Taxation, regulation, spending, and monetary policy all have a big impact on a nation’s economy.  But what matters most?  Of course, it depends on the degree of each one.  If there were a regulation that said you are not permitted to start a business unless you first hire 100 employees, then this would almost completely stifle a nation’s economy if enforced.  If you have a lot of regulations and yet they do not really impose any significant cost to businesses and individuals, then it will not harm the economy much.

The same goes for all of these.  And really, all of these things are inter-related in different ways.  Taxation can affect spending and spending can affect taxation.  The same can be said with monetary policy.  The size of government affects all of these areas.

But if you could fix one thing first, what would it be?  It is difficult to say.  If you didn’t have a central bank and the government did not have a monopoly on the money supply, then it would not be able to spend as much.  It would also not be able to run up massive debt.  The federal government would be more like state governments are today.  It could still spend quite a bit and do a lot of damage, but it would be forced to scale back in hard times.

On the other hand, if you dramatically cut spending, then it would not be necessary for the central bank to create money out of thin air.  The debt monetization would not be needed.  You don’t need a central bank to buy government debt if there is no government debt to begin with.

Regulations are quite difficult to measure.  Just by being aware of the many thousands of pages of regulations put out by Washington DC, you have to know that they are a significant cost to Americans.  Even here, if there were very low spending and taxation, many of these regulations would not be enforceable.

I used to think that taxation was the biggest issue in driving an economy.  While I still think it is very important, I’m not sure that it is the number one thing to look at.  The 1950’s in America were a relatively prosperous time.  Think of Leave It To Beaver.  The husband went to work.  The wife stayed home.  Times were pretty good for most Americans.  Medicine was cheap.  That part we can thank the low regulations in healthcare at the time.

However, the 1950’s also had one of the highest marginal tax rates in history.  You can see the history here.  The top tax rate was over 90% at some points in the 50’s.  This was draconian.  Luckily, taxes for the average American were much lower.  Overall spending was much lower.  Deficits were low.  Monetary inflation was relatively low.

I think the biggest drivers of a nation’s economy are monetary policy and overall spending.  They are related.  If the government didn’t spend so much, we would have lower taxes and more stable money due to less debt.  But again, the government wouldn’t spend so much without the Fed there to create new money out of thin air.

Monetary policy is huge.  Debasing the money is really degrading to a civilization.  It redistributes wealth.  It misallocates resources.  It rewards debtors at the expense of savers.  It causes bubbles, booms, and busts.  It allows government to continue to grow.  It allows government to run up the debt.  It allows government to start wars without new taxation.  It allows banks to take bigger risks.

In conclusion, all four of these areas are important to an economy.  While tax reform and tax relief are important,  I believe the government and central bank’s control over the money supply is the biggest factor, along with the overall spending.

Yesterday, I discussed the wonders of compounding interest and the benefits to an individual investor.  For this post, I want to talk about compounding interest applied to an entire society or civilization.

Just as an individual can accumulate great wealth over time with compounding interest, a society can also accumulate great wealth.  It is the same concept.  If the economic growth of a particular area averages around 4% per year, then that area will be twice as wealthy about every 18 years.  But you have to realize that after another doubling after the next 18 years, then the people will actually be 4 times better off than 36 years ago.  After another doubling, they will be 8 times better off.

Despite the economic growth of the 20th century, the 19th century was actually more prosperous for America, in a sense.  There was great economic growth through most of the 1800’s.  We saw the great results in the 1900’s, even though growth was lower (as an average) during that time.  The 1900’s were so great (at least some of the time) because the wealth was being built off of what was already accomplished in the 1800’s.

While technology certainly plays a big role, it is actually capital investment that is the main thing that makes this happen.  People save money and invest their excess capital.  This enables people to be more productive.  This allows them to save even more and invest even more, which leads to even more production with less labor necessary.

If America had the massive government spending, regulation, and bureaucracy in the 19th century that we have today, the people then would have been really poor.  The people of the 20th century also would have been really poor.  And we would be far worse off today.

We are a quite wealthy society now, especially compared to anything a hundred years ago.  This is in spite of the massive government we have.  If we didn’t have the massive government, then we would be that much more prosperous.  But most of what we have today is due to the previous capital investment that took place previously over hundreds of years, or more.

It has been said that the American Founders would have had more in common with the people living in the era of Jesus than with us today.  In other words, there was not that much advancement for a couple of thousand years.  Something happened in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s where the economy got going.  Much of this is due to freedom in Britain and America (at least economically speaking).  The economy was like a car that needed an initial push to get it going.  Once it got going, then it could accelerate.

Even a small 2% growth can add up significantly over time.  People don’t notice it unless they look back several years and compare the living standards.

With the tough economic times (due to the massive government and central bank), it is still important to have some economic growth.  It can give us hope that we can get beyond the government interference enough to continue to prosper.  If we ever did get government off of our backs, we could see real growth at 5%, 10%, or more.  Our standard of living would increase at a staggering pace.

It is often surprising how few people understand the power of compounding interest.  It is a powerful thing.  A lot of investment companies will sell their products by giving you examples of compounding interest.  For example, if you invest $10,000, just one time, at the age of 20 and earn a return of 6% every year, you will have over $137,000 by the time you reach age 65.

It is called compounding interest, but “interest” just refers to the rate of return.  You can make your return by earning dividends or capital gains and it doesn’t have to be with stocks.

While it is a lot harder these days to get a decent and consistent return on your money, compounding interest is still important, especially if you are relatively young.  You don’t need a lot of money to start building a portfolio.  It may seem small at the start, but if you stay with your plan and you keep contributing money, even in small amounts, it can add up to a big sum later on in life.

I think one of the best things to look at right now is real estate.  In many places in the U.S., houses have fallen 50% or more in price.  In many places, you can buy a house with 20% down and actually get positive cash flow.  You will get a return on your money every month (assuming no major repairs).  Plus, you will be slowly paying down the mortgage.  Plus, you might even get capital gains one day on the price if the housing market recovers.  While houses may or may not go up in real terms, monetary inflation is likely to eventually drive the nominal prices higher.  Meanwhile, you can pay off (or your tenants can pay off) your fixed-rate mortgage with depreciating money.

Outside of real estate, I advocate that you invest in something like the permanent portfolio as described in Harry Browne’s book Fail Safe Investing.  It is the best thing I know of that will allow you to sleep at night.  It has been quite consistent in providing good solid returns above the inflation rate.

Tomorrow, I am going to continue on this subject of compounding interest, but instead of applying it to individual investors, I am going to apply it to civilizations.

Obama has been a complete disaster.  The only good thing I can say about him is that, while he has expanded wars and started new ones, at least he hasn’t started an all-out world war, at least yet.  I don’t know if we would be able to say the same thing if McCain were president.

Obama has been a disaster for civil liberties and, of course, a disaster on the economic front.  The debt has grown a staggering amount on his watch.

I hear Sean Hannity and other conservatives talk about the Obama debt.  While Obama certainly is partially responsible, these conservatives are also letting the Republican politicians in DC off the hook.  Being apologists for Bush for eight years wasn’t enough for them.

It is true that Obama has been president for over 3 years now and the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate for the first two years.  But what about the last 14 months, when the Republicans have controlled the majority in the House?

According to the Constitution, all spending bills have to go through the House.  The House of Representatives actually holds more power than the president when it comes to spending.  The president can only sign or veto a spending bill.  The congress can actually override a presidential veto.

If the Republicans in the House really wanted to cut spending, they could do it.  If they really wanted a balanced budget, they could do it.  If they really wanted smaller government, they could make it happen. The conservative apologist will say, “but then the media would make them look bad”.  My response is, “so what?”  The conservative media, like Sean Hannity, wouldn’t attack them for cutting spending (or would he?).  If the Republicans are never going to cut any government because they are afraid of what the media will say, then what is the point in electing them?

The Republicans in the House could shrink government simply by refusing to pass any spending bills that would cause a budget deficit.  The Republicans could have refused to raise the debt ceiling.  If they didn’t want to be that drastic, they could have raised the debt ceiling by a much smaller amount.

Do these establishment Republican voters never learn?  They think the Republicans are the lesser of evils because they talk about smaller government.  If you’ll notice, most of these Republican politicians never actually offer any specific cuts of any substance.

I say all of this for a couple of reasons.  First, don’t be fooled again into voting for Republicans, unless it is someone like Ron Paul who offers specific and drastic cuts (which is rare to find).  Second, don’t count on anything significant changing if Mitt Romney beats Obama in November.

Regardless of who is president next year and what party controls the House and Senate, it will probably not make much of a difference.  There will be short-term pain even if Ron Paul becomes president, simply because of all of the previous malinvestment.

If Romney (or Santorum or Gingrich) were to beat Obama, you probably shouldn’t change your economic outlook.  They will continue to spend other people’s money and they will continue to drive the train over a cliff.  Things will only change due to a collapse or a major change in people’s thinking, or maybe both.  Technology will also play a role in changing things.

When enough people realize that government is not the solution, but the problem, then things will take care of themselves.  It will not be necessary to vote for the right person.

Last week, there was a well-publicized story about 16 Afghan civilians who were murdered in their homes in the middle of the night.  Most reports have said that it was done by one American soldier.  However, there have been some conflicting reports saying that several American soldiers took part.  Regardless, it is an important story and one that deserves attention.

If nothing else, this story points to the extreme hypocrisy of the U.S. government and even many Americans who continually promote war.  Almost all Americans condemn the 9/11 terrorists who murdered about 3,000 Americans, and rightly so.  But didn’t this American soldier just do the same thing that the terrorists of 9/11 did.  Perhaps the motives were different, but the results were the same (except for the number of dead).

These were Afghanis who were completely innocent.  Many of them were children.  This American soldier (or soldiers) murdered these innocent people.  So should the Afghan government now have the right to start bombing America because of this act of murder?  In the eyes of Americans who want to continually bomb Afghanistan because of 9/11, wouldn’t this be the consistent thinking?  The terrorists on 9/11 were supposedly linked to the Taliban, but even that is sketchy.  However, there is no question that this American soldier was connected to the U.S. government.  In fact, he was trained to kill by the U.S. government.

The other point to be made with this whole story is that this is only one incident.  This particular incident is more newsworthy because it was a deliberate act.  But there are many times when innocent Afghanis are killed “accidentally”.  If a plane drops a bomb on an Afghan village that “accidentally” hits a wedding party and kills innocent people, it is labeled as regrettable, but there are rarely charges brought against those who dropped the bombs or those who ordered that the bombs be dropped.  But why should this be any different?  Even if the pilots dropping those bombs were not trying to deliberately kill innocent people, they still knew that there was a good chance that innocents would be killed.

If someone deliberately shoots someone, while another person randomly fires a gun in the air in a crowded area and kills someone, is there really much of a difference?

This whole incident never should have happened.  The U.S. military is occupying Afghanistan (along with many other countries).  These soldiers should not be there in the first place.  The people that were directly responsible for 9/11 are dead.  Osama bin Laden is also supposedly dead.  There is absolutely no reason for the U.S. government to be in Afghanistan and definitely no reason for bombing or shooting anyone there.

All U.S. military personnel and government contractors should be brought home to the U.S. at once.  The innocent people of Afghanistan do not deserve to be terrorized by Americans.  Americans must take the moral high ground and withdraw immediately.

I am not big on using charts, graphs, etc.  They are useful in telling us what has happened in the past, but I am not particularly fond of charts and patterns for predicting the future.

There are a lot of people out there who use charts and trends to make predictions on investments.  They will talk about head and shoulder patterns or breaking above a 200-day moving average or some other jargon.  They base their analysis of an investment primarily using these charts and trends.  While I often find it fascinating, I also think it is mostly bogus.

If there is one thing you should learn from Austrian school economics, it is that economics is really a study of human action.  Everything in economics depends on human action.  And that is really the problem with charts and graphs.

You could read some analyst who says that gold is about to break out because of a particular trend line on his gold chart.  But why should this mean anything for the future?  What happens if Bernanke comes out tomorrow and announces that the Fed will not engage in any more quantitative easing (money creation) for as long as he is Fed chairman?  The gold chart can’t possibly know any of this.  If it did, then the chart would already reflect this and the price would have gone way down, assuming that people believed what he said.  How can the chart know what millions of individuals are going to do the next day and whether they are going to buy or sell or hold or do nothing?

Again, charts and graphs can give us a good overview of what has happened in the past.  Perhaps this can contribute to our decision on whether or not to invest in that particular thing.  But charts can’t predict the future any more than a Magic 8 Ball.

When I read some analyst who says something along the lines of, “this stock’s 6-month chart shows that it is about to break out and will probably double in price over the next few months”, I wonder many things.  First, if this is such a great tip with a high, practically-guaranteed, rate of return, why is this person sharing the information with everyone else?  Second, if this person is so good at doubling his money every few months, why doesn’t he have wealth in the neighborhood of Warren Buffett or Bill Gates?  Third, why doesn’t he list all of his previous calls and tell us what the results were of his recommendations?

Charts can be somewhat useful and informative, but they can’t predict the future.  They can’t predict human action.  If anyone is selling you an investment solely based on the use of a chart or graph, my recommendation is to walk away from that person.

The Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, talked this week and markets moved.  There was nothing really significant that Bernanke said though.  The Dow surged passed 13,000.  Gold tumbled this week.  However, I think the most significant news is in the bond market.

Bonds got hammered this week.  The 10-year yield has been around 2% or a little lower for quite some time now.  While it was hovering just above the 2% mark earlier this week, the yield is now 2.28% as of this writing.  While a few days don’t necessarily make a trend, a rise in interest rates has to start somewhere.

The 10-year yield and mortgage rates tend to be highly correlated.  That means that when the 10-year yield goes up (as it has this week), then mortgage rates are also likely to rise.  If the rate were to keep going up, even to just 3%, this could be devastating for the housing market.

Many libertarians/ Austrian school followers have been predicting higher rates in the U.S. for quite some time now.  It hasn’t happened yet, like it did in the 1970’s.  It never ceases to amaze me how long things can take to unfold.  It seems that the interest rates in Japan should have gone way up, yet the rates there continue to be close to zero.

The Japanese government has a debt-to-GDP ratio that is well over 200%.  This makes the U.S. government look fiscally responsible in comparison.  The Bank of Japan has not inflated much in comparison to other central banks.  But how could a government with such high debt manage to keep rates so low?  You would expect at some point that investors would stop buying government debt, which would either force the government to cut spending or force the central bank to monetize the debt (inflate).  Yet this hasn’t happened.  The only explanation is that these investors are naive and do not understand what is going to happen.

This just goes to show that markets are unpredictable.  You may think it is a rational response for investors to stop buying Japanese government debt because the debt has reached such a high point.  Yet, others do not see it this way.  They may not be smart, but it also wouldn’t have been smart to bet against Japanese bonds at this point.

I don’t think the U.S. government and the Fed will be able to stop higher interest rates for decades like has happened in Japan.  Higher interest rates and higher price inflation are the two main things to look out for.  These two things will determine Fed policy.  I believe the Fed will stop inflating when the U.S. dollar is severely threatened.  At that point, the government will finally be forced to make real cuts.

Higher interest rates will be bad for the elitists in Washington DC.  In many ways, higher interest rates would be a blessing for the long run, as it might slow down the train and lessen the impact of the coming wreck.

We will keep an eye on the 10-year yield and see if the higher rates become a trend.  This could change Fed policy and encourage a start to QE3 (more money creation), but it will eventually bring on the day of reckoning.

Eight years ago, Harry Browne wrote an article called “The ‘Exporting Jobs’ Scam”.  He pointed out that American wages have always been much higher than wages in many other countries, yet American companies weren’t exporting jobs 30 or 40 years ago to the same extent.

He blames the exporting of jobs on U.S. regulators who “won’t quit heaping more and more demands on American corporations”.  I think this is a major point that is still lost today.  While China is still considered a communist country, there actually are a lot less bureaucratic regulations for businesses to follow.  Property rights are still not as strong there as in America, so it makes sense for an American company to stay in America while exporting jobs to China.

I think wage differentials do matter, but only to the extent that it benefits a company.  If a company can have something done cheaper overseas, everything else being equal, then it is likely to “export” the job.

It is also important to remember the consumer in all of this.  People talk about jobs being exported overseas, but they are simply focusing on the American worker.  Besides benefiting someone in another country, it is also benefiting the American company and, most of all, the American consumer.

Let’s use a ridiculous example and say that workers in China and India are willing to work for just one cent per hour.  If Chinese workers are willing to work for virtually free, this will benefit American consumers.  You would pay that much less for an iPad or a television.

American companies hire foreign workers because it is cost effective.  A big factor in this is probably U.S. government regulations as Harry Browne said.  But regardless of the reason, it is a benefit to the American consumer (which is virtually everyone living in the U.S.) to have less expensive products and services.

People were complaining about jobs being “exported” eight years ago when Harry Browne wrote that article and they are still complaining about it today.  Some things never change.

Yesterday I wrote about debating others and trying to convince them that libertarianism is the way to go.  Today, I want to discuss the topic of offering financial advice to others, particularly family and friends.

My general advice here is to not give advice, unless you are asked.  I give out some financial advice on this blog, but it is not meant specifically for family and friends.  It is for the general public.  Most people reading this blog are doing so because they were searching for something on the topic.  It may or may not be what they were looking for, but if they found it through a simple Google search, then it must be related to what they were inquiring about.

For family and friends, it is usually better to avoid giving too much advice.  If someone wants help, they will find a way to ask you.  You can make it known in a subtle way that you are available.

The only success I’ve had in influencing people’s financial decisions is by discussing something and stimulating their thoughts enough so that they go out and do their own research.  But you have to realize that this will not happen with most people.  Most people are living the daily grind and are probably not interested in economics and financial markets the way you are.  They are probably not interested in libertarianism and Austrian school economics (although the number has grown quite significantly).

I have also had a few people come to me and ask for help in setting up a portfolio.  They are not usually looking to understand anything.  They just want to make sure that their money is in a good place.  While I certainly try not to steer anyone the wrong way, it makes me nervous that they are willing to practically hand over control to me.  It makes me nervous because that means that a lot of other people are doing the same thing, but they may be going to people who are steering them the wrong way.  I am not saying it is intentional, but just that there is a lot of bad advice being given and taken.

I have also had casual discussions with people when there is a lot of news in the financial markets.  For instance, after the huge stock market decline in late 2008 and early 2009, I would say to people that I wasn’t really that surprised by the whole thing.  I thought a severe recession was coming, but I just couldn’t predict when.  Then I have people tell me that I should have told them what was coming and told them to change their investments.  First, it is not like I could have predicted everything perfectly and timed everything right.  And second, and more importantly, these people would not have taken my advice at that time anyway.

You can try to give financial advice to others who don’t ask, but most friends and family will simply not listen.  They will blow you off.  It doesn’t matter if you tell them to get out of credit card debt or if you tell them they should own some gold.  They are probably not going to listen.  They may even resent you later on because they didn’t listen, even though they should be looking in the mirror.

If someone ever does come to you for advice on investments, I would not recommend that you try to speculate on the latest hot thing.  I would simply tell them to set up something similar to the permanent portfolio as described by Harry Browne in his book Fail Safe Investing.  This way, you are minimizing the speculation and the person can continue to use this strategy in the future, even if the economic environment changes and you are not around to offer more advice.

It can be frustrating to be a libertarian.  It might be a little less frustrating than it was a few years ago, because more people have been exposed to libertarianism, particularly through Ron Paul and the internet.  However, there are still a lot of misconceptions out there.  The essence of libertarianism is that you don’t believe in the initiation of force for political or social change (just as the Libertarian Party’s pledge says).  You can hold this view regardless of your personality and characteristics.

Many libertarians find themselves in debates with others, particularly because they are so passionate about their views.  It is hard to “convert” someone.  Libertarians who are well-versed on all of the major issues have trouble convincing others.  Imagine how hard that makes it for libertarians who are not as knowledgeable.

You will probably not win someone over by debating them.  Debates tend to drive people the other way.  They become more stubborn in their position.  They do not want to be wrong, just as you don’t want to be wrong.  With that said, there are legitimate reasons to engage others in (hopefully friendly) debates.

If you have an audience, a debate with someone can be useful in swaying the observers.  They may not be that opinionated one way or the other.  If you lay out good reasons for your philosophy, it might help the people listening move closer to your point of view.

Another reason to debate someone is to sharpen your own skills.  The other person may have some arguments that you have never heard before.  They may challenge you on some of your beliefs.  They may try to point out inconsistencies.  This is good for your own knowledge.  It can help sharpen your own ideas, even if you have to think about it later, after the debate.

Of course, one last reason to debate someone is just for your own satisfaction of “winning the argument” and getting some jabs in at the other person.  If you are doing this though, you are highly unlikely to change the other person’s mind.

The hardest thing for a libertarian to do is to convince close friends and family members, particularly the latter.  Family members know you well.  They know your faults.  They probably do not think you are a genius and you probably aren’t.  They will have trouble seeing the merits and consistency of your libertarian philosophy, especially if they are already far away from it.  If you want to engage in a little friendly debate with family members, make it minimal.  Just try to explain your point of view without attacking theirs.  You will probably not change any minds.  You can lead the horse to water, but you can’t force it to drink.

If you are going to discuss libertarianism with others, it is actually best to do it with others who are already sympathetic to your ideas.  Your goal is to strengthen their understanding.  You are not going to change a statist into a libertarian overnight.  You can help someone who is quasi-libertarian become slightly more libertarian and slightly more skeptical of the state.  There are usually no home runs.  You have to advance one base at a time, and even this can be difficult.

If you really want to help the cause of liberty, make sure that you are virtually an expert yourself.  I see so many people trying to change the world, when they need to change themselves first.  They are putting the cart before the horse.  If there are libertarians who have been studying the subject for 20 years and speaking in front of audiences who can’t convince others, why would you think you can if you have just been reading a couple of articles a day for the last 6 months?

Be sure that you have a great grasp of the issues and that you are consistent in your philosophy.  Then you can talk to others and convey the right information.  There is nothing I hate to hear more than listening to someone trying to convince another person of libertarianism and conveying the message in a poor way.