There is a great divide in America.  We once again have a whistleblower who has made government crimes public.  You can read about Edward Snowden here.  Some Americans think he is a traitor for divulging national (government) secrets.  Others think he is a hero for bringing wrongdoing to the public’s attention.

This is similar to other situations in the past.  Bradley Manning and Julian Assange come to mind first.  They exposed government wrongdoing.  There is a great divide of public opinion.  Some see heroes and some see traitors.  There tend not to be a lot in between, except for those who simply don’t care or aren’t paying attention.

I saw an interview on CNBC with John Thune.  He is a Republican senator from South Dakota.  He said that even if the release of these documents by Snowden shows government wrongdoing and leads to changes in policy, that Snowden should still be prosecuted.  Thune says we are “a nation of laws”.

John Thune, like so many other politicians in Washington DC, is a thug wearing a tie.  He says we must follow the rule of law, but what if it is bad law?  I suppose he thinks that whistleblowers against Hitler and the Nazis setting up concentration camps should have been prosecuted if they broke the law.  Don’t we have to ask if the laws are just?

In addition, this thug Thune is going after Snowden the whistleblower, yet he isn’t talking about prosecuting government officials.  What about the Bush regime that passed the Patriot Act?  What about the Obama administration who has expanded the illegal spying?  What about all of the people in Congress who voted and supported the Patriot Act?  It is people like John Thune who should face a trial.  He is part of the evil establishment who continually abuses power and who will spy on other Americans.

Then I heard some conservative radio talk show host who suggested that Snowden should get the death penalty.  He is probably saying it for ratings, although that is scary enough in itself.  I hope there is a nice hot place in the afterworld for people like this.

This issue may actually divide up the parties.  It is almost a good litmus test for someone on whether they love the state.  If they consider Snowden a traitor, then they are an enemy of liberty.  If they consider Snowden a hero, then they at least have the potential of being a friend of liberty.  Litmus tests don’t usually work that well, but it seems to paint a pretty clear picture of someone’s stance on the state in this particular case.

Ironically, there are many pro war Republicans who will defend Obama on this.  All you have to do is mention the word “terror” and you will have half of the Republican Party fall into line with whatever it is you are saying.  These people simply have no ability to think logically or morally, at least when it comes to government power.

I think it is interesting to take these opinions to their logical conclusion.  For people like Thune who think Snowden should be prosecuted because we are supposedly a nation of laws, there is really no instance of where a whistleblower would not be prosecuted, if they are blowing the whistle against their own government.  As long as it can be tied to national security in some way, then the person is supposed to keep quiet and obey their government superiors.

Someone working for the government could see a government official kill somebody in cold blood and the evil John Thune’s of the world would still want to prosecute anyone who reported it to the public.  According to Thune, every government crime should be kept completely secret if it has anything to do with national security.  I suppose Thune doesn’t want anyone to find out about all of his evil acts and the evil acts of his coworkers in Congress.

Ironically someone did blow the whistle on murder in cold blood.  The person who blew the whistle is currently on trial.  But John Thune and Barack Obama would prosecute anyone who divulges government secrets, even if they are reporting concentration camps with millions being murdered.

This post does not have a lot to do with money, investments, or politics.  Instead, I want to share my personal health story.  I am not a doctor and I am not giving medical advice, but I thought others might benefit from my story and try to implement some of my strategies.

Over a year ago, I went through a tough time.  My body had a lot of things going on.  I had a mild rash, I was experiencing fatigue, and I had some symptoms of arthritis.  I had random aches and pains in my body.  I also had some gastrointestinal issues where I had an upset stomach, particularly in the mornings.

I had blood work done.  I went to specialists when I could actually get in to see one.  I saw a couple of rheumatologists and a neurologist.  I have still never officially been diagnosed with any particular disease.

While most of the doctors I saw were nice and tried to be helpful, it was frustrating not getting answers.  I had the symptoms of an autoimmune disease, perhaps something like lupus.  When you look up autoimmune diseases, you will see that symptoms are very similar for the various diseases such as multiple sclerosis, lupus, fibromyalgia, Crohn’s disease, and several others.  For many of them, they cannot be easily identified with blood work.  It is not always a black and white scenario when it comes to health.  There is often not a definitive test with definitive answers.  This is even true of such things as HIV and cancer.

I ended up taking matters into my own hands.  I went to an acupuncturist and it seemed to help, but you never know the placebo effect.

I also started researching more on diet.  This is where my contrarian views come into play.  If you are a regular reader of my blog, you will know that I have no problem dissenting from the establishment and from majority opinions.  I don’t think that doctors have all the answers.  They all go to similar medical schools with similar curriculums.  Some doctors are better than others.  I think some medical issues are more important to see a doctor than others.

I was already familiar with the paleo/ primal lifestyle.  Lew Rockwell often ran articles on his site.  I then learned through Joseph Mercola about the importance of eating fermented foods due to their high content of probiotics.  This lead me to the GAPS diet.  It is short for Gut and Psychology Syndrome.  It was developed by Natasha Campbell-McBride, a Russian doctor living in England.  She cured her son of autism using diet and developed this program.

Dr. Campbell-McBride’s theory is that many of the problems and diseases that plague our present society is due to a compromising of the gut lining.  The good bacteria in your gut has been overwhelmed by bad bacteria.  Because of this, toxins get into your blood stream and cause havoc on your body.  This can proliferate into many different things.  Her book on GAPS relates to autism and psychological disorders such as ADD, bipolar, and schizophrenia, along with many others.  But she has since said that most of your immune system comes from your gut, so autoimmune diseases should be treated in the same way.

I can’t give the full rundown of the whole process and the whole diet that she recommends.  I can summarize her book only so much.  But her full GAPS diet is very similar to the paleo diet.  It consists of eating low carb foods and eliminating processed foods and foods high in carbohydrates.  It is also important to eat fermented foods like sauerkraut, which contain high doses of probiotics.

The staple foods of the diet consists of meats (not processed), vegetables (with exceptions like corn and potato), and eggs.  Also part of the diet is fruit and nuts, although to a lesser extent.  It is also important to eat foods high in fat (good fat) like coconut oil and avocados.

Again, this is a very brief summary.  If this topic interests you, I would recommend that you read the GAPS book and educate yourself.

The GAPS diet and paleo diet are very similar.  There might be a few conflicting foods, but I think anyone following either will benefit tremendously.  About a year ago, I mostly adopted a combination of the two.  I mostly follow a paleo diet, while also incorporating the fermented foods that are so important to the GAPS diet.

I eat eggs and bacon most mornings.  Bacon is a food that is not really recommended for GAPS, but is for paleo.  I eat a lot of meat and a lot of vegetables.  I am not a big fruit eater, but I will eat a banana or avocado for snack.  I will also snack on raw nuts (not peanuts) with sea salt.  I drink mostly water and little bit of coconut water.

I am not perfect with my diet.  Some people may need to be.  I have my cheats.  I will have a modest amount of salad dressing (which contains sugar) with salads.  I will eat a little dark chocolate for dessert, but I will also cheat and have the occasional ice cream or piece of cake.  Once or twice a week I will eat a meal that is not part of my usual diet, but even then I don’t go crazy.  So I am probably about 85% paleo and I eat small portions of fermented foods.

I guess you could say that the jury is still out regarding my overall health.  I am not perfect, but it has helped me tremendously.  Most of my symptoms of arthritis have gone down or disappeared.  Ironically, my diet has helped me in ways that I wasn’t really expecting.  I used to get acid reflux and would take over-the-counter medicine for it.  I have now not used anything in a year for it.  Also, I have had chronic sinus problems for a long time now and my sinuses seem to be much better with my current diet.

I also lost weight with the diet, even though I didn’t need to lose much in the first place.  Some people tell me I look a little too thin now, but I am not going to sacrifice my health and go back to eating junk food just to put on a few pounds.  I actually eat more than ever now.  So if you are looking to lose weight, this may be a good way to do it.  When you don’t eat high carb foods that turn into sugar and you mostly eliminate processed foods, then you will be amazed at what happens.

This could potentially help anyone with almost any disease.  It can help those with psychological disorders, with autism, with autoimmune diseases, with diabetes, and maybe even with cancer.  I have seen stories about people with MS who have essentially cured themselves just by eating meats and vegetables.

I am not a doctor and you should try to find a doctor that you can talk to and hopefully see eye to eye with.  But if you are struggling with your health, do not ignore your diet.  It may be challenging to make changes in your life, but it may be worth it to you if it can help you feel better.  I know there are tens of millions of Americans who suffer from different diseases and health issues and I’m sure hundreds of millions worldwide.  If this post can help just a few people in this world in leading a better life, then it is worth it.  You have to keep an open mind about it and realize that modern western medicine is simply failing to address the massive numbers of chronic diseases.

It is hard to believe, but government spending has increased at a far lower rate under Obama than it did under Bush, his predecessor.  It is not to say that Obama has been fiscally conservative in any way.  He started off with a much higher starting point.  But if you had asked me back in 2009 what I thought federal spending would be in 4 years, I would have guessed it to be well over $4 trillion.  It is not.  It will likely be about $3.8 trillion.

Obama has been a complete disaster in so many ways.  He has continued the Bush foreign policy of interfering and aggressing against other countries.  He has continued and expanded the assault on civil liberties.  He signed into law a huge “stimulus” bill.  He signed into law what has become known as Obamacare, which we still don’t know the full ramifications of.  He helped to raise income taxes.  And he has continued to spend massive amounts of money.

While the deficits have been horrible and unprecedented, it is still noteworthy that government has not been expanding as much.  It is not because of the House of Representatives.  It is not because of Obama.  It is simply that even the federal government has some limits.

Even with a powerful central bank like the Federal Reserve, there is still only so much the government can continue to expand.  It is limited by its ability to tax and it is limited by its ability to create money out of thin air.  Even the bureaucratic Keynesians, whether they’ll admit it or not, realize that they can’t take too big of steps or else the whole thing could blow up in their face.

Even the Fed is limited up to a point, unless it plans on becoming like Zimbabwe.  But the Fed does not want to become like Zimbabwe.  People like Bernanke would be ruining themselves.  Their government pensions are in dollars.  Their salaries are in dollars.  Plus, they would not want to face the angry mobs when the dollar becomes completely worthless.  So I don’t think we will see hyperinflation, or at least not purposely.

At some point, the Fed will have to slow down its monetary inflation.  It is on pace to create $1 trillion in new money in this year alone.  This cannot be sustained.  At some point, we will see higher price inflation.  At some point, the Fed will slow down or stop its inflationary policies and we will see a severe recession, unless the Fed is somehow able to manage a slow deleveraging over the course of several years.

The more the government spends and the more the Fed creates money, the worse it will be in the future.  But there will be an end to all of this.  So-called entitlement spending is going to have to be cut in some way.  It is simply mathematically impossible for the government to fulfill its previous promises.

As long as we can muddle through and avoid hyperinflation, then I think things will turn out to be ok.  There will be some really difficult times ahead.  They are already tough, but it will get tougher.  But there is some light on the other side of the tunnel.  At some point, the government will be forced to cut back.

Tom Woods, one the greatest libertarian thinkers and writers of our time, recently wrote a piece that was a response to a critic.  He was responding to a piece from Salon in which the writer asked libertarians: “If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country in the world ever tried it.”

Of course, there are different degrees of libertarianism, just as there are different degrees of socialism or communism.  There have likely been societies closer to outright libertarianism than outright socialism.  Even the Soviet Union relied on some elements of the free market, even if from the outside.

Woods responds in his normal witty way.  He asks the same question several times in a different fashion.  For example, he asks: “If your approach is so great, why do people prefer to earn a living by means of special privilege instead of by honest production?”

In most of his reworded questions, Woods is really explaining why so many people support the current system.  They want a free lunch, or at least special benefits from the government.  While a majority of Americans (and likely it is the same or worse in most other countries) probably perceive that they are beneficiaries from the current system, it is impossible that that could be the reality, unless the rich people were truly supporting a majority of others while continuing to produce.  But there is a wide divide between rich and poor, so it is hard to believe that the poor and middle class are the beneficiaries at the expense of the rich.  If anything, it is probably the other way around.

In other words, a majority of Americans (and others) do not benefit from the current system, despite what they may perceive.  So the real question is why Americans would support a system in which a small percentage benefit at their expense?

I have heard variations of this question about why, if libertarianism is so great, it isn’t being tried.  My response will vary depending on how much I like the individual asking the question and the sincerity of the question.  While I usually try to be polite, I do have a sarcastic side that comes out of me, just as I see sometimes with Tom Woods.

If I get asked that question, particularly in a way that is mocking, then I will return the question.  I will say: “I have read a lot of material and given the subject a lot of thought and I have come to the conclusion that libertarianism is the only moral system and the system that will provide for the most peace and prosperity.  So yeah, I don’t understand why it hasn’t been tried.  But I understand that it would be the best system.  I can’t understand why others don’t see it.  So explain it to me.  Why isn’t libertarianism being tried when it is so obviously a superior system, both morally and economically?  Since you do not advocate such a system, please explain why?  Because if more people like you understood libertarianism and its benefits, then we would have a libertarian society.  So tell me why we haven’t tried it yet when socialism and Keynesianism have failed so miserably.”

This is something I have thought about for a long time.  Why do people enslave themselves?  Why do people want higher taxes?  Why would anyone want higher government spending who is obviously not going to benefit personally from it?  Why would anyone think that the next government program is going to help the poor?  I really don’t understand and I can’t really answer these questions other than the fact that others simply don’t understand.

So that is why we don’t have anything close to a libertarian society right now.  It is because a majority of people simply don’t understand the benefits, both morally and economically, of a libertarian society.

I think Woods hit the nail on the head in his last question: “If your approach is so great, why don’t people want to try it out, after having been propagandized against it nonstop for 17 years?”

It all comes back to education, whether formal or otherwise.  Now with the internet, spreading the truth is easier than ever.  For that reason, I am optimistic for the long-term future.  I think we will come to a point, maybe decades from now, where libertarianism will be tried on a large scale.  Until then, we must help others see the benefits of drastically smaller government and more liberty.

There are a lot of economic myths out there.  One that I tend to hear quite often is when someone is told they should be thankful for the government’s spending on “fill in the blank” or else they wouldn’t have a job.

Let’s take an example.  Let’s say there is a guy working in the tax department of a major corporation.  The guy happens to be a libertarian.  He says that we need to drastically cut government spending.  He says that we should have low or no taxes.  He believes that corporate taxes should be eliminated.

Along comes this guy’s coworker who says that if it weren’t for corporate taxes, then he wouldn’t have a job.  This could be someone who has been in his job for 20 years.  Yeah, as if corporate taxes never existed, I’m sure this guy would have just sat there doing nothing for 20 years without a job.  Thank you government.

It is not correct to say that, without government, neither one of these guys would have a job.  It would be correct to say that without government (including no corporate taxes), these guys wouldn’t have the particular jobs that they currently have.

Should the libertarian feel guilty about working in a job that wouldn’t exist without government?  Absolutely not.  Of course, that is a decision that each individual must make on his own.  (I wouldn’t recommend that a libertarian, or anyone else, become a sniper.)  But the libertarian in this example is simply selling his labor to a corporation that has certain needs.  It is not the fault of the individual or even the corporation that such a need exists.  I’m sure the corporation would rather have everyone working in sales and marketing instead of working in a tax department that is nothing but overhead costs.

(I do realize that some corporations actually advocate policies of big government and taxation, but that is only to keep away competition.  They would not voluntarily pay more taxes and hire more tax experts on a voluntary basis to make their company more profitable.)

This whole economic myth goes back to Henry Hazlitt, or even Bastiat.  It is an economic myth because people are only looking at the results that can be seen.  They are not looking at the unseen long-term consequences.

If there were no corporate taxes and the government at all levels were spending a fraction of what it currently is spending, then things would be much different.  Resources would be allocated in a different way.  But it would be in a more efficient way in accordance with consumer wants and needs in the free market.

There would be no tax departments in corporations if there were no taxes to be paid.  There would still be accounting departments.  But these resources would be freed up to do other things.  We live in a world with scarce resources, so there are always jobs to be done.  With corporations not having to hire tax accountants, these talented individuals could be used in other jobs that will be more productive.

In conclusion, governments can only create jobs by siphoning off resources.  This destroys other jobs and it also misallocates resources.  It makes society poorer as a whole.

I recently had the chance to go to a coin show.  If you have never been to one, I would highly recommend it.  Most big cities will typically have one at least once a year.  You may even find smaller coin shows in smaller cities.  Even if you are not interested in buying or selling, it is always fun to walk around and talk to the coin dealers.  It is a great place to hear subjects being discussed that you normally wouldn’t hear elsewhere.

Most coin dealers will talk to you about issues such as the Fed, the banking system, inflation, and oftentimes government in general.  I am not saying that all of them are right in everything they say, but you will definitely get some interesting points of view.

If you are looking to buy or sell precious metals, then a coin show is an excellent place to go.  You can go around and ask for prices (buy or sell) on particular things.  There is a lot of competition in the room, so you will typically find that you are getting something around a fair market price.  If silver coins are going for 4 or 5 dollars above spot price (which they seem to be), then you will probably find most dealers quoting that.  Just remember that some coins demand a higher premium than others and that a good price will typically be higher than the spot price of the metal.

The most interesting thing about this particular coin show was when I asked several dealers about one-tenth of an ounce gold eagles.  I only found one out of everyone I asked and that was for a proof coin going for a high price.  One person I asked said that there were 3 people before me who asked the same question.  He figured that this is all people can afford.  There might be something to that.  Some 25 year old who has a low paying job out of college probably does not have over $1,400 to drop on one ounce of gold.  So they go after a tenth of an ounce.

One interesting note though is that there were still a lot of one ounce silver eagles to be had, which were typically going for around 27 or 28 dollars each.  So for all of those silver bulls out there who are constantly claiming that there is a major shortage of silver in the world, it didn’t seem to be the case at this coin show.  It was gold that was harder to find.

After the big drop in the gold price back in mid-April, I have been seeing stories about high demand for physical gold.  A lot of gold bugs have been claiming some kind of a conspiracy or manipulation that led to the big fall in the gold price.  While I don’t know if that is true, I know that the paper market in gold can only be manipulated for so long if there is enough demand for physical gold.  There can only be a major disconnect for so long.  If enough people take delivery, then the price will go up.

So while attending this coin show is not any kind of a valid statistical sample, the indications I saw were consistent with the stories talking about the high demand for gold.  Apparently one-tenth of an ounce eagles are the most popular.  There were other gold eagles there, although not nearly as many as you would expect.  Most coins being sold were foreign currency and rare coins.

The one-tenth ounce gold eagles carry a big premium, at least in percentage terms, even compared to other gold eagle coins.  You will typically pay over 10% above spot price.  If gold is $1,400 per ounce, you should expect to buy a one-tenth gold eagle for more than $14 (10% of $140) above spot.  Right now, you would probably actually pay 15% above the spot price.  Meanwhile, the percentage premium on a one ounce gold eagle would be far less.

So either these coin dealers did not have any one-tenth of an ounce eagles to sell or else they did not want to get rid of them.  Either way, this is a signal that there is a high demand for these coins.

I don’t know if this will translate into a high demand for all gold coins, but it is definitely one sign that there is a potential for a big run in the price of gold coming.

I like to read articles about people that retired (or at least could have retired) at a really early age.  I am not talking about early retirement at age 55 or 60.  I am talking about people retiring when they are 35 years old.  And I am not talking about people who won the lottery or who started an internet company that sold for tens of millions of dollars.  I am referring to people who had jobs or, at most, owned a small business.

It almost seems impossible.  I can understand being able to retire at age 50.  Anything before the age of 40 seems hard to fathom.  And let’s be clear that it is very rare.

There are basically three main factors that go into accumulating a lot of wealth.  First, there is your income.  Second, there is your spending.  Third, there is your rate of return on the money that you have already saved.

Interestingly, when I read stories about these really early retirements, the rate of return is not a major factor.  It is typical to see the person having invested in rental real estate, something that I advocate for those in the right position.  If done right, it can give you a fairly solid rate of return.  It is not without risks, but it is also not like investing in the stock market.

The vast wealth accumulation is usually a result of high savings.  This is usually a combination of a high income and low spending.  But it is important to point out that I have seen stories where the person’s income was not extraordinarily high.  It might have been a little above average.

The spending, or lack of spending, is where the person is really different.  They will proudly say that they don’t watch television (no cable expenses), don’t have an expensive cell phone (if one at all), don’t go out to eat much (if at all), don’t spend much on entertainment, and are very cautious with everything that is spent.  I’m not sure that is a life most people would want to live, but it might be worth it if you only had to do it for 10 or 15 years in order to enjoy financial freedom.

Of course, the stories I hear are usually about a single guy or a married couple.  I rarely hear mention of kids.  Having kids will delay your retirement by years, or maybe decades in some cases.  So if you really want to retire at 35, then don’t plan on having any kids.

The other interesting thing I note is that I will read these stories and then something will be said about what the retired person or couple is doing now.  They are usually writing a book, or running a small business, or doing consulting work, or something else part time.  Perhaps they are doing this for reasons that have nothing to do with money.  But somehow, I doubt it.  While it is great to have a cushion or to be able to take a few years off working or to be able to work only part time, I still can’t say it is retirement. To me, retirement is really having the ability and choice to never work again, while maintaining your current lifestyle.

For most people, these stories about people retiring before the age of 40 are not realistic, if they are even real.  But I still enjoy reading them.  I think there is some good advice to be found in them, particularly when it comes to spending habits.  They are also a good reminder that the only way to accumulate wealth is to spend less than you earn.  It sounds basic, but it is amazing just how many people don’t follow it.

Socialists can never really be proven wrong in their own eyes, because we will never see a fully socialist system.  Even the worst of the worst, like the old Soviet Union, was not 100% socialist.  They relied, at least to a certain extent, on production and prices from other places, which guided their central planning.  As Ludwig von Mises pointed out, socialism has to collapse due to a lack of a pricing system.

Even Keynesians, such as Paul Krugman, can never be proven wrong in their own eyes.  Someone like Krugman will always say that we should spend more and run bigger deficits.  Whenever the economy is showing bad news, Krugman will always say that it is because the government didn’t spend enough or because the central bank didn’t print enough.

If Krugman became dictator of his own country, what would he do?  He would be free to spend as much as he wanted.  Things would collapse quickly, or else he would have to admit that the government/ dictator has to show some restraint.  It is so typical of the left to throw their own under the bus when something doesn’t work out.

I think it is funny when you get a really leftist state or city where they keep electing Democrats and they get into a major budget crunch.  At some point, either a Republican gets elected or else the Democrat is forced to make budget cuts, or at least show some restraint.  Then the left will throw that person under the bus saying that he shouldn’t have made those cuts.  Either that, or they will ignore it.

But the reality is that budget restraint is forced upon those in office at some point.  It is simply impossible to keep spending ever greater amounts of money.  The money simply isn’t there.  These leftists are asking others to defy gravity.  It is easy to preach that we (meaning the government) need to spend more money on schools, on infrastructure, on healthcare, on the needy, etc.  But at some point, it is just not possible to spend any more.

Even Obama has been somewhat limited.  The budget increased much faster under 8 years of George W. Bush.  Since the first year Obama was in office, the federal budget has not increased much at all.  It is just that he is starting out with a much higher number than where Bush started out.  So in that sense, Obama’s spending is worse.  But the budget increases are far less.  I would wager that things would not be that much different if the Democrats controlled the House.  What would they have done, run $2 trillion yearly deficits and risked a complete meltdown?

So the left will always find excuses.  If the economy is bad, it will be because of the Republicans gutting education (which increased much greater under Bush), or because there aren’t enough regulations, or because of greedy businessmen, or because of too little taxation on the rich.  It is amazing that Democrats still find these same excuses today with the massive spending and deficits and regulations.  Again, it is never enough.

It is important for libertarians (and others who are free market oriented) to constantly point out the fact that we do not live in anything close to a true free market.  Yes, the U.S. is far better than Cuba or North Korea or many other places around the world.  But that doesn’t change the fact that we have big government controlling our lives and the economy.

Interest rates have gone up in the last few weeks.  I like to look at the 10-year yield.  As of this writing, it stands at about 2.12%.  The 10-year yield is highly correlated with mortgage rates.

The 10-year yield has been fluctuating over the last couple of years, but mostly in a range of just below 1.5% and just above 2%.  These are big moves in percentage terms only because the rate is so low.  But an increase of half a percent when the rate is higher is not much.  If the 10-year yield were 7% and it went to 7.5%, then it wouldn’t be that much.

It is also important to take some perspective too.  The 10-year yield was actually over 3% back in early 2011.  If someone had told me two and a half years ago that the yield would be 2.12% today, I would have thought the person was crazy, or at least I would have considered that a very low rate.

So just because the rate has ticked up in the last few weeks, it doesn’t mean that the bond bubble is about to burst.  The rate is up off of near all-time lows.

I still don’t think it is time to short the bond market.  I think we will see significantly higher interest rates one day, but I am doubtful that it will be in the near future (within the next 6 months).  I am certainly not confident enough to put money into a short position on bonds right now.  There will come a time when it will be a good gamble to do so, but I don’t think now is the time.

I don’t see rates going up significantly as long as the Fed keeps creating new money out of thin air and consumer price increases are relatively tame.  I think rates will only go up when the market has a strong fear of price inflation or when the Fed stops buying debt for a sustained period of time.  But the only way the Fed is going to stop all of its so-called quantitative easing is if it is forced to stop due to rising prices.  In other words, I think we will only get much higher rates when we start to see much higher prices.

The price of gold is still just under $1,400 per ounce, which is well off of its all-time highs.  Interest rates are not paying much of a premium for inflation fears and they are paying almost no premium for fears of an outright government default.  So we have low interest rates.

If gold starts spiking up near or above its all-time highs, then that might be the sign that inflation fears are picking up.  That might be the time to consider dipping a toe in the water of shorting bonds, which is betting on higher interest rates.

Rates are still extremely low.  It is still a great opportunity to buy a house using a 30-year loan with a fixed interest rate and paying back your loan with depreciating money.  Your last mortgage payment in 30 years might be the equivalent of a lunch at that point.

Tuesday, May 28, 2013 – The stock market was up.  The Dow gained over 100 points.  The S&P 500 gained over 10 points.  Yet the 10-year yield was telling another story.  Bonds plummeted, which means that interest rates rose.  The 10-year yield went up over 6% in one day.  The yield is now at about 2.13%.

I think the most interesting thing about the markets was the explanations given by the news media.  Whenever there is price movement in the markets, there are usually reasons given for it.

A Yahoo Finance article was titled “Dow ends at record as central banks reassure Wall Street”.  The articles starts off saying, “Stocks rose on Tuesday, with the Dow closing at yet another record high, in the wake of Wall Street’s first three-day losing streak of the year, after central banks reassured investors that they will keep policies designed to foster global growth.”  In other words, the stock market went up because investors expect more digital money printing in the future.

The article later addresses the rising interest rates.  It said, “But even with the reassurance, speculation persisted that a tapering of the Fed’s bond-buying plan could be on the horizon, sending U.S. Treasury debt yields to their highest levels in over a year and pulling equities back from their session highs.”  In other words, the bond market went down because investors expect less digital money printing in the future.

The article is either contradicting itself or is saying that investors are contradicting themselves.  I would tend to believe that the article is contradicting itself.

If the author has no idea why the markets are doing what they are doing, then just say so.  But I guess they would give the job to someone else then who will make up reasons for why things are happening. Can the guy at least not contradict himself within the same article, only a few paragraphs away?

So which is it?  Are investors expecting more “quantitative easing” from the Fed or are they expecting less?  If that was the main thing moving markets, then I guess that stock investors and bond investors have completely different thoughts on this.

The markets always come down to buyers and sellers.  The market prices will reflect where the parties are meeting.  When stock prices go up, it usually means that there are more buyers than sellers, at least in terms of the previous prices.  There isn’t always an explanation for this.  There are billions of people on this planet.  There are tens of millions of investors.  They act for various reasons.

This article, and others similar to it today, are a good example of why you should take them with a grain of salt.  The authors try desperately to provide reasons for market movements, but they really can only guess.  In this case, they guess both ways.