Harry and his work.

If you are a libertarian in your 20s, or if you are just relatively new to the libertarian movement, I would encourage you to read some Harry Browne articles.  You might want to even consider purchasing some of his books.

I recently saw this chart in an article I was reading.  It indicates that income inequality increased greatly after the early 1970s in the United States.

I don’t care all that much about income inequality, except as it is perceived by others.  The problem I have is that the top 1% have prospered while most of the rest have been stagnant in terms of income.

While the statistics aren’t perfect, real household income is a good measure of whether living standards are increasing as they should.  There is no question that we are better off today in terms of technology and communication.  The problem is that our incomes have not increased in real terms for basic needs such as housing, food, medical care, and education.

Of course, 1971 was the year that Nixon took the U.S. off the international gold standard.  The U.S. was already inflating, which is why Nixon was essentially forced to do this.  Otherwise, all of the gold would have been gone quickly.

The last 4 decades have seen unprecedented growth in government spending and deficits.  This has gone hand in hand with easy money policies and artificially low interest rates.  I don’t think it is a coincidence that the top income earners have done well in this system while the rest have been left behind.

We have to hear all of this complaining by the anti-capitalist left about income inequality.  But it is the anti-capitalist policies that are driving the increased inequality.  It is corporatism and central banking that favor the rich.

If everyone were prospering at approximately the same rate, there would be nothing wrong with inequality.  Anyone who complains about it just because it is exists is doing so out of envy or just to be a demagogue.  I don’t care if billionaires make billions more, as long as it is not being done at anyone else’s expense.  If all classes are rising, there is no problem.

Therefore, the solution is to get rid of central banking and corporatism.  We also need much lower taxes and government regulation in general.  We need to drastically cut government spending.

This will eventually lead to real rising income for lower class and middle class Americans.  It may mean rising income for the upper class too, but that is good for them.

In a true free market, the rich don’t get richer at the expense of others.  They get rich by serving others and making people’s lives better.

Donald Trump has made the current presidential race interesting.  Some of his positions are abysmal from a libertarian point of view.  For a hugely successful businessman, he is nearly incompetent when it comes to economics.

While Trump is a billionaire and by far the richest candidate, he does seem to be more in touch with the average American.  He acknowledges that the middle class is struggling.  I think Americans want this acknowledged, even if the person does not have all of the answers.

Bernie Sanders will talk about how the poor and middle class are taking it on the chin, but all of his solutions are more calls for bigger government – hardly a solution to our economic woes.

Back in 1999, Trump was toying with the idea of running for president.  He proposed a one-time wealth tax of 14.25 percent in order to pay off the national debt.  That was at a time when the national debt was relatively small compared to today.

Trump’s proposal at the time applied to wealthy people with over $10 million.  This is really a blatant violation of property rights and it is completely un-American.  Aside from the moral aspects, it is also terrible economics.

Imagine if there were a one-time wealth tax imposed of 14.25% on any wealth over $10 million.  First, most wealthy people would be hiring extra lawyers and tax accountants in an attempt to hide their wealth or move it offshore.

And what about people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett?  If Bill Gates has $50 billion and all of a sudden owes $7 billion to the government, he isn’t just going to write a check from his bank account.  He would probably have to sell a lot of stock, including billions of dollars in Microsoft stock.  When you figure that Gates, Buffett, and other wealthy individuals will be selling stocks, it would crash the market.

And what about an entrepreneur that owns a small business?  If he has a net worth of $30 million because of his business, would he have to pony up several million dollars in a wealth tax?  Would he be forced to sell his business or liquidate some of his assets?

And what about someone who owns real estate?  Would he have to quickly sell some of his big holdings in order to pay the wealth tax?

You can see the problem here.  Trump either didn’t think this through at the time, or he was just being a demagogue.

I haven’t heard Trump talking about this nonsense this time around.  Some of his economic policies are still bad, but not this bad.

I have been listening to an audio book by Robert Kiyosaki, the author of the Rich Dad Poor Dad series.  Trump and Kiyosaki previously coauthored a book together.  While Kiyosaki is not exactly fluent in Austrian school economics, he does have a pretty good understanding of money and the Fed.  If Trump gets elected president, I hope he appoints Kiyosaki as Treasury secretary.

On foreign policy, Trump actually sounds better and more reasonable than most of the rest of the candidates.  It is hard to say what he would actually do in office, but his words are somewhat encouraging that he will at least be rational.

As for Trump’s political incorrectness, I love it.  It is refreshing in today’s world.

Rand Paul made a big mistake in the first debate by attacking Trump.  Well, Rand Paul has made a lot of mistakes, but I really don’t know what he was thinking on this.  According to the Washington Examiner, he is going to continue to attack Trump.

But it is the anti-establishment Republican voters who are going for Trump.  These are the people who Rand Paul needs.  He can’t get them by insulting Trump.  He has already turned them off.  Ted Cruz has been smarter in this respect by keeping a cordial relationship with Trump.  If Trump does trip up on something, then Cruz may get some of his supporters.

While Trump is saying that Rand Paul should drop out, he shouldn’t really mean it.  The problem is that about half of the Republican voters still would prefer almost anyone over Trump.  The more people in the race, the better it is for Trump.

Trump seems to be solid at around 33%.  The other dozen or so candidates are all splitting up the votes.  If a lot of people drop out and it comes down to one or two challengers against Trump and it happens early enough, then Trump could be in trouble for the Republican nomination.

It is funny how worried the establishment is over Trump.  Even though his policies are not that anti-establishment, I think it bothers them that he can’t be easily bought.  This means he cannot be easily controlled, which bothers the establishment more than anything.  Unfortunately, the establishment had trouble controlling Kennedy too and we know how that ended.

The one person more disliked than Trump is Hillary Clinton.  But remember that her husband won his first presidential election with a little over 40% of the popular vote.  The best thing for Hillary Clinton would be Trump losing the Republican nomination and then running third-party.

I still don’t know if Trump will pull this off, but at least it is fun to watch the establishment squirm.  Trump is nothing close to being a libertarian, but at least he seems to be a little less pro war than most of the others.  If Trump does win, I will be promoting Kiyosaki for his cabinet.

October 21, 2015 marks the day that Marty McFly went to the future in Back to the Future II.  Aside from making us feel old, it is interesting to reflect on where we are versus where the movie writers put us.

Thirty years is a long time in our day.  Over history, 30 years is nothing.  It is said that the people of 200 years ago had more in common with people who lived 2,000 years ago than they would with us today.  People of 200 years ago could not conceive of the world today.  Even people 100 years ago would have trouble, although they did see the beginning of the miracles of electricity and human flight.

In Back to the Future II, there were hover boards, video conferencing, and flying cars in 2015.  The video conferencing is very real today with Skype, Facetime, etc.

Hover boards are being worked on now and they may become a consumer good in the years to come.

While we don’t really have flying cars, or at least nothing practical to use, self-driving cars are just coming on to the scene.  It is not hard to imagine that self-driving cars will be a common thing in 10 years.

While we haven’t yet reached some of the technology that the Back to the Future II writers had in mind, we have surged ahead in terms of communications and electronics.  In the 1980s, the internet did not exist, or at least not in any functional form.  Now it is a major part of our lives.

We do some of our shopping from the comfort of our homes.  We communicate instantly with email, text messaging, video conferencing, etc.

Probably the most incredible thing is just the wealth of information that exists on the web.  Encyclopedias have become obsolete.  We can look up practically anything and get most of the answers within seconds.  It is truly amazing.

If you walk the streets, there is nothing really different today than 30 years ago.  The major difference is seeing people walking around with their smartphones, either talking on them or looking at the screen.

There are always changes in dress and style.  Sometimes they go through cycles.  We have seen some styles return from the 70s and 80s.  Marty McFly’s “life preserver” in Back to the Future was foreign to the 1950s, but it would also be rather foreign to today’s world.

Discussing technology and the future is an interesting conversation to have.  It is amazing how fast things are progressing.  At the same time, as a libertarian, it is a bit depressing knowing how much further we could be if we had an environment of more peace and freer markets.

Technology continues to increase, yet the American middle class continues to struggle.  While the stagnant living standards in terms of basic needs is a bit depressing, it is also encouraging that life goes on and technology keeps advancing at an extraordinary pace.

While many people will celebrate October 21 as Back to the Future day, November 5, 2015 is significant for me.  In Back to the Future (Part I), Marty McFly goes back in time to November 5, 1955.

This gives us a major reality check on time and how fast it passes.  I was a kid in 1985, but I saw the movie and liked it.  It was probably 1986 when I first saw it.  If you are old enough to remember seeing the movie in the 1980s, even if it wasn’t right when it came out, try to remember how you felt about the 1950s.  Those were the old days.  I remember thinking, “so that is what the world looked like when my parents were kids.”

For kids growing up today, the 1980s to them is what the 50s were to me and my generation.  It is a long time ago.

Thirty years can pass in the blink of an eye.  If you have something you want to accomplish in life, you should not put it off.

The lesson from the Back to the Future movies is not about technology and what we have developed and what we have to look forward to.  It is an interesting topic, but there isn’t a lot there for self-improvement.

The lesson is that time flies.  Don’t have regrets when you look back years from now.  If there is something you want to try that is not high risk, then maybe you should try it.  Some people will regret things they did in the past.  Some people will regret things that they didn’t do in the past.

With the Democratic race for the presidential nomination now in full swing, I want to take on one of the issues that was brought up at the debate.

All of the candidates are proposing big government programs.  The cynic in me says it is all an attempt to buy votes.  It is a contest to see who can propose the biggest promises to the most number of people.

Proposals have included raising the minimum wage, equal pay for women, free college tuition, free child care, and paid family medical leave.  That is not nearly an exhaustive list.

The only candidate amongst the Democrats who has acknowledged that there is a cost to these programs is Jim Webb.  Otherwise, they all have an answer of bigger government to every problem, or even every non-problem.

In the case of Hillary Clinton, she proposed equal pay for women in the same breath as paid family medical leave.  In other words, according to Clinton, employers should be required to pay women more, while also being forced to pay them for having babies.  If you are an employer, it would give you an incentive to not hire women.

This is common in government proposals.  The groups that are supposedly going to be helped by a new government program are the people who actually get hurt the most by it.

When the Americans with Disabilities Act passed and put strict requirements on what employers had to provide, it actually gave an incentive to employers to not hire handicapped people.  Who wants to deal with significantly higher expenses along with a bigger threat of a lawsuit?

I have dealt with the issue of equal pay for women before.  As a libertarian, I believe fully in freedom of association, including the right to discriminate.  I also believe that the free market makes discrimination less likely to occur.  Money is a great motivator in that respect.

So what about paid family medical leave?  People like Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders will say that the U.S. is the only advanced country that doesn’t provide this.  But who really is “providing” it?

From a libertarian perspective, this government program – like most others – is morally wrong because it uses force or the threat of force.  If an employer does not abide by the law, it will result in fines, possible bankruptcy, and eventual arrest if taken far enough.

In terms of economics, this is also bad policy, unless you happen to be a family giving birth to a child.  Then you will benefit in the short term at the expense of others.  You probably won’t benefit in the long term.

Let’s say the government passes a new law requiring employers to pay a woman for 6 weeks if she is out on maternity leave.  What if the woman was just hired?  Can she start collecting a paycheck and then go off on maternity leave and continue to collect a paycheck while not working?  Will the law require a woman to be with the company for so long?

This would be an incentive for a pregnant woman to get a job.  She can collect her free money and then quit her job as soon as her paid maternity leave expires.  In the world of Bernie Sanders, maybe she can collect her vacation time too before quitting.

This law would also be an incentive for companies to not hire pregnant women, or even women of child-bearing age.  Do you really want to hire someone and then be forced to pay them when they are not giving you any productivity?

A law such as this would likely have the perverse effect of making it more difficult for women to find jobs.

Also, as the Democrats talk about equal pay for women, a standalone law requiring paid maternity leave would actually lead to lower pay for women.  A company is going to spread out its risk by paying women slightly less, knowing that a certain percentage will be collecting money while not working.

This view by people who support forcing employers to pay for leave is that the mission of businesses should be to take care of employees.  But a business’ mission is to take care of its owners/ shareholders by taking care of its customers.  Its decisions are really based on pleasing customers because they are the ones paying the money.

This isn’t to say that companies should not treat employees well.  Part of running a successful company is usually treating employees well enough that you retain good talent.  In a free market environment with increasing capital investment and competition to retain dependable employees, real wages will increase.

Some companies may choose to voluntarily pay women a certain amount when they are on maternity leave.  That should be their decision as to how they want to retain employees and keep a healthy work environment.

In the long run, mandating pay for those taking maternity leave or other kinds of medical leave will make virtually everyone poorer.  It is a misallocation of resources that incentivizes less production.

It imposes an added cost to employers at a time when employers already have huge costs in the form of payroll taxes, unemployment taxes, corporate taxes, and huge regulatory burdens.  This would essentially be another tax.

This gets passed on to somebody in some way.  Wealth does not automatically appear with the signing of new legislation to fund the people going on medical leave.  It may mean lower profits for companies, meaning reduced shareholder value.  It may mean reduced wages for employees.  It may mean reduced employment.  It may mean higher prices for consumer goods.  It may mean all of these things.

Politicians who advocate programs such as paid family medical leave are likely not doing it because they are kind and caring.  They are doing it to exploit the economic ignorance of the people.  These programs are morally wrong, and they are bad economics.