I am a strong proponent of putting a good portion of your investments in a permanent portfolio setup, as described by Harry Browne in the book Fail-Safe Investing.  You can also use the mutual fund PRPFX as a substitute.

What if you are new to this concept and you want to put a sizable portion of your money into a permanent portfolio setup?  Should you just put all of your money in at once, or should you use dollar cost averaging?

Dollar cost averaging is simply contributing a set amount of money in given intervals for an investment at specific times.  This avoids trying to time the market.  So instead of buying a stock market mutual fund all at once, you may decide to contribute $200 per month to buy it.  This way you won’t be hurt too much if you happen to buy at a high price.

I don’t mind the strategy of dollar cost averaging, but I think the rules change a bit when talking about the permanent portfolio.  If you have $40,000 sitting in the bank and want to invest it in the permanent portfolio, then I don’t think you need to use dollar cost averaging.  The fund itself is set up so that there aren’t dramatic swings.

A problem with dollar cost averaging when you already have a sizable portion of money is that you are defeating the purpose of the strategy of the permanent portfolio.  If you have $40,000 and you start buying $500 of PRPFX every month, then you are leaving the rest of your money exposed.  If there is a big boom in the stock market or if gold goes up due to inflation fears, then you will have missed out on those gains.  You will also lose purchasing power with the large amount of liquid savings.

If you have a sizable portion of money, you are better off putting most of it into the permanent portfolio as soon as possible, without trying to time the market or use dollar cost averaging.

If you don’t have much money but you want to start investing, then you could certainly use dollar cost averaging to contribute to something like PRPFX.  One of the advantages of dollar cost averaging, for anything, is that it disciplines you to save.  You can have your money automatically taken out of your checking account each month.

If you don’t have much money and want to invest in the permanent portfolio without using the mutual fund, this will be a little more difficult.  If you want to contribute $200 per month, it isn’t going to make any sense to buy $50 worth of gold, $50 worth of stocks, and $50 worth of bonds each month.  In fact, you will probably find it impossible to do so.  You may have to extend your time horizon and buy when you accumulate enough money that it makes sense.

In conclusion, I like the concept of dollar cost averaging.  But if you are investing in the permanent portfolio and you have a sizable amount of money, then don’t use dollar cost averaging for that purpose.

I think it is important to take a step back and look at the big picture sometimes.  We get bogged down in debates over the debt ceiling, government shutdowns, Obamacare, etc.  But for this post, I just want to spell out the big picture of government spending and what it costs the average American.  I will use nice round numbers to make it easy to understand.

For budget year 2013, the U.S. federal government is expected to spend approximately $3.8 trillion.  Again, I am just dealing in round numbers.  Let’s put the population of the U.S. at about 320 million people, although this number is probably high by a few million.

Now let’s say we drastically cut all federal spending so that the total budget is $600 billion.  This is still a significant sum of money, although nothing close to the $3.8 trillion in current spending.  That means that there is $3.2 trillion left over in a country of 320 million people.  That equals $10,000 for every single person in the U.S.

My guess is that most Americans would be willing to give up all of their favorite government programs if they could receive a check for $10,000 every year.  Of course, it would be a redistribution of wealth due to some paying far more and others paying far less.  But it is a redistribution that most would probably prefer over the current system where much of the money seems to go to rich bankers or down a drain in waste, or worse.

I know that some seniors would be against it because of Medicare and Social Security.  But let’s remember that the $10,000 figure is an average for every American.  This includes all children.  And even if it were divided up with children included, two married seniors would be getting $20,000 per year, and I would expect medical costs to go way down.

This means a family of four would receive $40,000 per year.  What would you do with $40,000 per year, even without your favorite government programs?

And let’s not forget that this still includes a budget of $600 billion for the federal government.  This would more than cover defense and other constitutional functions.  You could probably even have enough to make some small additional payments for those seniors who would no longer have Medicare.

It is also important to remember that I haven’t even brought up state and local spending.  Most spending for government schools and roads come from state and local spending.  The federal government only makes up a small portion on this spending.  Perhaps part of that $600 billion could still go towards road and bridge building and repair, although there is no reason it can’t be left to the states.

This is in no way a proposal on my part.  I think it would still be morally wrong to redistribute wealth in such a fashion.  It would be better if everyone were able to simply keep what they earn, while donating what they want to donate.  But this illustrates a point of just how much we are getting ripped off.

Imagine today’s situation with the government spending $3.8 trillion.  But instead, $3.2 trillion of that would be direct payments to U.S. residents.  Imagine what a family of four could do with $40,000 extra per year.  I’m sure they could easily get by without food stamps, disaster relief, foreign aid to dictators, and empire building overseas.  I’m sure their $40,000 would carry them a lot further than it does today, as allocated by the government.

Are you getting $10,000 per year worth of government (at the federal level only)?  If you are married with 2 children, are you getting $40,000 worth of services per year from your friends in Washington DC?

On October 16, 2013, Congress passed legislation that ended the partial government shutdown and raised the debt ceiling, at least for now.  While the votes on the Democratic side were unanimous in favor of bigger government and more debt, there was more of a split on the Republican side.

In the House, the vote was 285-144.  All 144 votes against the legislation were Republicans.  On the Senate side, the total vote was 81-18, with all 18 votes coming from Republicans.

Breaking it down just in the Republican Party, in the House there were 87 votes in favor and 144 votes against.  It was the so-called moderates in the House who allowed the legislation to pass.

In the Senate, 27 Republicans voted in favor and 18 against.  So, in the Senate, there was a higher number of Republicans who voted to raise the debt ceiling and end the government shutdown.

In other words, the House tends to be more reliable than the Senate in preserving liberty.  Or I suppose it would be more accurate to say that the House is less bad than the Senate.

This shows a real split in the country.  I think the politicians are somewhat reflective of their constituents, at least in terms of what people are willing to put up with.  I don’t think there are 144 principled members of the House or 18 principled members of the Senate.  Many of these same people voted to raise the debt ceiling and voted for big budgets when there was a Republican president.  For the newer members, I’m sure some of them would have voted for the legislation if we had a President Romney right now.

The good news is that the tide has shifted a little.  Some of these politicians, who are considered part of the Tea Party, really are conservative, economically speaking, in comparison to what we have seen in the past.  Most of them are not libertarian by any stretch of the imagination, but they do realize that many people are demanding less government and lower spending, and their rhetoric and actions are reflecting that sentiment.

I don’t think the Republican Party is going to break up.  I don’t think it is done winning elections.  I also don’t think we will see any significant legislation pass in the near future that is a great benefit to liberty. I think there will continue to be a struggle between the two factions within the party.

The interesting test will come in 2016.  I guess it will start in 2015 with the heavy campaigning for the primaries.  I have no idea at this point who will be the Republican nominee for president.  On the Democratic side, you can guess a few names such as Hillary and Joe Biden.  Regardless, you know that the Democratic nominee will be a reflection of the status quo.

The Republican side will be far more interesting.  It will be a fight between the Tea Party and the establishment.  On the Tea Party side, there is Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz.  On the establishment side, there could be any number of potential candidates.  I suppose there could be someone that is kind of in between, such as Rick Perry.

I am not saying that we should hold out great hope for a so-called Tea Party candidate.  Rand Paul is the least bad of all of them and I have my criticisms of him.  But the good news is that this is even a possibility.  It’s been a long time since Reagan, who placated conservatives.  It has been an even longer time since Barry Goldwater.

Again, I won’t have any high expectations of the Republican nominee, even if it is a Tea Party person.  But I think it is a reflection of the stronger pro-liberty views that we have today.  For that, we should be optimistic.

What does eating have to do with libertarianism?  It doesn’t seem it should have much to do with it, just as investing shouldn’t have much to do with libertarianism.  But unfortunately, we live in a world where the state is nearly fully entrenched in our lives, and food and diet is one of those things.

Unless politicians and bureaucrats are stating something that seems undeniably true, then you can probably safely bet that whatever it is they are saying is false.  But there may even be some things that you think are undeniably true that really aren’t, only because of the perpetual brainwashing.

Health and diet are good examples of where you shouldn’t believe what politicians say, along with those who are doing their bidding.  There might be some obvious truths where they can’t get away with lying.  If someone says that eating broccoli is good for you, then that is an obvious truth.  If someone says that eating a plate full of chocolate brownies is bad for you, then that is an obvious truth.  If a politician thought he could tell you that eating brownies is good for you and that most people would believe it, then he would probably say it.

It is hard to know where to even start when it comes to health and diet myths.  There are so many things that have been ingrained in us for decades.  There is all of this hype of cholesterol, which is based on faulty and incomplete studies from a long time ago.  Instead of believing the hype, read some alternative viewpoints, such as The Great Cholesterol Myth.

The government, along with most of their trained doctors, will tell you to severely limit your saturated fat.  But the problem is that they are completely wrong.  Saturated fat is really good for humans.  You should be eating things like avocados, eggs, butter, and coconut oil.  They are good for you.

It drives me nuts to see so many people order egg whites.  The yolk is the most nutritious part of the egg and people are trying to avoid it.  In addition, the whole egg tastes a lot better in my opinion.

The whole food pyramid that has been pushed on us is mostly backwards.  Perhaps a few parts are correct, such as eating vegetables.

And then don’t get me started on high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).  It is better to eat sugar.  But many food products substitute sugar with HFCS.  And why?  Because the government subsidizes the corn industry and puts massive protective tariffs on imported sugar.  So the government makes as poorer and less healthy, all at the same time.

In terms of obesity, it is actually frustrating for me just to watch other people.  Some think that the only way they can lose weight is by hours and hours of exercising or basically starving themselves.  I can attest to the fact that it is mostly about diet.  But when I say “diet”, I don’t mean starving yourself and I don’t mean a temporary thing.  It should be a lifestyle change on eating better.

For the last year and a half, I have eaten a mostly paleo diet, which limits carbohydrates, grains, and sugars.  I eat meat, vegetables, eggs, nuts, and a little bit of fruit.  I do “cheat” on my diet, but it isn’t a lot.  I started it for health reasons, but I lost some weight, even though I wasn’t that heavy to begin with.  I eat more now than I did in the past, but it is hard for me to put on weight.  I think the only way I could put on a lot of weight is by going back to a regular diet of high carb foods.  But eating fat – the right kind of fat – doesn’t make you fat.  If you eat saturated fat, it will make you skinny.

These are just a few observations.  Almost everything the government tells you is wrong.  Unfortunately, most doctors are on board with the conventional “wisdom” and will not stray far from the establishment.  They are trained to prescribe pills and do surgeries.  They are not trained to take a whole body approach.

I am not completely against doctors and western medicine, as I think there are some good reasons to go to a doctor and I acknowledge that some of the new technology is great for saving lives.  But in general, if you have health issues, you should look at your diet and lifestyle and do your own research and probably avoid doctors as much as possible.  Just make sure to use your common sense.  And most of all, do not listen to those in government.  You would be better off doing the opposite of what they say.

In conclusion, you can eat cupcakes and still be a libertarian.  As long as you don’t advocate for the initiation of force for political or social change, then you can eat as many cupcakes as you want and keep your libertarian credentials.  But I think we are starting to see a little bit of a correlation between those who believe in liberty and those who take care of their bodies.  Just as there are probably a higher percentage of libertarians who own gold, there are probably a higher percentage of libertarians who eat a diet of natural, unprocessed foods.  It is because libertarians tend to be far more skeptical of government and the government is usually lying.

As the government shutdown and debt ceiling debate gets behind us, perhaps we will start to see a better picture of where the economy is going.  Treasuries and bonds have been very steady, except for 30-day treasuries which have seen a higher yield due to fear of a possible short-term default.

The stock market has been bouncing up and down a few weeks at a time.  There is about a 900 point range that the Dow has been in, sometimes dipping below the 15,000 mark.

As the dust settles from Washington DC, investors will start looking at the Fed again.  The next FOMC statement will be released on October 30, 2013.  The question again will be whether or not the Fed starts to taper (scale back on its monetary inflation).

I think if the Fed does taper, it will not be by a huge amount, at least in comparison to what QE looks like now.  The Fed is currently buying assets and increasing the monetary base by $85 billion per month.  Maybe the Fed will cut back to $70 billion or $75 billion per month.  Either way, it will still be unprecedented when compared to anything prior to 2008.

But even with the Fed continuing to inflate by massive amounts, most of this money has still been going into the banks and kept as excess reserves.  It is not being loaned out and not being multiplied through the system.  This holds down consumer price inflation.

Also, the Austrian Business Cycle Theory tells us that an artificial boom can go to bust even with monetary inflation.  The only way to avoid the bust is to continually increase the rate of monetary inflation.  Eventually you would hit hyperinflation and then you would get a bust anyway.  So a bust is inevitable.  It is just a question of how long it will be drawn out and how severe it will be.

At the same time, I have a sense that velocity has been picking up.  I can see it with people around me.  It seems that confidence is a little better and that more people are taking out loans, even as people continue to struggle.  I don’t have any hard statistics to back this up.  It is just a sense I get from the people around me and the things I see and hear on the news.

There continues to be this tug-of-war between an artificial boom and a bust.  If velocity is picking up, meaning people are spending more and money is changing hands faster, then this points to a boom phase.  If the Fed slows down its rate of monetary inflation and the banks continue to pile up excess reserves, then this points to a bust.  We will have to wait and see which one wins out in the short run.

As the news about the government shutdown and debt ceiling gets behind us, we will start to get a better sense of what is happening.  We will also see what the Fed decides to do on October 30, the day before Halloween.  It’s not trick or treat.  It will only be a trick.

I have been seeing a lot of polls and surveys recently about Congress.  The American people strongly disapprove of the job Congress is doing.  You can count me as one of them.  Some polls show support in the single digits.  This is incredibly low and I take it as good news, but also nothing to get too excited about.

The most remarkable polls and surveys I have seen recently show a majority of Americans saying that they will not vote for their incumbent politician in the House of Representatives.  This is different than the approval ratings for Congress.  The low approval ratings for Congress can be explained in that people disapprove, but they may like their particular congresscritter or just have a bigger dislike for the opponent in an election.

But with a majority saying they will not vote to re-elect their own congressman, it simply means that some people are not being truthful in the survey, or perhaps that they always change their mind around election time.  Does this mean that campaign ads work?  To some degree, that is the case.

If a majority say they will not vote to re-elect their incumbent, then that means that the entire House of Representatives should be fired in the next election, or at least something close to it.  But we know how it goes.  The incumbent re-election rate will run somewhere around 90% or higher.  If it is at 80%, then perhaps there has been some marginal change in thinking.

So what is the reason for this contradiction?  It is much like the American people saying they want a balanced budget, but then in a separate survey not wanting any major government programs cut.  They are not mutually exclusive things.  They go hand in hand.

I think the main reason for these poll results is that there is still major partisanship with the two major parties.  Most people tend to side with either Republicans or Democrats.  So you could have a Republican who is frustrated with Congress and wants to vote out the incumbents, but when it comes down to it, he will keep his incumbent Republican politician over the Democratic opponent.

Even for people who are frustrated with both parties, there tends to be favoritism towards one or the other.  I even see this with many libertarians and it will usually depend on what issue they are most passionate about.  Those who are most passionate about foreign policy, civil liberties, and social issues will still tend to favor the Democrats.  Those concerned with taxation, spending, and over regulation will tend to side with the Republicans.  Libertarians realize that both sides betray their constituents and do not follow through on what they say, but there still tends to be a greater dislike for one side versus the other.

A secondary reason, although less so, is that people know that others won’t follow through.  If a Democrat or Republican thought that everyone else would follow through and vote against the incumbents, then maybe that person would do the same.  But they know, when it comes down to it, most people will vote along party lines.  A Republican or Democrat isn’t going to make a point by voting against the incumbent and risking that the other side wins.

So while these polls and surveys seem contradictory and irrational, and perhaps to some extent are, there is also reasoning behind it.  Unfortunately, most people are still stuck in the party mindset.  I think this is slowly changing, but it will take some more time before a large percentage of the population really does dislike both parties almost equally.  Fortunately, the politicians these days are doing everything in their power to help people not like them.

With the whole issue of raising the debt ceiling being in the news again, we hear stories about how the U.S. government could default.  Of course, in terms of defaulting on U.S. government debt, it is completely false.  The interest on the debt is “only” a few hundred billion dollars per year right now.  The federal government collects well in excess of $2 trillion per year, maybe soon to exceed $3 trillion. So the government may have to break some promises, but it can easily pay on the debt.

But the issue of defaulting on the debt brings some interesting discussion with it.  From a purist libertarian standpoint, the government should default on its debt.  The only way to pay off the debt is by using force or the threat of force to extract money form people.  The contracts made between the borrower (the U.S. government) and the lenders (investors, foreign central banks, etc.) are not really valid contracts.  They are not valid because one side is promising to pay back the other by forcing a third party (American taxpayers) to make the payments.

But how would a default work?  Would someone just hit the delete key and erase more than $16 trillion in debt?

My suggestion is that the U.S. federal government should essentially file for bankruptcy and wipe out its debts.  However, it is not just a matter of simply erasing the debts and being done.  The bankruptcy should be similar to the procedures of when a company files for bankruptcy.

When a company files for bankruptcy, it doesn’t just shut down, with everyone going home and all investors getting nothing.  In most cases, the company still owns assets and has some things of value.  The company can just no longer keep up with its bills, including its debts.  It is a cash flow problem.

When a company goes bankrupt, the typical procedure is for the assets of the company to be sold off.  This may all be sold in one piece or various parts sold separately.  With the sale of assets, the money can then be used to pay off bondholders and others who are owed money.  It is usually the stockholders who are the last to get paid anything.

With the government, the same should be done.  The U.S. government owns massive amounts of land, particularly in the west, and it isn’t all just desert.  Much of this land is quite valuable, including land with oil in it.  The government should sell off its assets.  While land is by far the most valuable, there are also numerous museums, monuments, and other buildings.  It is hard to say how much all of this would be worth.  There is no way to know unless it is auctioned off in the free market.  Perhaps it might be better to auction it off over the period of a few years so as to get a reasonable price.  But with all of the land owned by the government, the amount would certainly be in the trillions of dollars.

This was actually a suggestion by Libertarian candidate Harry Browne when he ran for president.  I don’t remember him suggesting a default on the debt, but he advocated that land be sold so that Medicare and Social Security recipients could be paid off and the programs could be ended.

Of course, the big question would be, who gets paid first.  This is sometimes an issue when companies file for bankruptcy and it would certainly be an issue with a U.S. government bankruptcy.  There are all of the holders of government treasuries and bonds.  But there are also Medicare, Social Security, and government pensions.  Given who has the voting power and the numbers, my guess is that Social Security and Medicare recipients would be at least partially taken care of first.

While I don’t think this whole bankruptcy plan is likely to happen, I can foresee more advocates of a plan to sell some government land in the future.  The budget is only going to get tighter, especially once the Fed has to cut back on its purchases of government debt.  When things become more desperate in the years ahead, more people will be open to the idea of selling government assets to make up some of the shortfall.

I wouldn’t mind if Yellowstone is sold to private investors.  The owners would probably take better care of it than it is now.  And if all of these national forests were sold off, maybe we would stop seeing millions of acres burn in fires.  The idea of the government selling land and other assets should be viewed as a win-win situation for libertarians, assuming the proceeds aren’t used to start another war.

There have been numerous stories about the major computer glitches with the Obamacare website.  Some are claiming that it is because there are far greater numbers of people going to the site than were expected, although we don’t really know that this is the case.  But even if it were true, did they really not expect so much traffic in a country of over 300 million people where everyone is essentially forced to buy health insurance or pay a major penalty?

(As a side note, I don’t mind referring to the legislation as “Obamacare”.  Obama said in one of the debates last year that he accepted it and wasn’t offended by the term.  I would still use the term, but Democrats shouldn’t complain about the term if Obama himself accepted it.)

So all of the excuses are flowing out from the Obama administration, some of the media, and many Democrats.  But it is also interesting that a lot of Democrats are getting more quiet about Obamacare, as some people will never admit that it is a disaster, but don’t know what to say to defend the program at this point.  There are always excuses and some of them may be partially true.  Some people say that heads should roll.  Some people are wondering who was in charge of the programming and the website.  Unfortunately, this all misses the point.

Obamacare is a classic government program.  It simply doesn’t work and it won’t accomplish its stated goals.  When you use the initiation of force in order to solve problems, you will usually end up with more problems.  It will lead to unintended consequences.  It often leads to the exact opposite of what it was supposed to accomplish.  In other words, instead of cheaper and better medical care, we will likely end up with far more expensive medical care and far worse medical care.

Compare this government program to what would occur in a free, voluntary market.  A company releasing a new product is not going to release a product that doesn’t work or doesn’t come close to functioning as it should.  Actually, it is possible that a company could release a terrible product, but that company will quickly find itself out of business, or at least pulling that particular product off the market.  If a person or business fails in its release of a product, then it is the owner or owners who suffer the loss, along with anyone who lent them money.  But the losses are incurred only by those who voluntary invested in the product in the first place.

With Obamacare, all of the taxpayers lose.  It was tax money (or borrowed money) that paid for the systems to be implemented.  When the website doesn’t work as it should, it is not as if the taxpayers get their money refunded.

Nancy Pelosi said we needed to pass the healthcare legislation in order to find out what was in it.  I still have no idea what is in it and I’m not sure that anyone does.  But it didn’t take a genius to figure out that the legislation would be a total disaster.  We are finding out a little bit more about what is in it and it seems to get worse every day.

I am still not convinced that Obamacare will ever be fully implemented.  Health insurance premiums are going even higher now and people cannot figure out how the whole thing works.  On top of this, the people who are trying to sign up are mostly not able to because of the website.

It will not be the Republicans who defeat Obamacare.  It will be Obamacare that defeats Obamacare.

In 2004, Harry Browne wrote an article about Ronald Reagan, just following Reagan’s death.  It is an interesting read.  If you are a Reagan conservative, you will probably hate it.

Browne admits in the article that he was somewhat sympathetic towards Reagan at the beginning of his presidency.  All of the proponents of big government were bashing Reagan to no end, and basically claiming that horrible things would happen.  It is hard not to cheer for a guy when your worst enemies are cheering against him.

As Browne states, the fantasy land of libertarians quickly came to an end, whether they realized it or not.  It became evident within a short amount of time, for those really paying attention, that Reagan would not be a great friend to the cause of liberty.  On the bad things he said he was going to do, he mostly followed through.  This would include social issues, foreign policy, and other issues of civil liberties.

On the good things Reagan talked about, he didn’t follow through, at least for the most part.  He did drastically cut income tax rates, which is probably one of the few really good things that he did.  Unfortunately, he also eliminated a lot of deductions and increased taxes at other times.

In terms of spending, Reagan was a total disaster.  The budget grew by about two-thirds during his presidency and the total debt increased by almost $2 trillion.  The Reagan years had the biggest deficits by far up to that point in history.  Of course, the last 6 years has dwarfed the Reagan deficits, incredible as it may be.

Looking back on Reagan, I think about the best thing that a libertarian could say about him was that he at least didn’t start any major wars, including a nuclear war.  He wasn’t good on foreign policy, as he did aggress against several small countries.  But in comparison to the Bush/ Obama years, Reagan was virtually a pacifist.

One thing about Reagan is that he sure knew how to give a speech.  He was brilliant with his rhetoric.  His digs against big government could have brought any libertarian to tears.  Unfortunately, his policies did not match his talk.

As I heard Harry Browne say, if only Reagan had actually done half of what the Democrats had accused of him.  The Democrats constantly said that Reagan was going to cut Social Security, pull welfare away, and dramatically shrink government services.  So there was just as much rhetoric coming from the other side.

Maybe one day we will get someone who is as articulate and persuasive as Reagan was, while also following through on a pro-liberty philosophy.  If the Democrats are going to make accusations of cutting government, I would like to see an actual reduction in the size and scope of government.

Obama has officially nominated Janet Yellen to be the next chair of the Federal Reserve.  It was widely expected after Lawrence Summers had withdrawn his name from consideration.  It is highly likely she will be confirmed by the Senate.  Of course, Obama and much of the media are fixated on the fact that she will be the first woman to head up the Fed.

At the official announcement, Yellen spoke and said, “Too many Americans still can’t find a job and worry how they’ll pay their bills and provide for their families.  The Federal Reserve can help if it does its job effectively.”

Yellen is really the perfect Obama nominee.  The two share the same philosophy.  They believe that central planners best know how to run other people’s lives.  They believe that they and their friends are the best ones to rule.  They believe that people should not be left free to make their own decisions in life.

So Yellen thinks that the Fed can help families find a job and pay their bills.  This is the arrogance that comes from these elitists.  Just like Obama, I’m not sure if she is an outright liar or if she is so full of herself that she can’t see her own stupidity.  If the Fed stopped creating bubbles, handing bailouts to Wall Street, and misallocating resources on a grand scale, then maybe families would find it easier to find a job and pay their bills.  But Yellen and company think they know best.

After the rumor broke about Yellen on Tuesday night, stock futures went up a bit on the news.  It didn’t last too long though and stocks ended Wednesday on a mixed note for the day.

Can it really get any worse?  Bernanke has overseen a Fed that has more than quadrupled the monetary base in the last 5 years and is currently creating about $85 billion per month out of thin air.  Of course, just when I think a president can’t get any worse, another president comes along to try to prove me wrong.  I suppose that might happen with the new Fed chair.

I am not sure that the particular individual who heads the Fed is really all that significant.  I suppose it is more symbolic than anything.  Just like the president, it is a position that is as much a figurehead than anything.  The particular individual in charge, whether we are talking about the president or the Fed chair, will not go against the establishment in any significant way.

I am still not sure what happened with Paul Volcker as Fed chair in the late 1970s and early 1980s.  He did what needed to be done to save the dollar and essentially save the American economy.  He stopped the monetary inflation, allowed a much needed recession (or recessions), and let the malinvestment flush itself out.  I don’t know if Volcker was really smart and made this decision on his own.  I am more inclined to believe that he and others received pressure from foreigners, warning that they would dump the U.S. dollar if the monetary inflation did not stop.  Regardless of the story behind it, the Volcker Fed did the right thing at that time.

My only hope is that when things get really bad in the economy this time around, Yellen will still be considered in charge.  Perhaps we should be scared of her policies, but at least her Keynesian/ big government philosophy can take the blame for it.

For the few articles I read about Yellen’s nomination, I glanced at the comments below each story.  These were not stories from libertarian blogs or anything like that.  Yet, most of the comments were bashing Yellen and Obama and criticizing her eagerness to print more money.

So while the nomination of Yellen is bad news, even though expected, we should not despair.  There is a greater focus on the Fed now than ever before and more and more people every day are figuring out that they are getting ripped off by the Fed and its disastrous policies.