German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have come up with a proposal to save the euro.  This plan could actually work, if only it had been implemented 5 or 10 years ago.

To quote this summary article, “It says governments that allow their deficits to exceed 3 percent of their GDP should be automatically sanctioned and asked to lay out a plan for reducing spending.  It also says that countries that continue to flout spending rules will face a series of increasingly strict sanctions.”

First, this proposal is too little and way too late.  The problems are already here.  Greece is basically in default.  Italy is now on the brink.  The other PIIGS, Portugal, Ireland, and Spain, are still in major trouble.  All of these countries could come up with a plan to reduce their deficits to 3 percent of their GDPs right now and it would not be nearly enough to get them out of the woods.

Second, there were already conditions in joining the European Union for countries to limit their deficits and overall debt.  They were unenforceable words.  Why would this proposal by Merkel and Sarkozy change any of this?  Just because they write out specific penalties?  But what happens when a country like Greece just ignores the sanctions?

I am not sure if this whole thing is just for show or if they are serious.  Can they really believe that this proposal will save the euro?

The problem with Greece and others is that they are welfare states.  Their governments have made these grand promises that cannot be kept.  It is much the same way as the U.S.  The difference is that the U.S. controls their own money supply and relies on the Federal Reserve to create new money out of thin air to fund its debts.  It also doesn’t hurt that the U.S. dollar is still considered the world’s reserve currency.

Greece does not control the European Central Bank.  However, the bankers probably do and the bankers are owed a lot of money from Greek debt, Italian debt, and so on.

Eventually, I think the European Union will break apart.  The big banks will get bailed out.  Greece will officially default along with others.  Then the welfare statists will be in for a shock as they will be unable to sell government bonds to anyone to fund their welfare.  So they will separate and form their own currency and central bank.  Hopefully some people will learn a lesson from this.

In Bill Clinton’s first campaign, “it’s the economy stupid” was a favorite phrase by Clinton and his team.  In some ways, they were right on because Americans tend to vote for their own self interest, and the economy is something that directly affects them.  There was a recession during the Bush presidency, although a recovery had already begun when Clinton was elected (with just 43% of the vote).

Now, it’s really the spending stupid.  You can add the debt to that, but that is really just a result of the spending.  In order to control the debt, the spending has to be controlled.

Virtually every time the government spends money, it misallocates resources.  Even if the politicians had all the best intentions in the world, there is still no possible way they could allocate money exactly according to how each individual would.

Now that the government in DC alone is spending nearly 4 trillion dollars per year, that is 4 trillion dollars that is being misallocated.  It is not to say that it is necessarily being completely wasted (although some of it is), but it is not being used in its best way according to consumers.

If you included state and local government spending, government at all levels in the free U.S.A. is spending half the GDP.  This means that, on average, Americans are paying half of their income to the government, and this is before we even factor in regulations.

The only way this economy will improve significantly and sustainably in the near future is for a dramatic decline in spending.  While the immediate impact might be tough on some, it would allow resources to properly reallocate and would set the stage for a sustainable boom in the economy.

The problem right now is that the American people are not knowledgeable enough or desperate enough to demand a massive cut in government spending.  This would mean an end to the American empire.  It would mean scaling back so-called entitlements.  It would mean other things like ending the war on drugs, ending federal education funding (and hopefully state and local eventually too), ending subsidized college loans, ending farm subsidies, ending bailouts, and ending government charity.

While I am encouraged by the strength of the Ron Paul campaign, it is still not enough yet.  As long as there is not a big voice in America demanding these cuts, then the politicians are going to keep spending as long as the laws of economics allow them.

It is not too late for us.  There is still a lot of wealth, combined with great new technologies.  If Hong Kong could build itself up as one of the richest countries in the world when it started near the ground, then America can really boom.  We just need a change in the mentality of the people.  Once there are big enough numbers to demand a full-scale retreat by big government, then things will get better.  If the size and scope of government were cut in half within one year, then you would see an economic miracle take place.

The political scene continues to heat up.  Herman Cain is out of the race (I think his wife got tired of lying) and now Ron Paul and Donald Trump are going at it.

Trump is planning to moderate a Republican debate and Paul declined the invitation, with some rather scathing words.  He called Trump a reality television personality and he said that such a debate would have a “circus-like atmosphere”.

Trump fired back and said that Paul has no chance of winning and said that his own poll numbers were higher when he was “running”.  It is not surprising that Trump came back with something, as he is never one to back down from a fight.

Actually, I think that was Trump’s appeal to some people when they thought he might be running.  He was very blunt with his criticism of Obama and some people like that.  Sometimes he just tells it like it is and people find that refreshing.  With that said, Trump is full of himself.

I wasn’t sure that Paul should have picked this fight.  It’s not that I necessarily disagree with the statement that was put out.  But sometimes you are just better off going along with it for the time.  He would have received more media exposure from the debate and he could have embarrassed Trump there if any stupid questions were asked.

It is hard to decline the invitation just because Trump is a bit of a clown.  If that is the case, then Paul should not have participated in that awful PBS debate where the moderators were a bunch of left-wing hacks.  Or even worse, how about that CBS debate where he only had 89 seconds to talk during the first hour?

However, I have been having second doubts about my own opinion in the last few hours.  There is no guarantee that this debate is going to happen and it may not even be available for most people to watch.  If this whole debate blows up, then Ron Paul will come out looking even better.

I actually agreed with something Mike Huckabee said this morning.  Although he was touting his own candidate forum that he ran the other night, it was still a good point.  He said that it was inappropriate for Trump to be moderating a debate when he is still considering a candidacy for himself.

That is absolutely true.  Trump said he can’t do anything until his show’s contract ends in May, but he is not ruling out a third party run.  Hey, maybe we can get one of the current candidates from the Libertarian Party to moderate a debate too.

I remember over a decade ago when Trump was talking about running for the presidency.  He floated some ridiculous idea that he would pay off the national debt by doing a one-time wealth tax of 14.25% on everyone with over 10 million dollars in net worth.  You can read one current story here.

In 1999, when he came out with this ridiculous proposal, I was not a radical libertarian yet.  I was fairly libertarian on economic issues and I thought Trump’s proposal was horrible then (and I still do).  Not only would this be highly immoral and unfair, the economic consequences would be disastrous as well.  It probably would have crashed the stock markets and real estate markets.  Some billionaire who all of a sudden had to fork over hundreds of millions or billions of dollars to Washington DC, does not just have that money sitting in a bank account.  It is usually tied up in a business or in stock or in real estate or some other productive asset.  These assets would have to be sold off in massive amounts in a short period of time.

Of course, Trump was just spouting off at the time, just as he does now.  I recall Jesse Ventura supporting him then, and I thought less of Jesse after that.  Luckily, Ventura has come to his senses and he is basically a Ron Paul supporter now.  He has been really good on social liberties and civil liberties.  He still might need some work on economic issues.

In conclusion, we’ll see what happens with the whole Ron Paul vs. Donald Trump thing.  The best thing would be for Ron Paul to prove Trump wrong by going ahead and winning the Republican nomination. Maybe that would finally shut Trump up, but I doubt it.

One of the most popular blog posts I have written was on “Collecting Nickels“.  I can see the statistics and this particular post has been read a lot compared to other posts on my blog.  That means that either it is not a widely discussed topic on the internet or a lot of people are searching it.  If you type “collecting nickels” into google, my post is on the second page of ten.

In the post, I say that it is the one investment you can make that is a hedge against inflation and deflation at the same time.  It is a hedge against deflation because it is the same as holding cash.  Your purchasing power grows with deflation.  With short-term interest rates right now at a fraction of a percent, the interest you would lose from not having it in a bank is negligible.

It is a hedge against inflation because of the metal content of the coin.  If there is massive price inflation ahead, then metal prices will most likely go much higher.  The metal content of the coins will increase and the coins will be worth far more than five cents.

So what about pennies?  Pennies are actually quite similar.  However, I see less attraction trying to collect pennies because it is even more bulky than trying to collect nickels.

There is a story on “Penny Hoarders” by ABC News.  They ran a full story on it on “Nightline”.  This story covers some serious collectors.  This is a business to these people.

The story says to collect those that are dated 1982 or before.  The reason is because of the metal content of the pennies.  Pennies dated from 1982 and earlier are made with 95 percent copper.

This story also says, ” In what could be the biggest legislation to hit the U.S. Mint in 50 years, officials are now looking at the composition of pennies and nickels and considering an overhaul.  If the laws change and the mint decides to abolish the penny, people would be free to melt them down for the copper.”

Regardless of whether the law is changed, we will see Gresham’s law take over and we will see older pennies and all nickels slowly go out of circulation.  This is a very similar situation to pre-1965 dimes and quarters, which are made out of silver.  They are held by people investing in silver.  Holders of these silver coins would rather not melt them anyway, because they are easily identifiable as silver and they are in small denominations.  I have written before on this subject too.  I could see melting pennies as more attractive because of the low value of the metal content as compared to silver.

I am not sure that it will matter if the law is changed.  Either way, if you have the time and patience (and space), go ahead and start collecting pennies along with your nickels.  Pennies are more difficult, not just because of the space required, but also because you have to sort out the pre-1983 ones.  However, it is practically a no-lose investment.

The Republicans and Democrats in DC are bickering over the extension of the payroll tax cut that was enacted for this current year.  While both sides say they want to extend the tax cuts, the Democrats want to expand it further and “pay” for it by putting a “surcharge” of 3.25% on people making over a million dollars.

Most of the Republicans are full of it, but they are refusing to blatantly raise taxes as they know what happened to George H. W. Bush in 1992 after he broke his pledge of “no new taxes”.  Meanwhile, the Democrats do not hide their socialism and class warfare as they want to increase income taxes on high-income earners.

As the article linked to above says, Harry Reid said that Republican opponents “insist on helping the very wealthy while turning their back on the middle class.”  Ok, if Reid were talking about Republicans bailing out banks or giving big contracts to military companies, then he might have a point.  But Reid is talking about not raising taxes on high income earners.  So Harry, for anyone who does not believe that the already high income taxes on high-income earners should be raised, you consider that helping the wealthy at the expense of the poor?

Of course, never in a million years could the Democrats advocate something without “raising taxes on the rich”.  Never could they actually come up with something to cut out of the budget.  They really are a bunch of socialists, but that in no way should imply that the Republicans are any good (with the exception of a very few like Ron Paul).

If I were in Congress, I would vote to extend the payroll tax cut.  However, I would vote “no” if it meant raising any other taxes (unless those taxes were specifically for members of Congress).  While spending should be cut dramatically, I think that any tax cut we can get, we should take.  It is just allowing us to keep a little bit more of our earnings.

As far as helping unemployment, this won’t really do much.  As I have said before, if they really wanted to help create jobs and lower unemployment, then the tax cut would be for the employer portion of the payroll tax.  By cutting taxes for employees, it gives a raise to people who are currently employed.  It will only marginally help those unemployed if it doesn’t actually hurt them.  If taxes were cut for employers, it would decrease the cost of hiring labor and there would be some net improvement in employment on the margin.

If the Democrats got what they are advocating, it would just hurt the economy more.  It would mean less money on the margin for high-income earners, who are often the employers.

All of this talk is more class warfare by the Democrats and more posturing by the Republicans.  Neither side is advocating any significant cuts in spending, which is really what we need.  This economy will not have a sustainable recovery until government spending is cut dramatically.

American taxpayers and holders of American dollars got the news today that they are getting ripped off again.  Not that many people pay attention, but the Fed announced today that it will be providing liquidity for the European financial institutions.  The stock market loved the news and soared.

It wasn’t enough that the Fed bailed out American financial institutions in 2008.  It wasn’t enough that they subsidized foreign banks and foreign governments.  Now they are doing it again.  The Fed is acting as a lender to European banks.  Americans and holders of American dollars (are you paying attention China?) are subsidizing European banks.  In a sense, Americans are actually subsidizing the irresponsible European governments and their welfare recipients.

The main reason that the European banks are in so much trouble is because they stupidly bought government debt from countries like Greece and Italy.  Now that these countries are on the verge of default, the banks in Europe are in major trouble.  Here comes Helicopter Ben and the Fed to the rescue.

The Fed teamed up with the central banks of Europe, Canada, England, Switzerland, and Japan, although it is likely that it will be the American central bank that does most of the subsidizing.  I guess Germany could not serve as the host any more.  The parasites have to keep sucking the hosts dry before moving on to someone else.

While this might temporarily save the European banks, it kicks the can down the road again.  It props up the profligate spending of countries like Greece.  These countries should declare bankruptcy and they should be forced to dramatically cut back on their welfare states.

With the Fed essentially subsidizing loans to European institutions, it will once again harm the American economy.  It is another misallocation of resources.  The voluntary free market economy in the U.S. (at least what’s left of it) is starving for capital and investment.  With the Fed doing this move and others like it, it is hurting the overall savings pool.  This hurts economic growth.  In order for the economy to grow sustainably, there must be savings and the government/ Fed are not allowing this to happen.

Nothing should be a surprise any more.  If there is one lesson from today, it is that the future is unpredictable.  I continue to say that we can’t predict the economy and investments with any absolute certainty because the economy is made up of millions of people acting.  In this case, the human action is just coming from a few elitist individuals who are affecting virtually the entire world economy.

As Ron Paul would say, “End the Fed.”

Since it is political season and a great libertarian happens to be running for president, I am spending a little more time than usual on here discussing politics, rather than purely economic and investment issues.  With that said, here is a little report card on what is happening.

Herman Cain is just about done.  A woman has come out saying that Cain had an affair with her for 13 years.  While Cain originally denied it, his lawyer was a little less convincing with his statement.  The latest report is that Cain is reassessing his run for the presidency.  By the time you read this post, perhaps he will be done.

As I have said several times before, Cain is a jerk and he is a moron.  People could not see the first part about him before.  They were starting to see that he wasn’t that bright.  Just watch this video on his discussion about abortion with John Stossel.

Rick Santorum has no chance, and for good reason.

Jon Huntsman has almost no chance.  If Romney weren’t in this race, he might have a shot as the establishment favorite.  But I just don’t see Huntsman going anywhere right now.  I am not 100% writing him off, but I am 99% writing him off at this point.

The same can be said for Michele Bachmann.  I am mostly writing her off at this point.  While I despise her foreign policy, I understand that many Republicans do not.  She can also be quite articulate on economic matters.  The problem for her is that people don’t think she can beat Obama.  She doesn’t have as much money as the other top candidates and she can’t seem to get people excited the way she did 6 months ago.

That leaves four people: Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, and Ron Paul.

Perry keeps sticking his foot in his mouth over and over again.  He also sounds too much like Bush (the accent).  I think people want to like him, but they don’t think anyone else will.  While I think Perry is a fraud and he was exposed early on in the debates for his big government policies on several things, he is still going to have an appeal to many Republicans.  He still has a lot of money.  While he is down, I am not counting him out yet.  If Newt implodes, we may see Perry surge again.

I still think there is a good chance Newt will implode.  He is a good debater.  He is good at fooling people.  But with the internet, there are certain things he can’t hide.  He is also questioned by conservatives for his past personal history.  He is also divisive, much like Hillary on the other side.

Romney is the establishment candidate.  He is a pure politician.  He will say whatever it takes to get elected.  He does not have the personal problems that some of the other candidates have.  He is a Mormon, but that will only bother a small number of religious conservatives in the primaries.  He has not been able to break above 25%.  So-called conservatives like Sean Hannity are hedging their bets.  They are not coming out against Romney.  They are being nice to him in anticipation that they will have to support him if he becomes the nominee.

Then there is Ron Paul.  He is polling quite well in Iowa.  He has to get at least second place (or within a percentage point of second place) to still have a shot at the Republican nomination.  Actually, he really almost needs to win Iowa to get the momentum and the recognition.  He needs to keep talking about foreign policy.  As Tom Woods has said, nobody is going to be tricked into voting for Ron Paul.  He needs to articulate his position the best he can and hope that he changes enough minds to give himself a chance.  The good news is that he has quite a bit of money and his supporters are very dedicated.  His poll numbers may or may not go up, but they will not likely go down.

Paul is not running for re-election in Congress.  He can focus most of his attention on this race.  He can stay in it until the end.  I still don’t know if he can win, but he is sure making things interesting.

Over the weekend, there were 24 Pakistani troops killed as the result of NATO bombings.  It is not all that well known that the U.S. government is at war with Pakistan, at least in a sense.  While the governments get along to a certain extent, the U.S. government has been bombing Pakistan and killing innocent people for a while now.  While it isn’t an outright occupation like we see in Afghanistan, it does tend to irritate the people living there.

Many of the facts of what happened over the weekend are still up in the air.  Regardless of what happened, the incidence has angered a lot of Pakistanis.  The government of Pakistan closed off supply routes that the U.S. military relies on to transport supplies into Afghanistan.

This whole situation is quite important as it relates to U.S. foreign policy.  This can have a big effect on the economy, which can have a big effect on your investments.

While I don’t claim to be an expert on foreign policy, I do know that these supply routes between Pakistan and Afghanistan are quite important to the U.S. military in its efforts in Afghanistan.  If Pakistan keeps all routes closed, it will make it even more difficult to fight the war.

I see one of three scenarios happening from all of this.

The first scenario is that Pakistan takes a hard stand and does not let any American supplies cross borders.  This makes it too difficult for the U.S. to fight a war in Afghanistan and the U.S. military pulls out.

The second scenario is that Pakistan takes a hard stand and the U.S. government retaliates by escalating the war in Pakistan.  This scenario could be very dangerous.

The third scenario (and probably most likely) is that the Pakistani government talks tough against the U.S. and maybe even symbolically makes the war effort a little tougher for Americans.  However, the Pakistani government, while talking tough, still does Washington DC’s bidding (in secret) as the U.S. government continues to use bribes in an attempt to get what they want.

I am not making any big predictions on what will happen with Pakistan, but it is something to keep an eye on.  It will have major effects on the overall foreign policy of the U.S. and it will eventually have economic effects one way or the other.

Martin Luther King Jr. did not say, “I have a dream that one day we can join hands so that we can have greater economic growth.”

Libertarians have morality on their side and they should not be afraid to use it.