I hope everyone out there has a happy Thanksgiving and that you get to enjoy it with good food and good family and friends.

During this time of year, many people recognize what they are thankful for and sometimes this is the only time of year that it is done.  Some people don’t even do that much.  Most people who do say their “thank you’s” will usually cite family and friends.  This is appropriate.

In addition, I like to point out that we should be thankful for the times we live in.  I know that the economy is really tough right now on a lot of people.  But if you are reading this, then you have some kind of an electronic device with internet access.  This would have been unheard of just twenty years ago.  If you have this much, then you probably also have food on the table every day and clothes to wear and a warm place to sleep.

There are still a lot of people in this world who do not have those “luxuries”.  I suppose the good news is that there is a higher percentage of people in the world today than at any other time who do have plenty of food and clean drinking water and a good place to sleep.

I think recognizing this can help you in your own life.  It can make you less scared and make you feel like you can conquer most anything that comes your way.  If you are struggling financially, at least you can recognize that you don’t live in a world where you have to go out and hunt for your own food or else starve.

I think there is also a good balance to be found in enjoying our 21st century luxuries and also staying humble.  This economy has humbled a lot of people.  I am optimistic that we will find liberty again and we will see a new prosperity that cannot even be imagined today.  I am thankful that I see a libertarian spirit starting to arise, particularly in the American people.  Let’s hope it continues.

Happy Thanksgiving!

One of the most popular pieces I have ever written was on collecting nickels.  If you type “collecting nickels” into the google search engine, my post appears on the first page.  It was written in February 2011 and it still gets many hits.  It is obviously a somewhat popular subject.

My thoughts on collecting nickels is almost the same as pennies, except pennies are a little more complicated.  As I mentioned with nickels, it is one of the few investments that is a hedge against both inflation and deflation at the same time.  The same is true of a penny.

One of the big problems is that pennies are not worth much.  While they are a little less bulky than nickels, you would also have to collect 5 times as many to get the same monetary value (not necessarily metal value) as the nickel.

Pennies are also a little more complicated because the metal value will depend on the date the penny was minted.

If you find a “wheat penny” that is dated from 1909 to 1958, then it is mostly copper (95%), with the exception of the 1943 penny.  I told you it is complicated.  These pennies are easy to spot because the back has a design of wheat heads, instead of the current day pennies that have the Lincoln Memorial on the back.  It also says “ONE CENT” in big letters.  The metal content in these older pennies is currently worth about 2.5 times the face value of the coin.  In other words, the copper is worth about 2.5 cents.  However, some of the older pennies may be worth substantially more due to rarity.

Pennies dated 1959 to 1981 (and some 1982) are made of 95% copper and 5% zinc.  These are worth more than pennies made in 1982 to the present day.  If it is worth it to sort through these, then it may pay off one day.  But it will take a lot of time.  I would only suggest doing it if you are multi-tasking.  If you are just sitting there watching a football game, then maybe spending some time sorting through your old pennies is not a waste of time.  Again, currently the metal content in these pennies is about 2.5 cents, but it will vary depending on the metal prices, particularly copper.  It was over 3 cents at one point.

The pennies from 1982 to the present are mostly made of zinc.  Only about 2.5% is copper and most of that is in the plating.  This may still end up being a good investment one day, depending on how much the Federal Reserve inflates the currency.  But zinc is not as valuable as copper, so the pre-1982 pennies should serve as a better investment.  Right now, the mostly zinc pennies have a metal content that is worth just over half a cent.

I understand that a lot of people think it is crazy to save pennies.  Perhaps it is crazy.  But you can’t judge it based on what they are worth now.  You could save 100,000 pennies and that would still only be worth $1,000.  That is a lot of pennies to store (2,000 rolls), but the question is what they may be worth one day in the future, based on their metal value.  If the Fed goes crazy with monetary inflation, then maybe the metal content will be worth $10,000 one day, or even more.

And again, even if you are completely wrong and there is no monetary inflation in the future (highly unlikely), then you can always just trade your rolls in at the bank in exchange for bills.  However, I’m not sure that I would bring in 2,000 rolls at one time.  You may want to split it up into a few trips.

While it is illegal to melt your coins, this probably won’t matter.  As I mentioned with the nickels, it is actually preferable to leave them in coin form so that the value can be easily assessed.  It is the same with pre-1965 silver dimes and quarters.  These are now traded at coin shows for their metal content.

In conclusion, collecting pennies is a personal choice.  If you have a lot of time and some space to store them, then you aren’t going to lose anything by holding them.  Interest rates aren’t paying enough right now to worry about that lost opportunity.  But I also wouldn’t spend a lot of time sorting through your pennies if your time is better spent on your career or other projects that may be much more profitable.  But if you do decide to collect pennies, then you better hurry, because there will come a day when pennies will be made of steel or else they just won’t be used at all due to the continuing devaluation of the dollar.  Either way, expect pennies, especially those dated prior to 1982, to slowly disappear from circulation.

Paul Krugman – the Nobel prize winner, the Keynesian economist, the face of big government economics, and the face of centralized planning and monetary inflation – has written an article in the NY Times that has gotten quite a bit of attention.  He points out that the 1950’s were a prosperous time in America, yet the higher marginal tax rate was at 91%.  He is wondering what all the fuss is about right now with tax rates.  He almost implies that we can just go back to 91% marginal tax rates and everything will be great.

This is an interesting point and I think it is important and deserves a libertarian response.  He is actually correct that the 1950’s were a relatively prosperous time considering the high tax rates.  So how can this be explained by free market economists?

This is why economics is so hard.  It is because there are so many variables.  We don’t live in a vacuum where we can keep everything the same and just experiment with different tax rates.

But it is ironic that Krugman, champion of government spending, is citing the 1950’s as a prosperous time.  Because aside from the tax rates, the 1950’s looks like a free market paradise compared to what we have now.  There was no Medicare or Medicaid.  There was no EPA.  There was no Americans with Disabilities Act.  It was also a relatively peaceful time in America, with the exception of the Korean War wrapping up in 1953, which did not consume anywhere near the resources that were used in World War 2 or in today’s wars.

The list of things could go on, but I think there is one hard statistic in general that can be pointed to that makes Krugman look bad here.  It is government spending.  The 1950’s is actually strong evidence that total government spending and monetary policy are more important factors to the economy than tax rates.  If you look at federal spending for the 1950’s, it was a fraction of what it is now.  Total federal spending never exceeded $100 billion annually for every year in the 50’s.  It was only $42.6 billion in 1951.  Adjusted for inflation, total federal spending was only about one-fifth of what it is today.

Even as a percentage of GDP, it was lower than 20% in all years except one (1953), whereas it is now about 24% or 25%.  And because spending was relatively low in the 50’s, the deficits were relatively low.  And because the deficits were relatively low, monetary inflation from the Fed was relatively low.

So while marginal tax rates on high income earners were extremely high, there was still relative prosperity because of the lower government spending and the stable money.  While the high tax rates were discouraging to entrepreneurs and workers, the relatively tight money policies were a great incentive.  Businessmen could plan and could count on the dollar maintaining its purchasing power.  It was an incentive to save.  As a result, there was not a giant misallocation of resources as we see today.  While there were downturns in the economy, there was not a severe boom and bust cycle like we see today.

So Krugman was right that the 1950’s were prosperous during a time of high marginal tax rates.  But if you look at the rest of the picture, it is actually a case against Krugman’s big government/ big spending theories.  If government spending and monetary inflation are kept under control, then you can have prosperity even with confiscatory tax rates.  This should be a lesson to Tea Party conservatives that they should focus more on government spending and less on taxation.

Ron Paul lost out on the Republican nomination for the presidency.  Mitt Romney won the nomination, but then lost in the general election.  So neither one will be president, assuming Romney’s political career is basically done.  So the outcome is the same for them as far as attaining the highest office in the land.

So with everything over for them, at least as far as elections are concerned, which individual has had the greater impact?  For me, the answer is obvious.

Mitt Romney did not really inspire anyone.  He did not convert people’s thinking.  He did not use persuasion to convince some people to become Republicans or to change their philosophical outlook.  Romney was simply the Republican nominee against an incumbent Democrat who is mostly despised within the Republican Party.  When it comes down to it, most of the people who voted for Romney were really just voting against Obama.

Meanwhile, while Ron Paul did not get near as many votes in the primaries, and he certainly did not have backing from the establishment, he did have a profound impact on many lives.  Ron Paul’s campaigns in 2007/2008 and 2011/2012 inspired hundreds of thousands of people, or perhaps millions. He converted people to a philosophy of liberty.  Many of these people will now be libertarians for the rest of their lives.

Paul’s presidential runs were never about getting elected.  I assume that he already knew this.  I don’t know how many of his supporters knew this or even know it now.

I constantly hear some libertarians talking about electing the right people into office.  Unfortunately, they just don’t understand what it takes to achieve liberty.  At the very least, they are putting the cart before the horse.  If you are going to elect a large number of liberty-minded individuals and if you are going to hold their feet to the fire once they are in office, then you must have a large group of dedicated libertarians who stand on principle.  It doesn’t necessarily have to be a majority, but it does have to be a significant minority.

Achieving liberty is not about electing the right people into office.  It is about changing hearts and minds.  It is about persuasion.  It is about convincing others of the moral and pragmatic superiority of liberty.  It is about educating others on what it means to be a principled libertarian.  Without this step, the so-called right people will never be elected into office.

This lesson should also be learned by the Libertarian Party in general.  I think it is a good idea to run a candidate for president, but that is because it is an opportunity for media exposure that no one else can get.  It is an opportunity for the party to educate others on the benefits of liberty.  It is not about electing a Libertarian Party member to the presidency.

Gary Johnson just broke the one million vote mark for the first time for the Libertarian Party (although Ed Clark received a higher percentage in 1980).  But this doesn’t mean that much to people outside of libertarian circles.  It is perhaps symbolic that the libertarian movement is stronger now.  But it does not mean that Gary Johnson did a good job in his campaign on converting people to libertarianism through education.  It can’t mean that, since Johnson himself was learning what it meant to be a libertarian while he was campaigning.

Harry Browne received less than half a million votes in the 1996 election and again in the 2000 election.  Yet he had a far more lasting impact than someone like Gary Johnson.  Harry Browne actually converted people to libertarianism for life.  He had no hopes for winning the presidency and he said that numerous times.  His focus was on educating others.

The lesson here is simple.  You shouldn’t be convincing your friend to vote for someone like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson.  You should be focusing on introducing libertarian ideas to your friend that may have a lasting impact.

In 50 years, what will Romney’s legacy be?  People just being born now may not even know him.  He will be known in the history books as a one-term governor who lost his presidential bid.

Ron Paul will not be best known as someone who lost in his runs for the presidency.  He will be known as someone who sparked a fire of liberty and peaceful revolution in the hearts and minds of millions of people for many generations to come.

It is hard to believe, but it has been over 2 months since the FOMC announced its policy decision to implement QE3, or what some are calling QE Infinity.  While the FOMC/ Fed is not specifically referring to it as QE3 (even that has a negative connotation now), they did say they would be buying $40 billion (net) each month, although this QE will focus on mortgage-backed securities and bailing out the banks again.

Looking at the adjusted monetary base (updated 11/15/12), there has not been much of a change since the announcement back in mid-September.  I recall that QE2 started out slowly too, but the Fed did eventually deliver on its promises, even if those promises meant more disaster for the economy.  I expect it to be no different this time.

We will also keep an eye on the excess reserves held by commercial banks.  The excess reserves went up in tandem with the money supply during the previous QEs.  So most of the new monetary inflation over the past 4 years has been parked at the banks, which parks the money with the Fed in order to earn .25% interest (almost nothing).

Even if the banks keep building up reserves, the policy of more monetary inflation will still eventually show up in prices, although not as much as would be the case if the banks were to lend the new money.

For this, I am still counting on gold and other precious metals to perform well.  I am also not betting heavily against stocks, as they could benefit, at least in nominal terms, from more monetary inflation.  As I mentioned recently, the stock market is a tug-of-war right now, with QE3 on one side and the so-called fiscal cliff on the other.  For this, gold seems like a safer bet.

$40 billion per month in new money, created out of thin air by the Fed, will add up.  We don’t know how long the Fed will keep this policy, but most people suspect it will be for a year or longer.

I don’t know at what point the Fed will stop inflating the money supply.  My guess is that it will stop, or at least take a break, when we see the consumer price index rise above 5% for a few months in a row.  If we hit a recession in 2013, then we may not see the official price index rise above this for a little while longer.  A recession would likely increase the demand for dollars and would essentially counteract some of the monetary inflation.

I expect 2013 to be an interesting year.  The Fed has been walking on a tightrope and I think it has been content to keep this position.  Eventually, we will see a severe recession or high price inflation.  It is inevitable.  It is more of a question of when and how the whole thing will play out.

It is a strange world we live in today.  There are people in third-world countries who have cell phones and internet access, yet they struggle just to put food on the table.  It is even becoming bizarre in America, where we have gadgets that were unimaginable just a few years ago, yet the cost of our basic needs are going up.

It makes it quite hard to judge our standard of living.  Compare a middle class family living in the year 2012 with the average middle class family in the 1950’s.  We have so many luxuries today that would have seemed impossible then.  We aren’t flying around on spaceships like the Jetsons yet, but we have instant communication throughout the world.  We have wireless phones.  We have microwave ovens.  We have giant televisions with hundreds of channels.  A middle class family in the 50’s would have been lucky to have one television set.  And there was certainly no remote control.

Of course, the list could go on for pages.  There is no question that we have luxuries today that we take for granted.  If we went back in time and had to live in the 50’s (or even the 90’s), we would quickly realize how much we have.

On the other hand, life was easier in the 1950’s in a certain sense.  Most people are familiar with the television show Leave it to Beaver, which took place in the 50’s.  While life may not have been as great and simple as portrayed in the show, it was still somewhat accurate in describing a middle class American family in the 50’s.

The wife/ mom could afford to stay home.  It was not necessary for both parents to work.  While marginal income taxes were higher, taxes overall were lower.  And government spending was a fraction of what it is today.  While many taxes are hidden today (including the inflation tax), it basically takes the woman to go to work just to pay for the tax bill of the household.

In the 50’s, medical care was very affordable.  A hospital stay for a couple of nights would not bankrupt you.  A visit to the doctor, or perhaps more accurately, a visit from the doctor, did not set people back much.

While there was no Walmart back then, things were still relatively inexpensive, particularly for basic needs.  The man could go to work and support his family and the basic needs would be taken care of, which included housing, clothing, food, medical care, a car, and other incidentals.

Perhaps we are more spoiled today and we expect more cars, more television sets, cable, etc.  But shouldn’t we expect those things?  After more than 50 years, we should expect that our standard of living would be much greater.  But now the typical middle class family has to send both parents to work if they want to enjoy the modern day luxuries.

A lot of people today do not understand why they are struggling.  While unemployment is high, let’s just focus on people who have kept their jobs.  Even these people seem to be struggling, but it is not surprising if you think about it.  Salaries have remained stagnant.  In real terms, salaries have actually gone down in the last few years.  Most people I know are not getting much in the way of raises, unless they get a big promotion.  Some people aren’t even getting a cost-of-living increase.

There are some companies giving out 1 or 2 percent raises.  But then they are also raising insurance premiums so much that the premiums alone are offsetting the salary increase.  So many people are not seeing an increase in their paycheck, even in nominal terms.  Meanwhile, even if price inflation is only 2% per year, that is a big hit, especially when it compounds over a few years time.  In less than 5 years time, you would have taken the equivalent of a 10% pay cut.  But it is all so subtle, most people don’t even know what is hitting them.  That is why the government loves monetary inflation so much.  The populace doesn’t fully blame the government for the decrease in their standard of living.

This whole thing comes down to government spending and regulation.  Every dollar that the government spends is a dollar that is not being spent by someone who earned it.  The federal government alone is spending almost $4 trillion per year now.  It is about 25% of our income (and this doesn’t include state and local spending).  It is a giant misallocation of resources.

There is no question that, despite iPads and HD TV, middle class families in America are struggling.  Food, clothing, furniture, medical care, and other basic needs are going up in price, while most incomes are lagging behind.  Until there is a significant cutback in the size and scope of government, particularly at the federal level, then American families will continue to struggle with their basic needs.

The government primarily uses taxation and inflation to seize money from its subjects.  You could also include debt, but really that is either a form of taxation or inflation, or else it is money voluntarily turned over to the government.

There are literally thousands of different taxes that we pay.  Some are obvious like income taxes and payroll taxes.  Common local taxes are sales taxes and property taxes.  But there are a lot of small ones and hidden ones.  There are gas taxes, both at the federal and state levels.  There are hotel taxes.  There are phone taxes.  There are taxes on electricity and water.  There are corporate taxes, that we all pay for indirectly, even if we don’t own a company.  There are taxes on investments.  There are “fees” that are really taxes.  These can include car registrations, fishing licenses, parking permits, etc.  Again, the list of taxes at all levels of government are virtually endless.

Then there is the hidden tax of inflation.  It subtly and slowly (and sometimes not too slowly) devalues your savings.  You can have money just sitting in your wallet, and it is indirectly being taken away from you without you touching it.  While most people understand that prices go up almost every year, not everyone understands the reasoning.  Not everyone understands that an overall increase in the general price level is a result of monetary inflation (unless there is a short-term decrease in the demand for money).  This can all be pinned down on the government and the Federal Reserve.

The crazy thing is that the government actually uses taxation and inflation together to seize even more wealth from its productive citizens.  Although incomes do tend to go up with inflation, they tend to lag behind many consumer prices.  Therefore, most people are paying higher prices before they actually make more money.  But to add icing onto the miserable cake, higher income from inflation can actually push you into a higher tax bracket, thus paying more taxes.

But here is what I see as the worst combination of taxation and inflation.  Let’s say that the price inflation rate is 4%.  Let’s also say that interest rates are paying 4%.  The real interest rates are then at zero (interest rate minus inflation rate).  So let’s say you put $10,000 into a money market fund.  After one year, you earn $400.  But your $10,000 can no longer buy what it could last year.  Your $10,400 this year is worth the same as your $10,000 from last year, in terms of purchasing power.  So you have saved this money, yet you haven’t earned any return on it.  And here is the worst part.  You now owe taxes on the $400 that you “earned”.  If you have to pay 25% in taxes, you will only be left with $10,300.  In inflation adjusted terms, you have actually lost money.

It is even worse if the inflation rate is higher.  It is also worse in a situation like today, where real interest rates are negative.  Even pushing aside the taxation issue, interest rates will not even pay enough right now for you to keep even with the inflation rate, even using the conservative CPI number used by the government.

It would be the same thing if you invested in gold.  If you bought an exchange traded fund (ETF) for gold (GLD) and later sold it for a “profit”, you would have to pay a high tax rate on the earnings.  (GLD is taxed at a higher rate than stocks, as it is considered a collectible and is taxed at 28% if held longer than one year.)  But again, much of that so-called profit might have just been a result of inflation.

The issue of inflation is so vitally important because it is allowing the government virtually unlimited power and it is secretly ripping people off.  We must End the Fed.  To do this, we must start by legalizing competition.  One of the primary goals for libertarians should be to repeal the legal tender laws.  The Fed needs some competition and it needs to be put out of business.

There is a so-called fiscal cliff that is coming on January 1, 2013 that is being widely discussed.  I have written on this before and I will probably hammer home this point another 10 times before the year is over.  There is a widespread myth being spread that must be extinguished.

This fiscal cliff is a combination of increased taxes and spending cuts.  There are many taxes starting or going higher.  These include federal income taxes, Social Security payroll taxes, and new taxes from Obamacare.  The spending cuts are supposed to go into effect as a result of a “deal” that was made last year to increase the debt limit.

Tax increases and spending cuts are being lumped together.  They are both seen as steps to lower the deficits.  They are both seen as bad for economic growth.  The first point about deficits may or may not be true.  The second point about economic growth is false.  Although the so-called spending cuts would be tiny in comparison to the overall budget, it must be stressed that spending cuts and higher taxes are completely different.

First, tax increases will not necessarily lead to a smaller deficit.  This is based on static scoring.  It is assuming that no human behavior is altered as a result of the tax increases.  It is assuming that it will not affect economic growth.  Art Laffer, while not original in his thoughts, was correct that higher marginal tax rates can lead to lower government tax collections.

Second, we need massive cuts in government spending (much bigger than what is proposed).  This is the road to economic growth and a higher standard of living.  We need savings and capital investment.  We don’t need  the government spending and misallocating resources on a grand scale.  While there might be some short-term pain for certain people with government spending cuts, it would be a net benefit overall for society.  It would be less resources being misallocated.

Third, narrowing the budget deficit should not be the main goal for libertarians.  The main goal should be to lower total spending as much as possible.  This is what matters the most.  If total federal spending were one-tenth of what it is today, then we wouldn’t need to argue too much over taxes and deficits.  A $400 billion budget would be easily funded with some minor excise taxes.

Politicians and the mainstream media are framing this debate in their own terms.  I constantly hear people saying something like, “we all agree that we need some kind of combination of spending cuts and increased government revenue.”  It is not really government revenue.  They are not selling anything, except perhaps a load of garbage coming out of their mouths.  It is government tax collections.  And “we” do not all agree.  They think it is a compromise for them to steal more from us and spend less of what they steal.  I see that as greater theft, not as compromise.

The federal government alone (not counting state and local governments) spends about one quarter of GDP.  In other words, the federal government spends 25% of our yearly earnings.  And this doesn’t even consider all of the damage they do with that spending and with all of the regulations that are enforced.  At what point is it enough?  It seems like marginal tax rates could be 80% and you would still have some leftists saying that the rich need to pay their fair share.

This whole tax the rich thing gets tiresome.  Of course, the middle class and lower class are getting hit harder, but it’s not for a lack of taxing the rich.  It is because the government doles out favors to those with connections and then throws the leftover peanuts to its voting constituents.  The answer is not to tax more.  The answer is for the government to spend less, which means a drastic reduction in its size and scope.

In conclusion, libertarians should be quick to point out the difference between spending cuts and tax increases.  Any proposal to cut spending or cut taxes should be supported by libertarians.  Any proposal to increase spending or increase taxes should be opposed by libertarians.  I would like to see a fiscal cliff where government spending is cut dramatically.  Unfortunately, we are still a few years away from that.

There are valid reasons to be both bullish and bearish on the stock market.  There are a lot of things going on in the financial and political world.  Some of these things will be good for stocks and some will be bad.  It will just be a question of what wins out.

After Obama’s re-election, the stock market tanked for two days.  It was blamed on the looming fiscal cliff, but that has been known about for a long time.  If anything, Obama’s re-election solidified that at least part of the fiscal cliff will not be avoided.

If nothing changes between now and December 31, tax rates scheduled to go up will go up.  The Social Security payroll tax will go back up from 4.2% to 6.2%.  Income tax rates will go up across the board.  An additional Medicare tax will kick in from Obamacare on high income earners.  And probably the most important to the stock market, capital gains tax rates will go up.

The capital gains rate will go up to 20% on January 1 for some people (the ones most likely to own stocks).  Not only that, but an additional Medicare tax of 3.8% will also apply to capital gains.  This is from Obamacare.  It would not surprise me if these tax rates are the reason we saw stocks go way down right after Obama was re-elected.  Stock owners are guessing that the capital gains rate will go up as scheduled in January.

This is why stocks like Apple, which have done well, took a big hit.  It makes sense.  Someone who bought Apple stock is probably sitting on big gains.  They are better off selling before the year is over and paying the lower capital gains rate.  This is a good reason to be bearish on stocks until we hit 2013.

There is a very good reason to be bullish on stocks too, despite the unfriendly taxes.  It is Ben Bernanke and QE3 (or what some are calling QE Infinity).  Obama’s re-election solidifies more government spending, more government debt, and more money creation (not that it would have been different under Romney).  While monetary inflation is bad long-term economic policy, it can be good for stocks.  Stocks are not dollar-denominated like bonds or a money market fund.  While stock prices may not go up in real terms, they will probably go up in nominal terms if there is enough money creation.

While I expect to see a continuing roller coaster over the next few months, I think the direction of the stock market will ultimately depend on the economy and whether we fall into another recession (if the last one ever actually ended).  The problem is that the stock market will be more of a pre-cursor to the economy than the other way around.  If we fall into recession, I expect stocks to lead the way.  On the other hand, if we hit an artificial boom caused by the easy money policies of the Fed, then I would also expect stocks to lead the way up.  If this happens, it will be hard to say how long the artificial boom can last before the final bust.

At this point, I wouldn’t be betting heavily for or against stocks.  It is ok to have stocks if it is part of your permanent portfolio.  Otherwise, they seem too risky right now, particularly with capital gains tax rates set to go up.

Now that the dust has settled, I am gaining some perspective on what happened on Election Day and some of the positives and negatives, at least from a libertarian standpoint.

Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party (LP) candidate, will finish with just under 1.2 million votes.  This was just under 1% of the total popular vote in the country.  It was a very good finish for the LP in comparison to past races, but that is not surprising given the previous Ron Paul campaigns, the mood of the country, and the lack of choice between the two major party candidates.

It is hard to find the results of the third-party candidates.  Here is one website.  Unfortunately, we will probably never know how many people wrote in a name like Ron Paul or Big Bird.

Although Johnson received more than one million votes (first time for the LP), I would not consider it to be the most successful.  There are many more libertarians today than there were 5 years ago and there were more then than there were 20 years ago.

While Johnson showed that there is a small (but significant) portion of the population who desire real change in a libertarian direction, I’m not sure that he converted a lot of people.  Meanwhile, if you look at someone like Harry Browne, who ran twice and did not receive nearly as high vote totals, he defined success in a different way.  His main reason for running was to educate others on the benefits of liberty.  Harry Browne probably created more libertarians that Johnson did.  And the libertarians that Browne created would tend to be more principled and educated.

I think Gary Johnson is a decent guy from what I can tell and he really seems to mean well.  Unfortunately, I just don’t think he is well enough educated on what it means to be a libertarian.  He probably learned a lot more on the campaign trail than he bargained for.

I still think if the LP had run a more principled and radical candidate in the mold of Ron Paul, or Ron Paul himself, then the vote total would have been even greater.  Ron Paul received almost two million votes in the primaries and many states only allow just Republicans to vote.  If Paul had ran on the LP ticket and had been on the ballot in most or all of the states, then I think he would have received several million votes.

I also think another significant and positive story is voter turnout.  While a small portion of the differential may have been due to Hurricane Sandy, it was still down in most other states.  Obama received over 7 million votes less than he did in 2008.  Romney received over 1 million votes less than McCain did in 2008.  This means that there is widespread dissatisfaction and that many people did not feel obliged to vote for the lesser of two evils.  If not voting counted as a candidate, then that candidate would have easily beaten Obama.

Just remember this point.  Obama does not have majority support from Americans.  He only has a majority (and very slight) of the Americans who actually voted.

One last point on this whole thing here;  If Romney and the Republican establishment had treated Ron Paul and his supporters with more respect, then it might have made a difference.  I and many others still would not have voted for Romney, but I suspect that some would have.  Even more so, it would have been interesting if Romney had chosen Rand Paul as his running mate.

But Romney chose an establishment running mate and he blew off the libertarian element in the Republican Party.  Doing that, there was no way he was going to win.  He couldn’t beat Obama with a bad economy and high unemployment.  There simply wasn’t any enthusiasm for Romney.  There was some enthusiasm to beat Obama, but it was never really FOR Romney.  In the end, Romney was a dud and he deserved to lose.  Unfortunately, so did Obama.