I usually wouldn’t spend half as much time focusing on the presidential election, but having a candidate like Ron Paul makes it far more interesting for libertarians to watch.

A few months ago, I was predicting that the Republican nomination was down to 4 players: Romney, Perry, Bachmann, and Paul.  With that said, I must have sensed that Herman Cain still had some hope because I was attacking him before he became the talk of the town.  I have also attacked his 9-9-9 plan more recently.

While Cain’s chances have certainly improved, I still don’t see a high probability of Cain being the Republican nominee, despite his current status as a front runner.

Ever since Michele Bachmann barely beat out Ron Paul in the Iowa straw poll, she has taken a beating in the polls.  She is in the single digits in most national polls now.  She is down, but I am not counting her out yet.  She seems to be a bit better than most of the other candidates on economics, but she still does not offer much in the way of specifics.  My biggest fear about Bachmann is that she turns out to be like Reagan where she speaks libertarian rhetoric on economic issues, but her policies don’t reflect it.

Newt Gingrich has had a bump in the polls.  He is certainly a good performer in the debates and a lot of conservatives like him, even though they should know better after his record as Speaker of the House.  I still think it is highly unlikely that Gingrich will get the nomination because most people, even Republicans, sense that he could not beat Obama in the general election.  I think this is one thing where most everyone is right in that he wouldn’t beat Obama.

I don’t see Huntsman, Santorum, or Gary Johnson being major players at this point.

That leaves us with Romney, Perry, and Paul.  Romney is the establishment’s choice.  He is pro big government across the board, but he will say what he needs to in order to appease the conservative base, or at least not anger them too much.  Romney is the founder of Obamacare.  If there is one thing that virtually all Republicans agree on, it is their hatred of Obamacare.  And yet the nominee for the party is going to be the inventor of Obamacare?

I am not saying that Romney can’t get the nomination.  He is not being attacked by Sean Hannity or any of the other popular conservatives with big influence.  These people might be afraid to attack him in case he does get the nomination.  Another good possibility is that they really don’t mind his message too much.  Regardless, most Tea Party people are not Romney supporters.  They see this as a fight for the Republican Party and a Romney nomination would mean a loss for the Tea Party.

A lot of people are starting to write off Rick Perry.  I am not.  The fundraising numbers are coming out for the third quarter and Romney and Perry have the biggest numbers by far.  Ron Paul is in a distant third.  While Romney is the choice of the establishment, Perry is probably the next choice (not counting Herman Cain).  Perry has some big backers and I would not be surprised to see him make another surge in the polls.  Regardless, don’t count him out.  I actually would put him as the favorite to win the nomination right now, despite his poor showings in the last month.

If there is one thing to say about Ron Paul, it is that he does not lose many supporters.  His support stays steady.  Nationally, he is polling in the low double digits.  It varies from poll to poll, but I would put him at about 12% right now.  Remember that you don’t have to win over a majority.

I still put Paul’s chances fairly low at getting the nomination, only because the Republicans are too in love with war.  Paul has definitely changed some minds on this issue and others, but it is hard to say if it is enough at this point.  The educational outreach from his campaign has been phenomenal and it will make a major difference in years to come.

I think the only way for Ron Paul to get the Republican nomination is for a major event to happen in the near future.  If there is another major economic crisis (which isn’t far fetched at this point), then perhaps we could see a change in the tides.  Again, the good news is that he will continue to have a solid 10% that will back him no matter what.  This means he can really only go up in the polls.

There are more debates coming and the primaries are moving up.  There should be a lot of action in the next few months.  Libertarians should enjoy the moment, regardless of the outcome.  Did you ever think you would hear Austrian economics mentioned so much on national television?

One thing that Austrian economics can teach us is that the future is uncertain.  In order to understand economics at all, you have to understand the importance of human action.  Human beings have free will.  They will act according to their personality, their needs and wants, and their environment.  It is impossible to predict exactly how billions of people on this planet will act.

Based on economics, history, and our understanding of what generally motivates people, we can take some good guesses at what the future will look like, at least in an approximate way.

The future of the American economy will depend on the actions of Obama, Bernanke, their advisors, and the federal government in general.  It will also depend on foreign governments.  It will also depend on the American people and popular opinion.

With all of that said, let’s look at some of the possibilities that America is facing economically.

The Federal Reserve has tripled the money supply in the last 3 years.  Most of this new money is with commercial banks, most of which is parked at the Fed as excess reserves earning the banks .25% interest.  The government is involved in military conflicts all over the place.  The national debt is about as high as the yearly GDP and the annual deficits are well over one trillion dollars.  There was a big correction that showed up in 2008, but the government has prevented this correction from fully taking place.

The previous artificial boom led to a misallocation of resources.  For example, there were too many resources (labor and material) going towards new housing.  This became obvious in the last few years and this is why unemployment tends to be higher in the housing and construction business.

I see only two ways of returning to real and significant growth.  One way is that the government could get out of the way and we could allow the correction to happen.  The second way is that we could see great technological advances, even in the face of massive government spending and regulations.

While I am optimistic for the future in the long run, I am less optimistic that the government will shrink in the next few years.  The government will eventually be forced to cut back when it faces the threat of hyperinflation or bankruptcy.

I think one likely scenario is that we keep bouncing in and out of recessions.  It is looking likely that the economy is turning down again.  If this happens, we could see another round of “stimulus” from the government and/or the Fed.  It would not surprise me to see high price inflation at some point, although, as I have said before, I don’t expect hyperinflation.  Eventually, the Fed would have to pull back as it did in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s.  This would cause a huge correction.

I think another scenario that is possible and even more likely than I originally thought, is that the economy muddles along in stagnant mode.  Due to the internet and the Ron Paul revolution, the Fed cannot get away with things like they did in the past.  This makes severe price inflation a little less likely.  Perhaps we will see something in America that resembles Japan of the last 20 years.  This would be a scenario where the government will not allow the correction to happen all at once.  It is the equivalent of pulling a band-aid off slowly.

Another possible scenario, but one that I see as unlikely right now, is that we have another recession (or a continuation of the recession, depending on your point of view) and the government actually does little to stop it.  The only problem I see with this is that the politicians in DC are still spending massive amounts of money.  Most of the spending is on the military and entitlements.  I just don’t see this spending coming under control unless the politicians are forced to, either by voter opinion or by the laws of economics.

There is one thing we can be certain about.  As long as the government keeps running huge deficits and keeps interfering with the economy, then a genuine recovery will be difficult.  The government is sucking up resources from the free market economy and it is misallocating these resources at best or destroying these resources at worst.

Barring any revolutionary technology that bursts on to the scene, the government is going to have to loosen its grip for the American economy to get back to significant growth.  People are feeling squeezed right now and it all comes down to government spending and regulation.

Monetary inflation causes several things to happen.  First, it redistributes wealth.  The government benefits at the expense of the average citizen.  Debtors benefit at the expense of the savers.  The list could go on, but it rearranges the wealth based on debts and based on who receives the new money early on.

Second, monetary inflation can cause a boom/bust cycle, particularly when the interest rates are distorted.  There is a misallocation of resources and times seem especially good during the boom phase.  When the misallocations are revealed and the lack of real savings is revealed, then the boom turns to a bust.

One thing monetary inflation doesn’t do is change the amount of wealth.  However, it does cause future wealth to be less than it would have been due to the misallocation of resources.

Monetary inflation eventually translates into higher prices.  This does not happen immediately.  The Fed could create a trillion dollars out of thin air and release it into the economy tomorrow morning.  This is not to say that your lunch will be more expensive than the day before, particularly if the Fed move were not publicly announced.  It would take a little time for the money to circulate through and increase prices.

There are other factors in prices.  There is the demand for money (or velocity).  This is how quickly money changes hands.  If there is a high demand for money (lower spending), then the lower velocity will keep prices lower than they would have been.  In addition, even in an environment with a stable money supply, individual prices will always fluctuate based on the supply and demand of the good.

One thing that is not well understood by many is that price inflation is not uniform.  If the central bank inflates the money supply and the overall price level goes up, certain prices will go up more than others.  The false boom that occurs from monetary inflation will find hot spots and drive some prices up higher than others.  We can see this by looking at past bubbles, such as the tech stock bubble and the housing bubble.

When we talk about price inflation, we often talk about consumer goods such as food and clothing.  But it is actually asset prices that tend to go up higher in an inflationary environment.  For the sake of this discussion, when I say assets, I am referring to things that are commonly bought and sold and are often sold for a higher price.  For example, asset prices that go up might be stocks, real estate, or gold.

We can see this in China now.  Consumer prices are up.  However, real estate prices are flying high.  Real estate prices have gone up more than food and clothing.  Real estate is a bubble in China and it will pop like all other bubbles in history.

So while I am bearish on the American stock market in many respects, I also see the potential for higher stock prices.  There has been a lot of monetary inflation in the last 3 years and it has not shown up much in consumer prices.  Real estate is not looking like a hot spot right now.  There is definitely potential for stocks to make a run if there is not a recession in the near future.  There is also a lot of potential for gold and oil.

While I expect food prices to go up, I expect some other prices to rise at a greater rate.

One thing I don’t expect to rise any time soon is wages.

I can’t get away from this political stuff for now, but I promise I will comment on any major news in the economic/ investment world if and when it comes.

I heard a small part of Rush Limbaugh’s radio show today.  I don’t usually listen.  He mostly drives me nuts.  He is wrong on many topics including foreign policy, civil liberties, and Ron Paul.  However, he has usually seemed to be decent on economic issues.

Well, today, all of that went out the window.  I didn’t realize he was so ignorant on economic issues as well.  I don’t have an exact transcript of what was said (I’m sure it’s on the internet somewhere), but I can pretty well paraphrase what he said.

Limbaugh was talking about Cain’s 9-9-9 plan.  This plan, which I have criticized more than once in the past, was a big topic in the debate on Tuesday night.  Cain’s plan is to institute a 9% corporate tax, a 9% income tax, and a 9% national sales tax.

Cain and his plan were criticized during the debate, particularly by Bachmann and Santorum, although I’m sure Ron Paul would have been highly critical too had he been given more of an opportunity to speak.  But one of the criticisms of his plan is that politicians in the future could raise the 9% income tax rate.

So Limbaugh brings up this subject on his radio show and he basically says that it is ridiculous to criticize Cain’s plan in this way because you could say that about any plan to cut taxes.  He said something to the effect of, “forget the sales tax portion for a minute.”  Then he said that you could never support a plan for a flat tax or lower rate with this logic because there is always a chance that it could be raised again in the future.

Do you see where the problem is here?  The problem is his statement to forget about the sales tax portion of the 9-9-9 plan for a minute.  This is a joke.  Excuse me Rush, but that is part of the package plan, so let’s not forget about it for a minute.

If Cain’s plan were simply to reduce the corporate tax rate to 9% and make the income tax a flat 9% and get rid of all of the other taxes with no national sales tax, then I would fully support this plan.  As a radical libertarian, I would rather these rates go to zero, but I recognize that a 9-9 plan without the national sales tax would be a vast improvement over what we have now.

But Limbaugh is either ignorant or he thinks his listeners are ignorant (which might be partially true).  He pretends that the massive national sales tax is not a part of the plan and analyzes the other part in a vacuum.  Bachmann and Santorum were absolutely correct in their criticisms of Cain’s plan.  If Cain’s plan passed, future politicians could raise the rates.  They could make the income tax rate progressive again.  They could make the income tax rates back to where they are today.  But here is the problem el rushbo: WE WOULD HAVE A NATIONAL SALES TAX TOO.

I have absolutely no use for Rush Limbaugh any more.  He was an apologist for George W. Bush and I’m sure he would be the same way if Romney, Cain, or Perry were president.  The only reason I will listen to him at all in the future is just to know what kind of ignorant things millions of people are hearing out there.

There was a Republican presidential debate on Bloomberg and its main focus was on economic issues.  I’m guessing it was not as highly watched as other debates, particularly because not as many households get the channel on cable.

I thought the people asking the questions were a bunch of Keynesians.  Some of their initial questions were decent, but you could get a sense of their attitude on the follow-up questions and they didn’t do a good job of hiding their bias in favor of big government.

Ron Paul did not get much time to speak, but I am still happy with how the debate turned out.  It really exposed some of the candidates and showed that a majority at that table are in favor of big government.

From a libertarian perspective, Michele Bachmann was decent as usual.  I hate her foreign policy (which was not discussed) and I don’t really trust her, but she definitely speaks in favor of a free market and smaller government on economic issues.  However, she is still short on specifics of where she would cut government spending and I think someone needs to challenge her on that.

Rick Santorum was bearable in the debate, probably because most of the discussion was on the economy and not on foreign policy or social issues.  I was happy to hear Santorum point out that four people at the table supported the bank bailouts in 2008.  The four people were Huntsman, Perry, Romney, and Cain.

Cain and Romney both talked about how they supported the bailouts but don’t agree with the way it was implemented.  That exposes both of them right there.  It basically shows that they are either naive or they are lying.

When the candidates were allowed to ask someone else a question, I thought Ron Paul should have asked Cain what specific cuts in spending he recommends.  With that said, Paul’s question about the Federal Reserve was very good, if only to expose the fact that Cain worked for the Federal Reserve and is not some political outsider as he claims to be.

I was also happy to hear Santorum attack Cain’s 9-9-9 plan.  Santorum pointed out that it opens up another avenue to raise taxes.  Cain tried to argue that it won’t happen and one of his reasons was because he will be president.  But isn’t this always one of the problems that we face?  One administration implements these new programs and these new powers and then the next administration ups the ante and takes advantage of the new power.  Does Cain not understand that there will be more presidents in the future and that the 9% income tax could easily get raised while leaving in place the national sales tax?

As I’ve discussed before, Cain’s 9-9-9 plan is a massive tax hike on the middle class and it does nothing to cut the size and scope of government.  Cain is nothing close to a libertarian and all genuine libertarians should run away from this man.

Romney was questioned about his calls to challenge China on its “currency manipulation”.  Legislation on this topic just passed the Senate and it would cause a trade war.  One of the moronic interviewers asked a question about this and said that it would lower the price of goods going into the U.S., as if this were a horrible thing.  Does it ever occur to these people that lower prices might actually be a benefit to Americans?

Overall, the debate was fairly tame.  It probably won’t change a lot of minds, but on the margin it might make a difference.  There should be a few more people aware now that Romney and Cain are both lovers of big government and any liberty minded person should hope that they are soundly defeated.  Of course, the only consistent and pro-liberty candidate continues to be Ron Paul.

Last month, I wrote a piece on interest rates on Greek bonds.  I wrote that Greece will likely default on its government debt.  It was a popular piece.  People are paying attention to this.  Even Americans realize that there are ramifications elsewhere.

As of today, the interest rate on a one-year Greek bond is over 150%.  This means almost certain default, unless there is a massive bailout.  But even a massive bailout will only buy time.

This means if the government of Greece issued a one-year bond today for, say, one million euros, then it would end up paying back 2.5 million euros over the course of the next year.

Let’s use an analogy for this.  Let’s say there is a family with huge credit card debt.  The family makes $50,000 per year after taxes and makes the minimum monthly payments on its credit card debt, which amounts to $1,000 per month.  The problem is, after the family pays for its monthly expenses of housing, food, clothing, and other things, they only have $800 left to pay the credit card bill.  So the family uses even more credit card debt, just to pay the minimum monthly payments.  The family’s debt is getting larger and larger and the interest rates keep going higher and higher.

Eventually, the credit card companies would stop lending money to this family and the family would end up in bankruptcy unless it could drastically cut its regular monthly expenses.

In the case of Greece, there is minimal cutting right now, although I’m guessing many of those on the welfare train there would disagree with me that it has been minimal up to this point.

Instead, the Greek government is trying to raise taxes and this will only result in more productive people leaving the country.

The Greek government is like the family in credit card debt.  It can barely make its minimum payment each month.  It has to borrow more just to pay the interest.  I can see no other reason why the government would be issuing debt that pays 150% interest.

Perhaps there will be another bailout, but this will only delay the day of reckoning.  The default is coming.  This is significant and yet Greece is small compared to others.  Italy’s debt-to-GDP ratio is almost as bad as Greece.  Of course, Japan is far worse than both with a ratio of over 200%, yet that country is still going without default.

Greece cannot print money.  It needs the European Central Bank to do that.  But if the ECB does too much money creation, then countries like Germany will revolt.  The people will revolt, not the German government.

Greece will default.  Others may follow.  The euro may break up.

For American investors, it leaves a question of what to do.  If these events unfold quickly, the U.S. dollar may strengthen in the short term.  It is difficult to say what will happen with gold in the short term.  It depends on what people view as a safe haven.  Gold may struggle because of a strengthening U.S. dollar or it may do well as people buy it as a crisis hedge.

I tend to be against politics for advancing liberty.  I am happy that Ron Paul is running for president, but not because I expect him to win.  He is using his platform to spread the message of liberty to millions of people.  So while he is using a political forum to do this, it is his educational influence that is most important, as thousands of more libertarians sprout up every week.

The only way to bring about lasting change in favor of liberty is by changing the hearts and minds of the people.  If a majority or strong minority of the American people withdraw their consent from the government, then the government will weaken and may eventually even collapse if the sentiment is strong enough.

One way that Americans can impose an almost immediate effect is by using the power of the jury.  In any court case that involves a jury, it is up to the people on the jury to decide the verdict.  It is basically out of the control of the judge and the government in general at that point.  While you will not be told this as a juror, it is not only your responsibility to judge the facts of the case and determine if the person violated the law, but it is also your responsibility to judge the fairness of the law in question.

If you, as a juror, believe that a law is unjust, it is your right to use jury nullification.  You can essentially nullify the law, or at least in regards to the person on trial.

Some libertarians will point out that jury duty itself is anti-liberty, because you are essentially being forced to serve on the jury.  This is a valid point, but in a libertarian society, I believe most people would be willing to serve on a jury, if in fact juries existed.  Even more so, I believe most people would be willing to serve as witnesses.  If someone declined to serve as a witness to either convict or absolve someone from a crime, then that person could be blacklisted by the private sector.  If a crime were committed against someone refusing to be a witness, then maybe that person would not have the same redress as others because they had previously refused to serve as a witness.  Regardless, this is a subject for another day.

Regardless of whether you think jury duty should be mandatory, libertarians should take advantage of being called for jury duty, particularly for cases that involve a victimless crime.

Imagine a world where 20% of the population is made up of principled libertarians.  If you get a couple of people on each jury that is willing to use nullification, convictions for victimless crimes will become really difficult. Some “crimes” to be nullified could include drug use, tax evasion, insider trading, prostitution, and selling raw milk.  I’m sure you can think of many others if you are a libertarian.

Right now, most people would be terrified to go in front of a jury on a tax evasion charge.  They end up doing a plea bargain so that they can serve less time in prison or pay a smaller penalty.  But what if public sentiment changed so much that there would be a good chance of an acquittal?  Imagine if juries started acquitting for the majority of tax evasion cases or drug cases that didn’t involve violence on the part of the accused.

Even if juries were hung, it would still be a blow to the prosecution and the law in general.  If enough people started being acquitted of drug use and tax evasion, then more people would start to openly defy these laws.  Eventually, the government would see these laws as unenforceable and these laws would, in effect, be nullified.

If you have the opportunity to serve on a jury, you should take it.  You could make the difference in someone’s life and you could send a message.  You will be asked questions before being picked for a jury.  You should not lie, but you can try your best to avoid answering questions or volunteering too much information.  If you do get picked for a case that happens to involve a victimless crime, you will have to stay strong against the other jury members.  You do not have to change their minds.  You do not have to give a reason for voting to acquit.  You can simply say that that is how you will be voting.

Jury nullification can be a powerful tool for libertarians.  We don’t need to elect the right politicians to change the law.  We just need to stop locking people up for violating laws that shouldn’t exist in the first place.

There are some noteworthy news items and I would like to tie them together.

First, Steve Jobs passed away yesterday.  May he rest in peace.  Jobs was a brilliant thinker and a brilliant entrepreneur.  I don’t know what kind of a person he was, but he certainly made the world a better place.

There will always be comparisons between Jobs and Bill Gates.  I think Steve Jobs was more intelligent than Gates is, but that is just my opinion.  While Gates may have been less original, he was a more successful businessman to start.  Just about the whole computer world used Microsoft.  It took more time for Apple to gain its footing.

Overall, I am bigger fan of Apple than Microsoft when it comes to computers.  The operating system on a Mac is superior.  But again, Gates was successful as a marketer and businessman with Microsoft.  Apple may win out at the end, but Microsoft certainly had its day in the sun.

It is reported that Steve Jobs was a liberal (in today’s language).  While this might be the case, there are many libertarians who admire the work he did.  While his opinions may have been leftist, his actions were not.  He is one of the greatest examples of capitalism that we have.  He was a major player in the internet and technological revolution.

Meanwhile, there have been protests against Wall Street.  This new group is being called the Tea Party of the left.  If you look at their list of unofficial demands, it is horrific.  They want a “living wage”, even for those unemployed.  Their ideas are anti-capitalist.  They are contradictory in many ways.  They are a dream that is impossible.

Just like the Tea Party, I’m sure that different people in this group have different ideas.  Some are worse than others.  Generally speaking though, they are a group of anti-capitalists.

I have sympathy for those who are speaking against government bailouts.  I could not agree more that these big businesses should not be handed favors by the government.  The problem is that most of these protesters go way beyond this.  The other problem is that they should be protesting big government, not big business.

While I think many Americans are upset about government bailouts, and rightly so, I don’t think they are anti-capitalism like these protesters.  Bailing out corporations is not capitalism.  You can call it corporatism or anything else, but it is not free market capitalism.  In a truly capitalist society, there would be no government bailouts.  So the protesters are against the bailouts (I think) and yet they are anti-capitalist.  Their own thoughts are contradictory.

Overall, I don’t see this mentality as a major threat.  Going back to Steve Jobs, he is a hero to most people.  Businessmen are often vilified, yet Jobs is not.  Jeff Tucker wrote a piece on this and speculates that it is because “he made his products elegant and made our lives more beautiful.”  While I agree with this, I am hopeful that it goes beyond this.

Speaking in generalities, one thing that still makes Americans different from many others around the world is that Americans like success.  With the exception of a few on the far left, most Americans do not want to kill entrepreneurism.  Some might be a little envious of those with more money, but most Americans think it is ok to be rich, especially when it is done by creating wealth and pleasing consumers.

I think the one thing where Americans need to learn a little more is that there are millions of people working every day to help consumers.  Most people are nowhere near as savvy as Steve Jobs was.  But there are millions of people in their own little way who work behind the scenes to fulfill human wants and needs.

The things that Steve Jobs helped produce were obvious and they were obviously beneficial.  You don’t see the entrepreneurs and workers who manufactured and delivered all of the little things that go into an iPad or iPhone.

I am still hopeful for the future.  Americans still want to see successful people.  As long as that attitude remains, there is hope in regaining liberty.

With a push to have a full audit of the Federal Reserve, critics of this move (such as those with the Fed) say that a full audit could jeopardize the Fed’s independence.  Of course, Fed officials and other government elitists who benefit from having a secretive central bank do not want an audit because they want to keep the party going at the expense of others.

With that said, perhaps those pushing for an audit should be careful what they ask for.  If there were a full audit and there were enough things found to cause major outrage, there is a chance that Congress could strip power from the Fed and take over the monetary controls.  In fact, Dennis Kucinich is advocating that Congress reclaim its authority (his view, not mine) and take over monetary policy.

As Gary North has pointed out, having Congress in direct control of the money supply would increase the chances of hyperinflation.  In contrast to many other libertarians, I do not believe there is a high probability that we will see hyperinflation.  I think high price inflation is possible, like what the U.S. saw in the 1970’s, but I think the chances of hyperinflation (for example, prices doubling every year) are slim.  If Congress directly controlled monetary policy, I would raise the chances.

Assuming that the Fed keeps control of the money supply, I would not be surprised to see double digit price inflation in the somewhat near future.  However, I have given this whole issue some more thought and I also wouldn’t be surprised if price inflation does not get as bad as we saw in the 1970’s.

I have some reasons for this view.  One reason in particular is Facebook.  We live in a different world now.  While I have many “friends” on Facebook who are libertarians, the majority are not.  I have other libertarian friends who are in the same situation.

If price inflation reaches 10% or more, we just need for someone to produce a good 2 or 3 minute video that explains in simple terms how the only way there can be a sustained increase in the general price of goods and services is by having an increase in the money supply.  Then the video can explain that only the Federal Reserve can directly control the money supply (and maybe the banks with fractional reserve lending).

For every one person who posts a video like this, a hundred people or more will view it.  We live in the age of the internet.  It is harder to get by with ignorance these days.  The Fed can’t hide behind the media any more.  Ron Paul has brought this issue to the public’s attention and the internet users have spread the word.  With the communication lines wide open as never before, I am hoping that is enough to prevent massive price inflation.

As far as promoting policy, I think the best thing we can do as libertarians is to advocate the repeal of legal tender laws.  We should be free to use the money of our choice.  Who can object to this on moral grounds?  You can ask your non-libertarian friends if people should be allowed to do business with other forms of money without going to jail.  I’m guessing most won’t object when you put it in these terms.

If we can repeal legal tender laws, then it will either force the Fed to stop inflating and buying government debt or else other money will become more popular.  We can do to the Fed what the internet and Fed Ex are doing to the post office.

Also, if legal tender laws are repealed and other forms of money begin to sprout up, then hyperinflation becomes less risky to our civilization.  If the dollar became worthless, then there would already be other forms of money to take its place to do business.  The trucks could keep delivering food to stock the shelves of our grocery stores, which is really the most important thing.

The subject of China and its currency has been building for the last several years and now more and more government officials are pointing the finger at China for manipulating its currency and not allowing the yuan to rise.  There is legislation currently being debated in the Senate that would compel the Obama administration to make a determination if other countries are not aligning their currencies in the manner that the U.S. government deems acceptable.  Eventually, this could lead to tariffs on imports.

Several Chinese officials spoke out against this action today and said that it would start a trade war, which they (the Chinese) do not want.  House Speaker John Boehner has come out against the legislation.  Even if it did get through the House, it is unknown if Obama would sign it.

This rhetoric has been heating up more and more.  I heard it from Romney in the last Republican debate, which tells us enough right there about that man.

The latest and most interesting person to join in the party of blaming China is Ben Bernanke.  Good old Helicopter Ben is now instructing other countries on how to manipulate their currencies.  Bernanke said, “Right now, our concern is that the Chinese currency policy is blocking what might be a more normal recovery process in the global economy.”

So there you have it.  Bernanke has chimed in.  Since unemployment is still over 9% and the economy shows no signs of getting better with all of the massive deficit spending, the idiot Keynesians are now going to blame China for the horrible policies of the U.S. government and Federal Reserve.  Bernanke’s Keynesian policies have failed and he knows it and he refuses to take any blame.  It doesn’t take a libertarian to see that he and the others blaming China are simply trying to escape responsibility for their own failed policies.

If the U.S. government were actually stupid enough to pass this legislation, China would be stupid to get into a trade war.  Instead, Chinese officials should just immediately start to sell U.S. treasuries.  If they really wanted retaliation, they should make an announcement that if the tariffs are not repealed within 60 days, then they will dump approximately one trillion dollars of government debt onto the open market.  This would send interest rates soaring in the U.S. and would immediately trigger a massive recession.

As to the actual merits of China affecting the U.S. economy, these idiots and/or liars have it completely backwards.  If anything, China is subsidizing the U.S. in a couple of ways.  The Chinese are buying U.S. government debt and doing a favor to the U.S. government.  In addition, the Chinese are subsidizing U.S. consumers with inexpensive products.

I think China should have a stronger currency and let their currency rise against the dollar.  But this has little to do with the U.S. economy, at least directly.  Chinese officials should do this for the benefit of the Chinese citizens who would benefit with cheaper goods and a higher standard of living.  It would hurt some exporters in the short term, but overall it would be highly beneficial for the average person living in China.

It seems that every major central bank on this planet is inflating extensively right now.  They are all shooting themselves in their respective feet.  Even the Swiss and Japanese are doing it.  This is mercantilism and it is bad policy.  It helps subsidize the exporters at the expense of everyone else using that currency.

This is why gold and gold related investments will continue to do well in the future.