According to Thomas Sowell’s latest article that I read, he is certainly not a libertarian.  He is far from it.  I never really thought that he was a libertarian, but some people classify him this way.  He is certainly good on some economic issues and he is a great writer when he is thinking straight.  Unfortunately, he does not always think straight as shown by this article from December 29, 2011.

Sowell talks about the Republican candidates.  He is not all that satisfied with the current crop.

Sowell says, “Some voters, whether Democrats, Republicans or independents, treat elections as occasions to vent their emotions, rather than as a process to pick someone into whose hands to place the fate of the nation.”

He continues, “People who think this way tend to vote for someone they just happen to like, whether for personal or ideological reasons, and regardless of whether that candidate has any realistic chance of being elected.”

Then he goes after Ron Paul and his supporters.  He says, “The surprising support in the polls for Congressman Ron Paul seems to be of this sort.  But does anyone seriously want to put the fate of this nation in the hands of a man who can casually brush aside the danger of nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran, the world’s leading sponsor of international terrorism?”

Sowell goes on to give his support for Newt Gingrich.  He concludes, “With all his shortcomings, his record shows that he knows how to get the job done in Washington.”

Sometimes I try to be sympathetic towards people.  Most people are not libertarians when they are kids.  They usually have to go through a learning process.  Sowell is certainly a bright guy on some things and even has some libertarian leanings on some things.  But the guy is now 81 years old and has spent much of his life in the political arena.  If he hasn’t figured things out by now, I’m not counting on it happening at all.

I have always had this feeling about the man, whether listening to him or reading him, that he has a high opinion of himself.  He accuses the liberals of being elitists, but he completely comes across as an elitist himself.  He is full of himself.

So he first attacks Ron Paul supporters by saying that they vote for him because they just happen to like him.  He criticizes them for supporting him “regardless of whether that candidate has any realistic chance of being elected.”  Then why are you supporting Gingrich, you moron?  Ron Paul has a better chance against Obama than Gingrich.  He also probably has a better chance at getting the Republican nomination.  If we should just support whoever is electable as Sowell suggests, why don’t we all just bow down to Romney?

Then Sowell goes after Paul directly saying that he “can casually brush aside the danger of nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran, the world’s leading sponsor of international terrorism”.  Meanwhile, Sowell can casually brush aside the danger of putting Newt Gingrich in office who might be crazy enough to start a major war with a country of 70 million people and which controls a large supply of the planet’s oil.

Sowell is 81 years old and he has understood for a long time that the government cannot centrally plan an economy (although I’m having my doubts with his support of big-government Gingrich), yet he thinks the U.S. government is great and perfect when it comes to foreign policy.  No Sowell, the government couldn’t possibly lie about anything to do with foreign policy.

And where does he come up with this part about Iran being the world’s leading sponsor of international terrorism?  Is he still getting his talking points from the Bush administration?  I guess Iran has taken the place of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sowell is an elitist and a moron.  He is 81 and he thinks Newt Gingrich is our best choice.  Sowell was an apologist for Bush for 8 years.  He does not care or does not consider the lives of foreigners.  It does not matter to him if innocent Iranians die.  It did not matter to him that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died.

If Sowell is so pumped up for another war, maybe he should go to the battlefield.  Oh wait, he is part of the elite club.  The wise-one must stay in safety so that he can write his wonderful articles and play with chess pieces that are human lives.

Thomas Sowell is not a libertarian.

It looks like Ron Paul will be in third place in the Iowa Caucuses.  It is a strong third place, just a few percentage points behind Romney and Santorum, who finished in a virtual dead heat.

I have to take back one thing I said in one of my recent commentaries.  I said that Ron Paul really needed to finish first or a strong second.  However, the one surprise in Iowa for almost everyone is Rick Santorum.  He came out of nowhere.  If Gingrich or Perry had finished ahead of Paul, it would have hugely diminished Paul’s chances.  But for Santorum to finish ahead of him is a different story.

Iowa has a disproportionately higher percentage of evangelical Christians.  This favors Santorum.  It is why Mike Huckabee won Iowa four years ago.  I believe Huckabee was a more viable candidate than Santorum is, and Huckabee didn’t win the nomination.  I don’t think Santorum is going anywhere.  He will quickly be exposed in the next few weeks.  He was a Bush man.  He voted for “No Child Left Behind”.  He voted to raise the debt ceiling many times.  He voted for the Medicare prescription drug plan that added trillions of dollars to the unfunded liabilities.  He supported the big-government politician Arlen Specter.

Santorum also does not appeal to the average independent.  Obama could only be so lucky to face someone like Santorum.  I would be shocked if Santorum won the Republican nomination.

Gingrich is almost done, although we can’t quite eliminate him yet.

Perry did not have a good showing, but I still can’t completely eliminate him yet.  He has money and backing and if people turn sour on Santorum, they may move to Perry.

Bachmann can thankfully call it quits.  Iowa is supposed to be one of her stronger states and she had a horrible showing.  I am glad that the woman who has no doubts that Iran would use a nuclear weapon against Israel and the U.S. will not be the next president.

Huntsman is done unless Romney is caught in a major scandal.

This could end up being a two-person race with Paul and Romney.  I was expecting a third person like Perry to emerge.  The only person to emerge has been Santorum, who will be quickly taken down.

We will wait to see what happens in New Hampshire and beyond.

For Ron Paul supporters out there, don’t be disappointed that he didn’t win Iowa.  He finished above 20%, which is far better than most people would have expected just a couple of months ago.  Four years ago, it would have been unheard of.

The libertarian message is spreading, particularly to young people.  There is reason for optimism.

The Laffer Curve is named after Arthur Laffer, who worked for the Reagan administration.  I am not a huge fan of Art Laffer, especially after his embarrassing (afterwards) exchange with Peter Schiff.  Laffer was calling Schiff crazy for saying that there was a bubble that would burst.  While Laffer was certainly proven wrong on that one, he is not a dumb guy.  He understands some economics and the graph named after him is an interesting topic.

So should libertarians/ followers of Austrian economics pay any attention to the Laffer Curve?  I think it is useful in some ways, but not as the typical Republican uses it.

The Laffer Curve basically says that, at some point, if you raise taxes, it will actually lead to less tax collections by the government.  The Laffer Curve does not claim to know where this point lies.  It could be a 20% marginal tax rate or a 70% marginal tax rate or really almost anything else.  Just by common sense, we can realize that it probably would not be a really low tax rate like 1% or a really high tax rate like 99%.

It is kind of ironic that Art Laffer is most famous for the Laffer Curve.  It really isn’t any great revelation. Unless you are a dedicated Democrat/ socialist who isn’t willing to think with an open mind for one minute, then the Laffer Curve is mostly common sense.  If you have a tax rate of 0%, then the government will not collect any money from that tax.  If you have a tax rate of 100%, then the government will not collect much money from that tax either.  There might be a moron or two who will actually work just so that every single dollar made can be handed over to the government, but it wouldn’t be much.  Most people are not going to work for free, especially if the government is the charity involved.  Therefore, at a 100% tax rate, the government will barely collect anything at all.  It will be almost zero.

Somewhere between 0% and 100% there will be a tax rate where tax collections will be maximized.  If the rate goes higher than that point, then it will actually lead to less in the way of government tax collections even with the higher rate.  This is because of human action.  There is less incentive to work and the higher tax rates cause a slower economy and less growth.

Unfortunately, many Republicans have used the Laffer Curve to justify higher spending.  They actually want to maximize the amount collected by government.  They say that we need to grow our way out of debt and they imply that we can simply cut taxes and resolve the debt issues without addressing spending.

As a libertarian, I don’t want the government to maximize tax collections.  I want less taxes and less spending.  The less of both, the better.  I would ultimately like to see zero taxes, or at least zero involuntary taxes.

So while many of the Democratic politicians are stupid (or they think their constituents are stupid) for thinking that raising taxes will solve a debt and spending problem, the Republican politicians are just as stupid for implying that we can simply lower taxes without addressing spending.

Income tax rates were lowered during the Reagan administration.  There were also other taxes that were raised.  But after the recession ended, government tax collections went up quite a bit.  The problem is that government spending went up even more and the debt grew during the 1980’s.  Lowering the highest tax rate from 70% to 28% did not lower the amount collected by government.  This was the correct thing to do.  In fact, it should have gone much further.  But there was a major spending problem and there still is, of course.

In conclusion, I think the Laffer Curve is useful to libertarians in pointing out human action.  It is a useful argument against Democrats who always seem to want to raise taxes.  However, the Laffer Curve should never be used to deflect a spending problem.  Spending is ultimately more important that the tax rates.  Almost everything that is spent by the government is first obtained by taxes, inflation, or more debt.  I want less spending, followed by lower taxes.

Happy New Year!  For all of my dedicated readers and fellow libertarians, I wish you a happy, healthy, and prosperous new year.  I am hoping that 2012 starts off with a thumb into the eye of the Republican establishment with a Ron Paul win in Iowa.

I am not a big fan of resolutions.  If there is something that you need to improve in your life, why wait until the new year?  However, I understand that a new calendar year is a symbolic new beginning for many people.

If you are going to come up with a new resolution for yourself, make it something that will get you closer to a goal and make it something achievable.

If you are trying to be healthier or you are trying to lose weight, don’t set some unrealistic goal of going to the gym every day when you currently don’t go at all.  Don’t make a resolution that you are going to eat vegetables every day when the only vegetable you currently eat in a week is in the form of french fries.  Instead, take one actionable and achievable step.  For instance, perhaps you currently drink too much soda (pop for some of you northerners).  Make a resolution that you will only drink one soda per day (with an exception made for special occasions).  Instead of drinking coke for lunch and dinner, maybe you can drink water for one meal and have a soda for the other.

This is an achievable step and it is a small step towards improving your health.  You may even drop a couple of pounds doing this.  It is something that you can change that you might actually be able to sustain.

If you have a financial goal, take a small actionable step that will seem insignificant at first, but will add up to being significant over time.  For example, maybe you can put an extra 20 dollars per week into savings.  Maybe you can eat out one less time per week.  Maybe you can skip your morning Starbucks and just treat yourself on certain days of the week.

Many people have many different goals, but many never take an actionable and realistic step to come closer to achieving their goals.  If you have wanted to start a blog, then (to steal from Nike) just do it.  You don’t have to start writing 5 or 6 days a week.  This will be hard if you are currently not writing at all.  Instead, start posting something twice a week and see if you can get up to three or four times a week.

Perhaps you are unhappy in your current job but haven’t done anything about it.  Update your resume and look to see if there is anything better out there.  Maybe there won’t be anything better, but shouldn’t you at least look to see?

There are so many small things that we can do to improve our lives, but we never seem to get to them.  Just spending 15 minutes a day on something can go a long way to actually achieving a long-term goal.

Do yourself a favor in 2012 and take one small actionable step that gets you closer to achieving something.

Happy 2012!

Although this blog tends to be more about economics, investments, monetary policy, etc. (from a libertarian point of view), I do spend some time on politics.  Unfortunately, the various governments, particularly the behemoth in DC, are so involved in our every day lives, we have to pay attention to what is going on as it affects our money and our lives in many ways.  Since this is now political season with the Republican primaries coming and with a libertarian making waves in the race, I will continue to devote a decent amount of space to the Republican primaries and Ron Paul.

Ron Paul has the establishment frightened.  He is gaining traction and has a good chance at winning the Iowa caucuses.  I have learned of three celebrity endorsements just in the last few weeks that I was previously unaware of.  Peyton Hillis, running back for the Cleveland Browns, is a big Paul supporter.  Joe Rogan, host of the show Fear Factor, is a big Paul fan, as I learned during their appearance together on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno.  The latest celebrity to show support for Paul is Kelly Clarkson, who is the first winner of American Idol.

The polls in Iowa show that it is a toss up right now between Romney and Paul.  I think Ron Paul really needs to win Iowa.  He then needs a strong second in New Hampshire.

There is going to be one more candidate who emerges.  If Gingrich does poorly in Iowa, he is just about done.  He has been slipping fast as more people learn about his pro-big government positions he has taken in the past (some very recently).

Santorum may do well in Iowa, but I don’t see him doing anything after that.

I still don’t think Huntsman will do anything unless something dramatic happens to Romney.  If Romney does not have any major skeletons in his closet and he doesn’t slip up in any major way, then the establishment will continue to back Romney over Huntsman.

So we are left with Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry.  Their showing in Iowa will position one over the other.  My guess is that Perry will win the battle and emerge as the third candidate.  He will be an alternative to Romney for the fiscal conservatives who can’t support Paul because of his anti-war message.  Perry has money and he still has a decent backing.

Tuesday will tell us a lot.  I think we will see this come down to a three-way race.  It will be Romney, Paul, and one other.  That one other will likely be Perry, but maybe Bachmann will give us a surprise.

Because Ron Paul is doing so well, the knives are coming out.  We will continue to hear all of these false allegations that he is a racist, homophobe, etc.  All we have to do is point out his positions.  He is against the drug war which disproportionately hurts minorities.  He wants to get the government out of marriage.  He is in favor of individual liberty and he doesn’t pick and choose winners and losers.

The next few months will be interesting.  With many of the states not being “winner take all”, this could last a while.  If it ends up being a brokered convention with no clear winner, there is always the possibility of a late entrant.  There is also a high probability that Paul will not win in that case as the establishment will do everything to keep him out.

For Ron Paul’s sake, I hope he doesn’t win the nomination.  He and his family do not need that kind of abuse and stress.  Regardless of what happens, the mood of the country is shifting.  Ron Paul has huge support from young people and I think most of these people will be supporters of liberty for the rest of their lives.  I want to see Paul do well just to expose more people to his message of liberty.

While the short-term may seem bleak, there is good reason to be optimistic for the future.

I am not a big fan of owning stocks right now, although I do advocate the permanent portfolio, which contains 25% stocks.

One stock that is intriguing to me is Groupon.  The symbol is GRPN.  The stock began publicly trading back in early November.  The IPO price was $20 per share.  The stock price has varied quite a bit since then, but it is above $22 per share as of this writing.

For those who are not familiar with Groupon.com (like a coupon for a group), it is a website that offers great deals on different things.  Oftentimes, local businesses will offer a deal through groupon as it draws awareness to its business.  It may not even make any profit on the people who buy a groupon and use it, but they may get repeat business.  Groupon offers many deals on things like restaurants, massages, spas, nail salons, golf lessons, boat rentals, etc.  You can even buy vacation deals now.

When Groupon began being publicly traded, I read quite a few criticisms of it.  I read that it was just a fad and that it was like many of the tech stocks in the late 1990’s that had a lot of buzz, but didn’t actually make any money.  I also read several people saying that Groupon would fade away due to heavy competition from other sites offering similar deals.

While I am not necessarily giving a recommendation to buy the stock, I believe a lot of the criticisms are unfounded. Groupon is not at all like many of the dot com stocks of the late 90’s, as many of these companies really did make almost nothing in revenue, let alone profit.  Groupon does make a lot of money.  Although it has not been highly profitable yet, it is a relatively new company and I believe there is a good chance that it will become highly profitable.  I personally use Groupon a lot and I know of several other people who use it.  Every time someone makes a purchase for a groupon, the company makes money.

While there might be some threat of competition, Groupon has the advantage of being the first one with its foot in the door.  I get emails every day from Groupon on the latest offer.  I am not signed up for anything with any competitors.  While I know that competitors exist, I am not even aware of most of them and I’m sure that most other people are in the same shoes.

While I’m not really into recommending individual stocks, if you are looking for a speculation, I think you could do a lot worse than something like Groupon.  It is not something that you should be looking to buy and sell quickly.  It is something that you should consider holding for a couple of years to see if the company can make some big money.  I believe the potential is there and I don’t see any major competition yet.

There was a piece on LewRockwell.com discussing the Liberty Dollar.  It contains an interview with Bernard von NotHaus, who is the creator of the Liberty Dollar, which is supposed to be a private currency that is backed by a commodity.  In this case, the commodity is silver. Bernard von NotHaus has been convicted and even labeled a “terrorist”.  He will most likely spend quite a few years in prison.

From a libertarian perspective, von NotHaus should not go to jail.  It would be hard to mistake his currency for the bills that we regularly use for money.  For that, he is not engaging in fraud and he is certainly not forcing anyone to use his currency.  Therefore, if I were on the jury, I would have voted not to convict him.  Regardless of whether he broke a law on the books, I still would not have convicted him based on the power of jury nullification.

I have a certain admiration for people like von NotHaus.  It seems like he is fearless, although I’m sure he is not.  He is basically taking one for the team, so to speak.  However, I wouldn’t advocate that anyone do something like this.  It is just like not paying your income taxes.  You can come up with all of the reasons, legally and morally, for not doing it, but there is still a good chance you will go to jail.  You are better off fighting for liberty outside of prison in most cases.

I also have one major criticism of von NotHaus and it may have prevented him from going to jail.  One of the major reasons for his prosecution (and yes, I know it is all political) and his conviction is that he put a dollar denomination on his currency.  His certificates that were backed by silver said “5 dollars” or some other denomination on them.

The problem here is that the certificates labeled “5 dollars” were not really worth 5 American dollars.  The U.S. dollar is not fixed to the price of silver.  It is a floating price.  The certificate labeled “5 dollars” was really worth a certain weight of silver, which could be more or less than 5 dollars as most people know it.  It would depend on the price of silver.

The ironic thing is that von NotHaus talks about this about halfway through the story linked above.  When they are talking about a Mexican citizen named Hugo Price, von NotHaus criticizes his plan because “he doesn’t have a denomination on it”.  But shouldn’t that be the whole point?

If non NotHaus is so against the current monetary system, why is he trying to link up to it by putting dollar denominations on his currency?

If he had simply put the weight of the silver on his currency, then there is a good chance he could have avoided conviction, or even prosecution in the first place.  In addition, it would be more accurate and it would be beneficial in teaching people that it is the weight of the metal that should matter, not the denomination.

If his currency had simply said that it was worth so many ounces of silver, then it would have been a tougher case for the prosecution.  Instead, it is easy to convince a jury that his currency could easily be misleading as a 5 dollar bill was not really worth 5 dollars.  Although most holders of the Liberty Dollars probably realized that a 5 dollar bill was not really worth 5 dollars, one could still see how it could be highly misleading.

So while von NotHaus should not go to jail, he was not very smart in how he ran his operation.  He should not have competed directly with the government.  He should not have used the term “dollar”.  He should have just issued certificates for a certain weight in silver.

When I talk about the deep economic troubles facing America and when I talk about the inevitable bust/ recession that is coming due to the Austrian business cycle theory, I often add one caveat.  I say that we will inevitably have a deep recession unless there is some kind of major technological innovation.

While massive government bureaucracy and massive government spending impede the free market economy, technology continues to advance, albeit at a slower pace than if the government were removed.

Technology can often grow at exponential rates.  Witness the incredible technological revolution that is occurring right now.  Many people do not even realize how special of a time we currently live in.  The world today is vastly different from the world just 20 years ago.  The internet and technological advances have changed our world.  The lines of communication are wide open now.  There is a free flow of information that never could have been imagined just a couple of decades ago.

It is hard to believe that the iPad has only been in existence for a couple of years.  It is hard to believe that accessing the internet via a cell phone is a new thing within the last decade.  It is hard to believe that most people did not even have an email address just 2 decades ago.

Technology and growth can overcome a lot of human suffering.  While the iPhone is more of a luxury than a need, technology helps human life and vastly improves living standards in a short time frame.  Think of these devices that take filthy water and make it clean, drinkable water within minutes.  This can save millions of lives in third world countries.

Imagine if technology starts to take off with healthcare.  Imagine devices that can cleanse the human body of diseases.  Imagine sitting in a special chair that cures you of your ailments.  Something like this would make healthcare and health insurance a non-issue, at least politically speaking.  We wouldn’t have to worry about Obamacare or about Medicare going broke because we would all of a sudden have most of our healthcare needs met with cheap technology.

The internet is already revolutionizing education.  A young kid can learn far more from Google and Wikipedia in a day than he could learn going to a traditional government school.  If you really want to learn about a particular topic, search for it on Youtube and there may already be an instructor available for you to watch.  If not, you can surely learn about it by reading one of the billions of websites that now exists.

The U.S. Post Office is going out of business.  Regular mail is used less and less now.  We can just use email or text messaging.  We can post comments on Facebook.  If the government were to take away the Post Office’s monopoly on the delivery of first class mail, I’m sure Fed Ex and others would quickly fill the void.

The growth in technology can be endless.  The Industrial Revolution began to change the world in the 19th century.  Many people did not realize it at the time.  Their lives were improving, but they did not notice on a day-to-day basis.  But if you have growth every year, your living standard will go up significantly over time.

The same is true of technology today.  It is growing at an exponential rate.  Some years will be better than others, but it is reasonable to predict that it will continue.  This new technology can defeat the state. It can make the government irrelevant.  This is why you should not give up hope on human freedom.  While the current situation may look bleak, I believe that freedom is almost inevitable at this point.

Merry Christmas!  I hope you enjoy your holidays.  Do something for those you dearly love and do something nice for yourself.  Be thankful for the things you have and strive to do something new in 2012 that will make your life more pleasurable and more free.

I am hoping that my big Christmas present will come 9 days after Christmas when Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucuses.  While I am not banking on a Ron Paul nomination (yet), I am excited that his libertarian message is resonating with millions of Americans.

So whether you are religious or not, whether you celebrate Christmas for Christ, for Santa Claus, for giving gifts, or maybe all of the above, I hope you can find joy and celebrate the good things and good people in your life.

Thank you to all of you out there who read my blog.  Merry Christmas!

The Iowa Caucuses are only 12 days away as I write this.  I will share my thoughts on where things stand, how Ron Paul is doing, and how things could play out.

First, while Rick Santorum may do moderately well in Iowa, he has no shot at getting the nomination.

Second, unless Mitt Romney is caught in a serious crime or having an affair, then Jon Huntsman has no shot at getting the nomination.  Huntsman is an establishment candidate and right now the establishment is behind Mitt Romney.

The top three candidates right now are Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul.  However, I do not completely discount Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry at this point.  I think Iowa will likely eliminate one of them from the race, although not necessarily officially.  Whichever one of them pulls off fourth place (or maybe fifth if Santorum finishes ahead of them), then that person will still have a chance.  Right now, I think Perry is more likely.  He has a lot of money and still has quite a bit of support.  Bachmann has been better organized in Iowa and if she finishes behind Perry, she should just quit.

While Gingrich was in the lead in a lot of polls for Iowa, his support has been slipping quite a bit in the last couple of weeks.  The other candidates have been going after his record and rightly so.  I think many Tea Party conservatives are finding out that Newt Gingrich is not all that conservative.  He has supported big government in many ways in the past, along with a global warming agenda with Nancy Pelosi.

Romney is obviously the favorite to win the nomination right now.  He has the backing of the establishment and even many Tea Party people are hedging their bets and starting to support him.  Of course, that just shows that some of the Tea Party people are worthless.  If there is one thing that unites the entire Republican Party, it is their opposition to Obamacare.  So the Republicans are going to nominate the guy who is the founder of Obamacare in Massachusetts?  Romney invented Obamacare before it existed.

And now, I’ve saved the best for last.  Ron Paul has continued to move up slowly and steadily.  His supporters (me included) are loyal and enthusiastic.  His supporters will make sure they go to the caucuses and the polls to vote for him.

Ron Paul has a good chance to win Iowa.  He is ahead in some polls and second in some others.  He absolutely has to win Iowa or come in a close second.  If he comes in a distant third, I’m not sure that he will be able to overcome that.

Eventually, he is going to have to break through that pro-war and pro-establishment mentality that grips so many Republicans.  If Paul can win Iowa, he all of a sudden becomes acceptable.  It is hard to believe so many voters think this way, but right now a lot of people like certain things about him, but don’t think it is socially acceptable to support him.  If they see that a large chunk of other people are supporting him, it might persuade them to take a closer look.

If the weather is bad on January 3rd in Iowa and the turnout is low, then that will favor Ron Paul.  His supporters will brave the weather.  The same goes for New Hampshire on January 10th.  The next few weeks are quite important as momentum can play a big role as we have seen over the last several months.

Ron Paul is breaking through and many people are listening to his message.  It is driving the establishment nuts, and for that, this campaign is a win no matter what the voting results turn out to be.