I have to return to this topic every now and then, just to say how crazy it is.  In bipartisan fashion, you will hear both Republicans and Democrats talking about how we need energy independence in our country.

This is an absurd idea to push.  Why is there this great focus on oil?  If we want energy independence, do we also want car independence?  How about computer independence?  What about independence for gold and diamonds?  What about food independence?  Surely that has to be important enough that we not depend on other countries.

The only difference I can see with oil/ energy is that there seems to be a finite amount of it, whereas with food, you can continue to grow more.  But even here, there is a massive amount of oil contained in this planet.  It just so happens that the stuff that is the easiest to get to and use is mostly in the Middle East.  If there begins to be a shortage in oil, then the price will go up.  If the price goes up, then it becomes profitable to start extracting oil from the tar sands and other places that are more costly.  In addition, if the market is left free, then there will be replacements so that we don’t have to use as much oil.  Perhaps we will see electric cars become profitable and cost effective.  Of course, if we had a true free market, we might already have something better and safer to use than gas guzzling cars.

Sometimes I think that the people living in the Middle East would be much better off if there was no oil there.  The dictators running Saudi Arabia wouldn’t be better off, but most of the people would be.  It would keep the American empire away from them and allow them to prosper more naturally.

This whole idea of energy independence though is just ridiculous.  All we need is free trade.  Even if the pro-war Republicans were correct that Iran is run by a madman, there is still no reason not to buy oil there.  The dictators in the Middle East can’t drink the stuff.  It does them no good unless they use it themselves or sell it.  And with free trade, there is far less of a chance for conflict or war.

If Americans could produce enough oil and gas so that there is no need to buy from people in other countries, that is fine.  But that should be left to the market to decide.

I am all for opening up ANWR for oil drilling.  In fact, I think the U.S. government should sell it to the highest bidder (maybe a company like Exxon Mobil would bid on it) and the proceeds can be used to pay off Social Security recipients so that the program can be ended.  Meanwhile, we will also get cheaper gas.

In conclusion, there is nothing wrong with buying oil from other countries.  Just as Americans buy lots of different food items and electronic gadgets from other countries, it is also beneficial to buy energy from other countries.  It is called free trade and it allows us to have a higher standard of living.  Americans should tell these politicians in DC to get a new job and to stop telling us what to buy and who to buy it from.

It seems that the top political story in the U.S. for the last week has been Herman Cain and accusations by several women that he made unwanted sexual advances on them back in the late 1990’s.

I have mixed opinions on this story.  It does seem kind of ridiculous that the media would spend so much time on this story when America has troops fighting all around the world, the national debt is $15 trillion, and the official unemployment rate is at 9% and showing little signs of improvement.

On the other hand, Herman Cain is now one of the supposed front-runners for the Republican nomination to become president.  If these allegations are true (and my guess is that they are), then it does speak to his character.  Of course, I already thought Cain was a jerk before these allegations came out.  A lot of people seem to be suckered into his seemingly pleasant personality, but I can see right through him and I do not see much good about him.

Some polls are showing that Cain and Romney are each at about 25%.  That means that half of Republicans are supporting a candidate who founded Obamacare (Romney) or a candidate who supported the bank bailouts (Cain and Romney both).

Herman Cain is a statist.  He headed up the Federal Reserve of Kansas City.  He is not an outsider.  He is an outsider only in the fact that his campaign team is unorganized.

I think when it comes down to it, Cain will not get the nomination.  The man is a moron, and I mean that sincerely.  His views on foreign policy are horrendous.  Read this article that was linked via LewRockwell.com today.

If you haven’t seen this video of Cain talking to John Stossel about abortion, watch it.  Like I said, the man is a complete moron.  It is possible to be against abortion, but not think it should be illegal.  The first time I saw the beginning of this clip, I thought maybe that was what he was saying.  But no.  The man is a moron.  How could he possibly get the nomination?  He actually makes George W. Bush sound somewhat coherent.

Cain is fooling a lot of people right now who are fed up with the status quo.  He is offering them garbage.  His 9-9-9 plan is terrible, as I have written about before.  He offers no specific spending cuts.  He is a demagogue.  He is a liar.  He is also a moron and he will be exposed sooner or later.

I would rather have Obama as president.  At least there is a chance we won’t have war with Iran with Obama in office.  Obama’s foreign policy has been horrible, but it could actually get worse with Cain.

I run this blog on libertarian investments.  I talk politics, economics, money, and investment strategies.  Occasionally I get challenged on my commentary and I even get challenged on the investment strategies.  One particular challenge is that if I am giving suggestions from a libertarian point of view, that the number one goal should be survivalism.

The interest in survivalism is immense.  With the economic troubles starting in 2008 and the election of Obama, combined with the internet, the interest in this topic is enormous.  There are literally tens of thousands of people who believe that there is going to be a complete breakdown in our civilization.

I do believe there is major economic trouble ahead.  There could be massive rioting, particularly in big cities.  There could be a significant increase in crime.  There could be higher unemployment, more poverty, and an increase in homelessness.  However, I think the chances of seeing a complete breakdown in civilization are very low.

One investment strategy I have recommended that the survivalists out there should like is one of my hedges against inflation.  I recommend storing up on extra food and other necessities when they are on sale.  You can’t buy extra milk and other things with near-term expiration dates, but there are a lot of things you can store up on.  You can buy extra soda, bottled water, canned foods, frozen foods (although they wouldn’t last without power), cereals, rice, etc.  You can also buy extra toilet paper, paper towels, deodorant, shaving cream, shampoo, soap, etc.  As long as they are things that you will eventually use, then I figure you can’t really lose anything with this strategy.  The prices of these things will most likely not be any lower one year from now.

I give this strategy as primarily an inflation hedge.  But it is also a good idea in a survivalist sense.  If there is a hurricane, snowstorm, or some other natural disaster, then having extra food will be important.  You should always have enough extra food to last you at least one week, at a minimum.

The survivalists will not like this.  They will tell me I have to get a second house in the country and raise my own food and prepare for the worst.  While I can’t be one hundred percent sure that something won’t happen, I am not going to turn my life upside down to prepare for something that will most likely never happen.

I only see two things that could realistically happen to cause a breakdown in civilization.  One is hyperinflation and the other is some kind of a terror attack.

I have said before that I think hyperinflation is unlikely.  While I can definitely see high price inflation happening, I don’t see the Fed and the rest of the bankers promoting a policy that would destroy themselves.

As to a terror attack, this is a little more likely, although it would have to be really bad to disrupt society that much.  It would have to be something major, like an airborne illness.  Unless, there was a major pandemic, society would find a way to continue on.

I don’t think many of the survivalists understand what they are saying.  If there was a complete breakdown in the division of labor in our society, then most of the survivalists would perish too.  Maybe they could hold on for a little while longer, but not by much.  How would they protect their gardens or farms?  How will they get any medical care?  What happens when their shoes are worn out?  Can they survive the heat and cold of the seasons?  How will they protect their property?

These questions could go on and on.  We take so many things for granted, we don’t even think about them.  We are talking about a society where you can’t go anywhere (there would be no gas and it wouldn’t be safe).  We are talking about all stores being shut down.  We are talking about staying in your house for the rest of your life or until most of the population dies off.  We are talking about the need to have several people bonded together.  They would have to take shifts in order to guard their property 24 hours a day.

If you believe there is going to be a breakdown in civilization like this, then you must turn your life upside down to prepare for it.  Tinkering around the edges will not get you far.  Tinkering around the edges will allow you to survive a hurricane or a short-term breakdown.  This is why I will not go to full-fledged survivalist mode.  It is not worth the costs.  It won’t be much of a life to live anyway if it ever did happen.

I have seen and heard this so many times, it is something I feel like I need to write about every so often, just so that others don’t make this mistake.

So what is this mistake?  It is an all-or-nothing attitude when it comes to money and investing.  It actually amazes me how often I see it.

Let’s say someone has $10,000 and they don’t know what to do with it.  They inevitably say something like, “maybe I should put it all in stocks or maybe I should put it towards my mortgage or maybe I should buy some gold.”  My response is, “why not do all three?”

It is even worse when it gets to larger sums of money.  If someone stumbles into, say, $200,000, then all of a sudden they have to do something with it.  They say, “I could buy a restaurant or I could use it as a down payment for 5 investment properties or I could put it all in a Swiss bank account or buy an annuity.”  My response is, “slow down.”

If you have some money burning a hole in your pocket, you don’t have to put it all in one place.  It is called diversification.  For the above example of coming into $200,000, why not take a quarter of it and buy one investment property, take another quarter and open a Swiss bank account, take another quarter and invest it, and take the last quarter and keep it as an emergency fund?  Again, it is called diversification.

If you come into some money (a situation everyone would like to have) and you already have an emergency fund, one suggestion I have is to put half of it into a mortgage and the other half into gold.  Paying down your mortgage on a primary residence is a hedge against deflation.  You are locking in a return of whatever your interest rate is.  Buying gold is a hedge against inflation.  Why not balance the two out and split your money down the middle?

In conclusion, if you have money, spread it around.  Don’t put all of your eggs in one basket.  I like the permanent portfolio for investing.  I also like the idea of buying residential real estate and renting it out, especially with the current housing market.  But do it slowly and don’t dump all of your money into one area at one time.

These are crazy times right now.  The stock market is a roller coaster.  The gold market is trending up, but then we have to put up with steep drops of 10 to 20 percent every few months.  And who knows what is going to happen with interest rates and the price of bonds?

There are major troubles in Europe.  There are major troubles in the U.S.  The banks still have a lot of bad debt on their books, whether they admit it or not.  The Fed has tripled the monetary base in the last 3 years, while most of this money has been stashed away as excess reserves by the commercial banks.

Will we see huge price inflation in the near future?  Or will we see massive deleveraging and a bigger slowdown in velocity, leading to something resembling a depression?

These are hard questions to answer, even for someone well versed in Austrian economics.  It is impossible to know exactly how the politicians and central bankers will act in the future.  It is also impossible to know how other people will react.  Economics is all about human action.

The number one goal of investors right now should be the preservation of capital.  Safety should be your top priority.  That is why I recommend setting up a permanent portfolio as described in Harry Browne’s book, Fail Safe Investing.

For those looking for a little more risk without having to manage your investments too much and without having to play too many guessing games, I will offer a suggestion to you.  Try setting up the permanent portfolio with a twist.

The regular permanent portfolio goes like this:

25% stocks
25% gold
25% long-term government bonds
25% cash or cash equivalents

If you want to increase your risk/reward while staying relatively safe, change your cash portion.  Keep the stocks, gold, and government bonds all equal, but put less in cash for a little more risk.  For example, you could put 30% in stocks, 30% in gold, 30% in bonds, and 10% in cash.

With this setup, there will be greater swings, particularly in a recessionary environment.  I would not try this strategy if you will need to tap into your investments in 5 years or less.  Also, I would not go lower than 10% in cash.  If we do go into a deep recession, you need some cash on the sidelines to buy the things that are “cheap”.

If you are looking for something even safer than the permanent portfolio, it is going to be hard to do.  If you need to tap into your investments in one year or less, then you should have most of it in cash.  If you will need to tap into your investments in, say, 3 or 4 years, you could use the permanent portfolio and lighten up in stocks.

If you are a really conservative investor, you will have a hard time in this market.  Unfortunately, because the government and the Fed create inflation, even having your investments in cash is not safe in the long term, as it is vulnerable to losing its purchasing power.

If you are a really conservative investor, here is the best allocation I can think of for you:

15% stocks
20% bonds
30% gold
35% cash

You will not get as high of a return, particularly during prosperous times.  But you will be less likely to see huge swings, particularly in a recession.

Bottom line though, if you are investing for the long run and you want to keep your money relatively safe, I would just go with the regular permanent portfolio.  To paraphrase what Richard Maybury says, the permanent portfolio is not perfect, but it is the best thing I know of right now to keep your investments safe.

Today was another day that was not exactly dull for the world financial markets.  Stocks tumbled again today after news that there may be a public vote held in Greece on the “deal” that was recently reached.  It looks like the market has its doubts that the welfare statists of Greece will accept it.  These people have had a near free lunch for too long and they don’t intend to go down without a fight for one last free lunch.

Meanwhile, I am having second thoughts on my second thoughts.  On Saturday, I stated that I began to change my mind about an imminent recession and was wondering if we weren’t in for some major price inflation instead.  That was after a big week for the American stock market.  Since then, the market has plummeted for two days straight.

This continues to be a fight between the market trying to liquidate all of the malinvestment and the Fed trying to prevent it through inflation.  I believe this is why we are seeing these roller coaster swings.  We can expect more of this.

I thought it was kind of a joke that the market reacted so positively last week on the news of a deal reached to cut the Greek bonds by 50%.  That is why I am wondering if stock market investors are just looking for any old excuse to buy stocks.  There is a lot of excess money out there somewhere and it is not with the average Joe who, not only doesn’t trade stocks, but barely has two nickels to rub together.

As for Greece, it doesn’t really matter whether there is a public vote.  The only thing it affects is timing.  It is a matter of when investors realize that the Greek government is going to default on a full scale.  They can give bondholders a 50% haircut now, but the other 50% will not be far behind.

As I explained the other day, cutting the Greek government’s interest payments in half does little to solve its problem.  You could relieve the Greek government of all of its interest payments, but it will still be in the hole.

Think of the United States as an example.  The government is running a deficit close to $1.5 trillion per year right now.  The actual interest payments on the debt are “only” a couple of hundred billion dollars.  Even if you relieved the U.S. government of all of its interest payments on bonds, it would still be running a deficit of $1 trillion or more due to the vast spending and all of the previous promises that were made (think Medicare and Social Security).

The Greek government is in the same position with all of its government employees and all of its pensions that have been promised.  The “problem” for the Greek government is that it does not control its own currency.  In the U.S., there is the Federal Reserve, which can always buy government debt.  In Greece, they have to depend on the European Central Bank to create money (which it isn’t supposed to do) or they have to rely on investors to buy their debt.

If and when Greece fully defaults, who is going to buy their bonds?  Nobody is.  Then they will be forced to balance their budget, which will mean a massive lifestyle change for many of the Greek people.  This may mean a major revolution (and not in a good way).

I think the only solution they will find in Greece is to withdraw from the European Union and to stop using the euro.  Greece can go back to having its own central bank, which can be used to buy the Greek government debt.

The big question after that is, will Italy, Portugal, and others follow?  It would not surprise me to see a total breakdown of the European Union in the next couple of years.

The Japanese yen had been doing quite well in relation to the other major currencies of the world.  Now, the Japanese Ministry of Finance has announced a currency intervention to weaken the yen.  This sent the U.S. dollar higher and sent stocks and gold down today, after doing quite well last week.

Back in September, I had discussed the intervention of the Swiss central bank and its effects on the Swiss franc.  I also predicted the Japanese might follow suit.  While the decision from the Japanese government is not quite the same, it is still an attempt to weaken their own currency.  This shows that all of the major governments and central banks of the world are mercantilist and Keynesian to their core.

This move is just another dumb move by politicians because they fear having a strong currency.  While this may help their exporting industry in the short term, it is a net loss for the citizens of the country in the long run.  What is so bad about having a strong currency?  It makes things more affordable for the people of that country.  And that is supposed to be a bad thing?

It actually amazes me that the Japanese yen was as strong as it was.  The Japanese central bank had done a decent job of resisting too much inflation until now.  The government debt-to-GDP ratio in Japan is over 200%.  This makes Greece look highly solvent in comparison.  The suckers buying Japanese debt have enabled their Keynesian policies to go on far longer than they ever should have.  At some point in the future, it would have been inevitable anyway for the Japanese central bank to start creating lots of new money out of thin air.  That would be the only way out of their mess, unless they were to default outright (unlikely with their culture) or severely cut back spending (unlikely with their culture of Keynesianism).

This is just another example of why we should invest in gold and avoid all of the fiat currencies (other than a portion of the currency you actually use in day-to-day life).  Gold went down a little today due to the strength of the dollar.  But the dollar only strengthened in relation to the other currencies because the others are so bad.  They are all going down in value.  It is just that some go down faster than others.  This is why gold, gold related investments, and other hard assets are still a great investment.

This week has shifted my mind.  I am a big advocate of the permanent portfolio as described by Harry Browne.  My mind has not changed on that.  We live in an uncertain world, especially now, and we should invest our money in a way that hedges against that uncertainty.  As Richard Maybury says, the permanent portfolio is not perfect, but it is the best strategy I know of.

With that said, my opinion shifted this week as to what the near-term future holds.  In the last couple of months, I saw more signs that the U.S. economy was heading back into recession.  It’s hard to say that we ever came out of a recession, since the government never allowed the necessary correction to take place.  However, it looked as though the second wave was coming with more bad news.

I still think there is major trouble ahead in the economy, but I see it potentially playing out in a different way in the short term.  Last Thursday, the European bigwigs announced that they had a plan to deal with Greece.  They said it would involve a 50% haircut to bondholders.  I wrote about it here.

But what I saw as big news was what happened with the stock market.  The Dow was up over 400 points at one time during that day.  It finished up over 300 points and is now above the 12,000 mark.  Meanwhile, gold has come back to life and is now above $1,700 per ounce.

This is the story that began to change my mind.  It is like stock buyers were looking for an excuse to buy.  Investors do not like the small returns in the bond market.  These returns will not even keep up with price inflation.

We have to remember that the Fed has tripled the money supply in the last 3 years.  While the commercial banks have kept most of this new money as excess reserves with the Fed, it still has its repercussions.  I am wondering if this new money is finding its way into the stock market.  I never would have expected the next bubble to show up in the stock market, but I can’t be absolutely sure at this point.  I still think there is a greater likelihood of seeing a bubble in the gold price or in gold stocks.

If there is new money finding its way through the economy, this might delay the effects of the next recession.  We may start to see rising prices come sooner that I thought.  If this new money holds off another recession for now and we start to see a mini-boom, then we could see higher stock prices as well as higher gold prices.

I previously said that I recommend the majority of your money be put into a setup like the permanent portfolio.  That has not changed.  I also said that a speculation strategy could be to take a small portion of your additional investment money and split it between shorting stocks and buying gold/ gold related investments.  I figured that either stocks would go down or gold would go up.  I now see a greater probability that both could go up together.

If you have any short positions in stocks, I would sell some of them if we see a brief pullback in stocks this week.  I would be a little heavier in cash and gold right now rather than having a strong short position in stocks.  I am still not betting that stocks will continue to go up (although there is that exposure in the permanent portfolio), but I am not betting as much that they will go down either.  I am less bearish on the stock market and I see a greater chance that we will see price inflation show its ugly head soon.  If that is the case, gold and gold stocks will do well.

The European Union has supposedly reached a deal on Greek government bonds.  The announcement sent stocks soaring in the United States.  The “leaders” of France and Germany, along with the rich bankers, have reached this deal and come to the rescue again.  I’m guessing the rich bankers agreed to this deal because a 50% haircut looked better than a 100% haircut.

This will be done at the expense of German taxpayers.  It will eventually be at the expense of anyone who holds euros.  It looks like even China will be getting involved.  The stupidity of the Chinese government astounds me.  I guess it isn’t good enough that they keep buying U.S. government debt.  They figured they would find another place even more insolvent and buy there too.  Of course, we also don’t know if the Federal Reserve is playing any role, although there is a lot of speculation on the internet that QE2’s main purpose earlier this year was to capitalize the European banks.

This whole so-called agreement just kicks the can down the road.  Not only that, but it ultimately makes the problem worse as it takes more money out of the hands of productive individuals and it throws it away for more Greek spending.  It is a giant misallocation of resources.

This agreement to cut the Greek bond values by 50% will not solve anything in the long run.  The interest on debt is only one expenditure of the Greek government.  The problem is that the government there has created a massive welfare state and has made promises that cannot ultimately be delivered.

Imagine an individual with $50,000 in credit card debt.  You bail him out and pay off half of his debt for him, which reduces it to $25,000.  That would be fine if the individual were working to pay off the rest of the debt.  But what if the individual kept spending more than he takes in every month.  Paying off half of his credit card debt would ease the burden on him temporarily by reducing his credit card payments.  But if he is still running a deficit, even without paying any interest on debt, then he will end up being back where he was before.  The individual will end up back in debt with $50,000 in credit card balances.  Meanwhile, you will have wasted $25,000 with your original bailout.

Greece has a spending problem.  To be more specific, the Greek government has a spending problem.  It has made big promises that cannot be fulfilled.  There are a high percentage of Greek citizens who are living off the government dole.  They work for the government.  They retire early with big government pensions.  Their game is coming to an end.  They are going to get one last bailout, coming mostly from Germany.  They will keep asking for the impossible.  The government there has created a massive welfare state and a welfare mentality.

While I don’t have any specific numbers, I have heard that some rich people are getting out of Greece.  This would make sense.  There is no future there.  The parasites will keep trying to suck blood out of their hosts until there is none left.  I would recommend for anyone living in Greece to get out.  There is no future there, unless there is a dramatic turnaround in the mentality of the general population.

The U.S. is in trouble too, along with a whole bunch of other places.  The one good thing about the U.S. is that the welfare mentality is not as strong.  There is a welfare/ warfare state in the U.S.  In Greece, it is just a welfare state.  The U.S. can cut its warfare state.  The welfare state is not as far advanced, even with Social Security and Medicare.

It’s possible there will be another bailout of Greece down the road.  I think it would involve money creation by the European Central Bank.  But there is a limit to all of this.  Eventually, I think they will let Greece go.  The citizens of Germany and other countries will revolt.  Greece will probably drop out of the EU.  Perhaps the whole European Union will break apart.

The Greek welfare recipients can keep asking for a free lunch, but the laws of economics will eventually end it.  The German taxpayers will get tired of buying lunch for others.  And the Chinese will run out of money when their own problems become more obvious.

Ron Paul has released his proposed plan to cut $1 trillion from the federal budget in the first year, if he were to win the presidency.  His plan claims to balance the budget within 3 years.

There are a lot of cuts in Paul’s proposed budget, including ending the wars and mostly eliminating 5 departments.  One thing that Paul’s plan does not change is so-called entitlement spending.  It does not address Social Security and Medicare, in the sense that it keeps the status quo with these programs.

For any senior citizen who cares deeply about receiving his Social Security checks, Ron Paul should be his man.  While Ron Paul has said that these entitlement programs are unconstitutional and should never have been started, he has also explicitly said that he does not plan to eliminate them and pull the rug out from senior citizens who have been promised these benefits.

Ron Paul is the only major candidate (if you don’t count Gary Johnson) who has proposed significant spending cuts that are specific.  He is the only one (besides Gary Johnson) who comes anywhere close to a balanced budget.  Because of this, he is the only one who could actually save Social Security in a sense.  If we get any of the other candidates, then not much will change and the fiscal situation of the U.S. government will continue over a cliff.  Senior citizens will eventually be devastated when there is no money to pay out Social Security.

Of course, the Fed can always create new money out of thin air so that the Social Security checks can keep going out.  But then there will be more tampering with the CPI figures so that the checks do not reflect the actual inflation.  If the government uses the Fed to create new money to pay for Social Security, then this will be a hidden default.  The Social Security checks will be worth less in real terms.  That is already what is happening now.  So, in a sense, Ron Paul is really the only one who will save senior citizens from having a big and sudden downgrade in their standard of living.

Ron Paul has been questioned about so-called entitlement spending.  He says that he favors reform, but that his near-term spending plan does not address that.  He says that he would like to give the option to anyone under the age of 25 to opt out.  He acknowledges that he gets objections from people who are over 25 who say they would like to opt out.

I have a great deal of admiration for Ron Paul and support him.  But there is a “but” on this one.  I don’t agree with him on this opting out for those under 25.  Just as he acknowledged, why not let those over 25 opt out?  Fiscally speaking, it actually makes more sense to do this.

If Paul’s plan is to make good on the promises made to those who are currently retired or soon to be of retirement age, then money has to come from somewhere to pay those people.  The Social Security trust fund is made up of IOUs.  There is no actual money in there.  If you let people who are under 25 opt out, then that will be less money collected to pay for the current recipients.  Those under 25 will still be paying for current recipients, although maybe not as much.  There would be more dipping into the general fund, which would spread it around to everyone.  Those over 25 and working would actually be getting taxed more to pay current recipients.

If you let those under 25 opt out, you don’t get the financial benefit until over 40 years from now when they don’t get to collect anything.  Meanwhile, tax collections will be less as people opt out.  Wouldn’t it be better to let someone opt out who is 50 years old?  That person has already paid into the system for about 30 years and he might be willing to give up all of his so-called benefits if he doesn’t have to pay that payroll tax anymore.  You’d be surprised at how many people would take that deal.  If I were 50, I’d rather keep my money now than get some promise for 15 or 20 years in the future.

I am all for letting people opt out of Social Security, but it should be offered to everyone.  But that does not help solve the fiscal mess that we are in now.  The money paid to current recipients still has to come from somewhere.

There is no easy way out of this.  The best plan I know of is what was presented by Harry Browne when he was running for president.  He said we should sell off government assets and pay off the Social Security recipients.  The federal government owns a lot of land (some with oil) and a lot of buildings.  I think the federal government needs to go through a bankruptcy much the same way a corporation would.  Let’s sell off all of the good assets and pay the creditors what we can.  In this case, let’s not reorganize this bankrupt entity.  Let’s keep it out of business for good.