It is almost the end of February 2023, and the yield curve is still highly inverted. Just about any measure shows an inversion at this point, and it is quite dramatic.

Some people look at the 10-year yield versus the 2-year yield. Some use the 10-year versus the 3-month (my preferred metric). I have seen some use the 30-year versus the 3-month. They are all inverted.

It is interesting to go back and look at last year. The 2-year and 10-year inverted around the beginning of July 2022. The 2-year yield went above the 10-year yield when they were around 3%.

It was sometime in October 2022 when the 3-month yield finally went higher than the 10-year yield. A few weeks after that and the 3-month went consistently higher than the 30-year.

Perhaps the most notable thing is to look at the beginning of 2022. The short-term yields were almost at zero. Even at the end of February 2022, they were near zero. It is hard to believe how far they have risen over the course of one year.

It is easy to forget that the Fed’s fight against inflation (that it created) really started about a year ago. The Fed never really had a period of stable money.

In 2021, the Fed was still expanding its balance sheet. It was even still expanding at the beginning of 2022. It quickly went from loose money to tight money. The Fed almost immediately went from balance sheet expansion to raising its target federal funds rate.

This actually just shows the complete incompetence of the people at the Fed and the establishment financial community in general. It was already clear that price inflation was rising in late 2021. Why didn’t they stop creating new money out of thin air at that point?

Now we are in a situation where price inflation is not under control, so the Fed is still essentially forced to keep raising its target rate and slowly drain its balance sheet. But it is doing this in the face of an already heavily inverted yield curve.

The Winds Can Change Quickly

Just as the Fed’s stance from loose money to tight money changed quickly, so too can the prospects for the entire economy.

All signals point to a recession. The biggest signal is the highly inverted yield curve.

It’s hard to say how long it will stay inverted, but it actually doesn’t matter that much at this point. It has been highly inverted for so long that a recession is baked into the cake. This is assuming we don’t see a 2020 event again where society is locked down and the Fed goes on a massive money creation spree.

The yield curve will likely flatten before the worst of the recession hits. The worst of the recession typically happens after the yield curve had already been inverted. I don’t see why it would be different this time.

The recession will most likely start in 2023, but it is quite possible it might not show up until 2024. Things seem to happen slowly and then all of a sudden. That’s true of both life and the financial markets.

It is surprising how many in the financial media are actually admitting that there may be a recession coming. But most of them say it will be mild. So even if you thrive on being a contrarian, the contrary position may not be that there will be no recession. The contrary position is that the recession will be a lot worse than mild.

Most people are not ready for what is to come, even though the warning signals are there.

Nikki Haley, former governor of South Carolina, has announced that she is running for president on the Republican ticket for the 2024 election.

While Trump’s popularity has seemed to fade with some, a majority of Republican voters don’t really want to go back to the days of an establishment Republican figure.

You could argue that Trump and DeSantis both promote establishment policies in their own way, but these two are generally opposed by the establishment figures in Washington DC who seek to maintain the status quo.

Trump or DeSantis is by far the most likely outcome right now for the Republican nomination. Maybe Haley is hoping they will tear each other apart, but I don’t think it will matter.

It’s hard to say what Nikki Haley’s positioning is here. Is she just trying to take Trump down a notch for the establishment? Is she hoping to play somewhat nice and have Trump pick her as a running mate? Or is she hoping to actually win the nomination and the presidency?

I haven’t been impressed at all with Trump lately. Depending on what happens from now until the election, I may or may not vote for him as the lesser of two evils. I will more likely vote for Dave Smith.

I can absolutely declare that if Trump picks Nikki Haley as his running mate in the VP slot, there is no chance I will vote for that ticket.

Don’t Let Her Looks Fool You

Nikki Haley is an attractive woman. When she speaks, she seems down to earth. She seems like a decent person if you don’t actually pay attention to what she is saying.

The problem is that she is a bloodthirsty war hawk. She would be one of the worst possible people to have as president if you want a peaceful foreign policy.

That is the number one issue that the president has the most control over, and it is the one issue where she is absolutely clear. She is a total interventionist, and she will not hesitate to use the military to carry out her goals.

On other issues, she is mostly bland and predictable. She will occasionally say a few good things about the free market, but you can take it to the bank that her number one obsession is foreign policy, and not in a good way.

Haley wouldn’t be capable of being a fiscal conservative because any spending cut domestically would be put to use to bomb and invade other countries.

The few times I’ve heard her speak since announcing her presidential run, everything she says is fluff. It is mostly platitudes. And the only place where she is clear is that she is a war hawk through and through.

Parts of the establishment and the left will criticize her, but not in the way they criticize Trump. Most of the left is accepting of her foreign policy as long as they don’t have Trump. She would be perfectly acceptable to the establishment as the next president. Even Fox News is being quite generous in their coverage of her.

Why Did She Oppose Trump?

Let’s remember back before 2016 when Trump was running for the Republican nomination. Nikki Haley was a critic of Trump.

She opposed him for similar reasons as many other establishment Republicans opposed Trump. She didn’t like his foreign policy ideas. She thought Trump might actually pursue a more peaceful foreign policy.

But once Trump got the nomination and his popularity showed with the Republicans outside of DC, she cozied up to him. It is much the same way that many others did, such as Lindsey Graham and John Bolton and Mike Pompeo.

Trump stupidly appointed her to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Why did Trump feel like he owed her anything? Could he have not found anyone else to take the job?

Nikki Haley’s presence actually just reminds me of how ineffectual Trump was as president. He stupidly surrounded himself with people who originally opposed him. Why didn’t he surround himself with the people who supported his campaign from the very beginning?

Nikki Haley was never an ally with Trump. She just played the game. And now she is running for president against the man who appointed her to her last major job.

I hope she falls flat on her face. Her foreign policy views should be shunned by every libertarian. She is so bad on foreign policy, it doesn’t even matter what her other views are.

It will be interesting to see how Trump deals with her. We all know that Trump just can’t ignore her. Anyway, I would rather see Trump attacking Nikki Haley than DeSantis at this point.

Trump needs to play his cards right here. He obviously shouldn’t go after her physical appearance in any way. He needs a good nickname for her that spells out the fact that she is a war hawk. She can be “Bloodthirsty Nikki”. Or maybe “Nikki the War Maker”. It would be the truth.

Damar Hamlin of the Buffalo Bills nearly died on the football field after going into cardiac arrest. In fact, it was a good thing it happened on the football field where medical help could almost immediately be administered. If it had happened anywhere else, Hamlin likely wouldn’t have survived.

Hamlin is now speaking on the matter. Well, sort of.

Michael Strahan interviewed Hamlin and asked him the big question, at least for some of us. It would have been tough, even for someone working within the establishment media, to at least not touch on this question.

NEW — Damar Hamlin is Asked What Reason Doctors Gave Him For His Heart Stopping

“Umm, that’s something I want to stay away from” pic.twitter.com/pVUytXblOH

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) February 14, 2023

Strahan said, “You’re 24, peak physical condition. You can run circles around me right now. How did doctors describe what happened to you?”

Hamlin paused. He said, “ummm”, and he paused some more. In a spoken interview, a pause of 10 seconds seems like minutes.

Hamlin then responded, “That’s something I want to stay away from.”

His lack of words seem to convey something, at least to those who have had their eyes open to the dangers of the so-called COVID vaccines.

Fear, Or a Secret Message?

For someone skeptical of the COVID “vaccines”, this doesn’t put that skepticism at ease. It just adds to the thought that the COVID shots may have at least contributed to the near-death experience for Hamlin.

It is hard to believe that this question came as a surprise to Hamlin. Was he not prepared for this question?

Maybe he prepared for it but then had second thoughts on how to answer. Or maybe this was his preparation.

There was a look of fear on Hamlin’s face when pausing from this question. Perhaps there was an inner struggle on how to answer. “Do I save my own future, or do I do the moral and courageous thing?”

In some ways, he tried to take both paths at the same time. He didn’t lie about what he or doctors think happened. He just chose not to answer, but he made it apparent that he was uncomfortable answering.

He collapsed on the football field and essentially had to be brought back to life. It isn’t a secret that he had a cardiac event. What would he want to keep a secret at this point?

The only other thing I could possibly think of is that he had some kind of illegal drugs in his system. But I very highly doubt this is the case. I put it at a 95% chance that Hamlin suspects it was the jabs.

Brought to You by Pfizer

We know how establishment the NFL is. The NFL’s two big sponsors are the military-industrial complex and big pharma. The NFL doesn’t want Hamlin to start speaking about how the shots (that the NFL nearly mandated) caused his near-death experience.

Even if the NFL took a passive position on the subject, why shouldn’t we believe that the FBI would go to the NFL and tell the NFL to do everything they can to censor Hamlin from speaking of the shots? This is exactly what the FBI did with Twitter, so why wouldn’t they do it with the NFL?

Hamlin was probably offered both rewards and subtle threats. “If you know what’s good for you, you’ll keep this quiet. In fact, just for your cooperation, we’ll make sure you’re well taken care of.”

On top of this, just societal pressure alone keeps people quiet. And for some people who do question the safety of the shots, they feel the need to preface it with, “I’m not anti-vaxx.”

So Hamlin doesn’t want to put himself out there. All of a sudden, he would become a major political figure. Most of the establishment media would go from praising him and offering their well wishes to calling him a right-wing conspiracist.

Courage

I think Hamlin’s pause and lack of answer to Strahan’s question was both out of fear and somewhat intentional. It was Hamlin’s way of communicating that he thinks it was the COVID jabs without ruining his own life.

His hesitation and lack of an answer told us what we needed to know.

Sure, I wish Hamlin would just say it out loud for all to hear, but I also understand why he doesn’t. At least he gave us his non-answer instead of lying to us and covering for the powers-that-be.

I have said since COVID hysteria began that standing up isn’t just a matter of common sense and understanding what is happening. It is a matter of courage.

I’ll give Hamlin a 7 out of 10 on the courage scale at this point. If he comes right out and says his heart attack was likely due to the COVID shots, then he can get a 10 out of 10 for courage.

Some of us will have your back, Damar.

The latest Consumer Price Index (CPI) numbers were released this week. The CPI rose 0.5% in January 2023 from the previous month, which was a little higher than expected. The year-over-year CPI now stands at 6.4%.

The more stable median CPI rose 0.7% in January from the previous month, while the year-over-year median CPI stands at 7.1%. This is the highest year-over-year rate in the median CPI that we’ve seen in this era of higher price inflation.

To use the jargon of the financial media and so-called experts, it seems that inflation “remains elevated”, but that it is “cooling” a bit.

The most important point here is that prices continue to go higher. Even if the CPI numbers are slowly coming down from previous months, prices are still rising. They are just rising at a slightly slower pace.

We aren’t ever going back to the prices that existed a few years ago for most goods and services. Houses and stocks, which are the face of the asset bubble, are perhaps the exception.

But the price of eggs isn’t going back to where it was two years ago. It probably isn’t going back to six months ago either.

Even the 0.5% that came in for January is significant. That means that something that cost $100 in December cost 50 cents more in January. Maybe that doesn’t seem like much, but it is a lot when it compounds each month.

Standard of Living

Prices going up at 6% per year is quite significant. If you get a 6% raise at your job (most people aren’t), you will pay more in income and payroll taxes, so you still aren’t even breaking even.

In our world today, the general trend is that you are supposed to be getting better off as time goes on. It may happen slowly, but it compounds over time. Each generation should have a higher standard of living than the last.

We are much better off today in terms of technology. We have smartphones that didn’t exist a generation ago.

Unfortunately, the cost of living for basic necessities hasn’t gotten much better. It may actually be worse, especially when you consider the costs for housing and medical care.

I think it is a secret within middle class America right now that the struggles are real. We can read statistics about jobs, wages, disposable income, and everything else. The bottom line is that it is difficult for many middle-income people to pay their bills. Even for those making a higher-than-average income, times are tighter than they have been in the recent past.

It is tough for people to save money and still be able to afford some luxuries like traveling or eating out.

This isn’t to say that you can’t make it these days on a middle-class income. It’s just that it isn’t so easy. Times are a lot tougher than they need to be. But we have to fund vaccine ads and weapons of war for Ukraine.

When Will Relief Come?

The Federal Reserve has adopted a tight monetary stance over the last year. The balance sheet is slowly declining, and interest rates have gone up from where they were.

The yield curve is still highly inverted, which means a recession is coming if history is any guide.

If we hit a deep recession and the Fed doesn’t respond with creating new money out of thin air, then price inflation really will cool. We may actually see prices stop going up for a while.

Of course, the Fed probably will respond at some point, especially if there are problems with the big banks or the bond market. But the Fed likely won’t go crazy again with its monetary inflation unless price inflation really has cooled down to somewhere around its supposed 2% target.

Middle class America actually needs a recession. It won’t be fun, but it is the only solution for the longer run. The average American is getting hammered with higher prices. Wages aren’t keeping up with the rising prices, which can only mean a decline in living standards.

We need a correction from the malinvestment. We need a reallocation of resources towards things that are actually in market demand.

The problem with the correction/ resource reallocation is that it is disruptive. It can lead to unemployment. It is a hard time, but it is a consequence of previous bad policy of monetary inflation and government spending.

If the Fed is forced to keep a relatively tight policy, it might actually force Congress to reduce spending, or at least stop increasing it so much. It doesn’t seem like there is anything stopping the federal government from spending like crazy. But even here, there are limits.

The Fed had it easy for the first 20 years or so of this century. The Fed created new money like crazy from 2008 to 2014, but there were no direct consequences in the form of high consumer price inflation (comparatively speaking). Now the Fed has to deal with higher price inflation and interest rates that are now way above zero.

The American people need a period of tight money and reduced government spending and intervention. Only then will we see a return to real prosperity that is sustainable.

Ridicule is a powerful weapon if used correctly. We underestimate the influence of peer pressure in our world. And almost nobody likes to be ridiculed and suffer public humiliation.

The story of the emperor not wearing clothes is a good example of where arguing is pointless. The little boy doesn’t start explaining to people the merits of wearing clothes. He just points out the obvious, that the emperor has no clothes.

This came to mind when the evil Joe Biden gave his State of the Union address.

I confess I didn’t watch the speech, but I did see some highlights. Apparently some Republicans were heckling Biden and not exactly being polite. Of course, the conduct at the State of the Union speeches has deteriorated in more recent years. Remember Nancy Pelosi tore up Trump’s speech while sitting behind him.

I can see libertarians arguing either way on this one. I’m not sure that being rude is an effective way to sell your message or to shut down someone else. At the same time, I realize that the office of the presidency shouldn’t get the respect it does (or did in the past).

There was one particular moment in the speech that I liked though. Joe Biden was talking about the oil companies. He said, “When I talk to a couple of them, they say we’re afraid you’re going to shut down all the oil wells and all the oil refineries anyway. So why should we invest in them. I say we’re going to need oil for at least another decade.”

That’s when many Republicans attending the speech started laughing. Biden then said, “and beyond that”. It is actually amazing that his speech writers were that stupid to write that part of the speech. I’m guessing Biden added the last part when people started laughing at him.

I thought it was a great moment. There was no more powerful expression at that time than laughter. Biden expects oil companies to invest tens of millions of dollars in new refineries when he is threatening to shut them down.

And even if they were allowed to continue uninterrrupted for the next 10 years, that isn’t very long when you are talking about such capital-intensive projects. The laughter just pointed out the absurdity of it all, in case anyone missed it.

A Libertarian Lesson

Sometimes libertarians just want to debate or argue. This is not typically effective in winning people over. It isn’t even that effective for an audience watching a debate.

Imagine you see someone outside wearing a mask and the person starts talking to you and wondering why you aren’t wearing a mask. And for this example, it doesn’t even matter if you know the person or not.

You want to stand your ground and convince this person that wearing a mask, especially outside in the sun, is stupid and ineffective at best.

So you have two options. One, you can start talking about some studies you’ve read on the effectiveness of masking and how many experts actually believe that masks don’t help in stopping the spread of a virus.

Two, you can just start laughing at the person. “You are wearing a mask outside in the sun. Do you know how ridiculous you look? Yeah, I’m sure everyone outside today not wearing a mask will be showing up in the hospital in a matter of days. Ha ha.”

Imagine having a group of ten people playing basketball and some guy in a mask shows up to play. Talking about studies on the ineffectiveness of masking probably isn’t going to convince the guy to take it off.

You know what will convince him? When the guys start making comments ridiculing him for it. “Hey mask man, are you going to be able to play defense, or are you afraid to get too close to anyone? Or are you just covering up your ugly face?”

I really prefer not to be rude in almost any situation, but I don’t feel bad about being rude to people who are trying to use force to ruin other people’s lives.

So if anyone can mock Biden, I am all for it. But it should be done in a way that sells to other people. The laughter at that one comment at that one moment in his speech was extremely effective. It was better than anything anyone could have said to counter argue the issue.

We need facts, history, and logical arguments to form a good basis for our libertarian principles. Sometimes for your Facebook friends, a funny meme is far more effective than any other argument you could put together.

I have been reading some of Caitlin Johnstone’s articles reprinted on LewRockwell.com. Johnstone comes from the political left, but she is very good on issues of war and civil liberties. She is incredible at poking through the establishment’s false narratives and propaganda.

When you read her material, you have to deal with the occasional throwaway line criticizing capitalism or hyping up so-called climate change.

Overall, I like her writing, and I think most libertarians will enjoy her writing. She focuses on the areas where she tends to be really good. She goes against Murray Rothbard’s dictum that most people tend to specialize in the areas where they are the worst.

There is one interesting thing I caught in her byline. Johnstone writes, “Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.”

When it comes to articles, I generally think it is good when authors grant permission to republish material. This is especially true when you are trying to spread the truth. If you want to get your message out, why not let people assist in spreading your message?

The interesting part is where she excludes “racist platforms”. I don’t really know her definition of racist, so I guess it is up to each person or organization to decide for themselves.

The Definition of Racist

Racism is the belief that one race is superior over another. A racist is one who advocates such beliefs.

There are other definitions of racism that could be used, but in today’s world, it is almost anything goes.

Some people define a racist as anyone who is white.

Some people would call others racist because they don’t believe in affirmative action. They might call someone racist because they don’t want open immigration. There are even some who would call others racist because they don’t support Obamacare.

So you can see where this becomes a bit of a problem. Racist almost doesn’t mean anything anymore because it is used so loosely. If you just happen to disagree with anyone on any issue, you might be a racist.

Why Exclude Racists?

Still, for the sake of argument here, let’s say that it was easier to identify and label people as racists. Why does Caitlin Johnstone only want to exclude racists from republishing her works?

Johnstone spends much of her time writing about blood-thirsty war hawks who have little regard for innocent human life. Are these people allowed to republish her work?

Maybe the thought is that someone with a pro war platform won’t republish her work. Or if they do, even if it is to criticize her, they are putting her work out there for the readers of the platform. So maybe some pro war person reading the site will read Johnstone’s work and start to rethink some of his positions.

But then couldn’t the same thing be said about a racist platform? If someone spouting off racist things republishes Johnstone’s work, maybe someone who is kind of racist who is reading the site will see her words and start to rethink his worldview.

Or maybe some racists will continue to be racist but oppose war after seeing one of her articles.

So if she wants to spread her message, wouldn’t it be better to allow anyone to republish her work, including racists?

Who is Worse?

If Johnstone simply doesn’t want bad people republishing her work, then why is she just mentioning racists? What about murderers? And what about the people who promote the wars that she correctly opposes?

In today’s world of cancel culture, I have heard people point out that you would be better off committing a crime than saying something politically incorrect.

You can commit a crime and serve your time and somehow get yourself back into society. If you say something politically incorrect and you don’t already have a large audience who doesn’t care, then it seems that you may pay the price forever.

For some, it is easier to serve jail time and recover than to say something politically incorrect that the “woke mob” doesn’t like.

Is Johnstone just trying to be politically correct (in this one instance) by mentioning racists? I’m hoping she just hasn’t thought it through.

Someone who is racist doesn’t necessarily advocate violence. You can have a racist who simply doesn’t want to be around someone of another race or around a group of people with a particular characteristic.

Does Johnstone consider being a racist the worst possible thing? She has been writing frequently lately about the risk of nuclear war with Russia and how irresponsible these people are who casually inflame tensions with Russia.

Is it worse to be a racist than someone who is promoting nuclear war and a possible end to the human race? I think the question answers itself.

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) released its latest statement on monetary policy. As was widely expected, the Federal Reserve is hiking its target range for the federal funds rate by 25 basis points (0.25%).

This was exactly what the financial media and investors were expecting. The only questions that really remained were the words to be spoken by Jerome Powell and any changes in expectations for future rate hikes.

There were slight changes from the previous statement. For example, in the previous statement, it said, “In determining the pace of future increases in the target range…”. In the latest statement, it says, “In determining the extent of future increases in the target range…”.

So the word “pace” was replaced with the word “extent”. This one word difference implies that instead of worrying about how much rates will increase each meeting, it is more a question of how long the rate increases keep happening.

This was a slightly “dovish” sign from the Fed, and investors seemed to like the signal that maybe the Fed won’t be quite as tight in the future. Stocks were mostly up, and gold also went higher for the day.

The Implementation Note with the statement was as expected. The amount paid on bank reserves went up (this is how the Fed controls its target rate now), and the roll off of assets will continue at a pace of $95 billion per month.

The Fed’s rate is now above most of the yield curve, which is the first in a long while. But real (inflation-adjusted) rates are still incredibly low. They just aren’t negative any longer.

Powell’s speech seemed rather conventional as usual. He said that it would be premature to declare a victory over inflation and that there could still be more rate hikes ahead to bring down inflation. Of course, the price inflation being referenced was caused by the Fed’s reckless monetary policy in the first place.

Does the Fed Ever Deviate from Expectations?

One thing I’ve noticed is that the Fed always falls in line with market expectations. But it’s not like these market expectations are coming from the Fed.

It’s not like the Fed announces what it is likely to do at the next meeting. Powell doesn’t say, “Expect another 25 basis point hike at the next meeting.” That never happens.

So it is the financial media and the “expert” economists who seem to set the expectations. They interpret words the way they want, and then say that we should expect this or that at the next meeting.

I can’t remember ever when the Fed has surprised everyone and done something drastically different that what “the market expected”.

There may have been times where there was some debate within the financial media. “Will the Fed hike 50 points or 75 points?” So maybe it isn’t always known precisely what will happen. But going into this latest meeting, it was quite clear that we would see a 25 basis point hike in line with market expectations.

It makes you wonder if the Fed is actually making any decisions other than making up the wording for its justifications to meet market expectations.

It’s kind of like how the president doesn’t really make many decisions. I’m not just talking about the current zombie who is told what to do and say. I mean that every president seems to be handed an agenda, and they have to work within the limits of what is allowed. Perhaps this is why Trump was so hated by the establishment. He occasionally went off script and said his own thing.

Is the establishment blob dictating monetary policy too? It isn’t any one person. It is just the establishment, which admittedly is hard to define. It is made up of those who have power and have an interest in maintaining the status quo to the greatest degree possible to enable wealth and power to continue to flow to them.

I really don’t think Jerome Powell is making any big decisions. He is following the lead of “market expectations”, which is really the financial establishment. Powell just has to make sure he does a good job of communicating his “actions”.

Economic Outlook

The powers-that-be really are worried about price inflation and a declining dollar. They realize that they still want the dollar to be king of the world in terms of currencies. So they are willing to risk a deep recession to make sure that the dollar reigns supreme.

The yield curve is still highly inverted. Short-term rates are generally higher than long-term rates. This is a signal of a hard recession coming.

In the face of this, the Fed continues to hike rates and slowly drain its balance sheet. We are going to get a recession good and hard.

The Fed will not reverse course until price inflation is way down or until the bond market or major financial institutions need bailing out. They will let a deep recession happen. They will allow stocks to fall a lot more than they already have.

The totalitarian United States of America, under the evil and pathetic Joe Biden, still won’t allow foreigners to enter the country if they have not been jabbed with a COVID “vaccine”.

Novak Djokovic has lost many millions of dollars due to this policy. He has not been allowed to enter the U.S. due to his non-vaccinated status, which means he can’t play in tennis tournaments in the U.S.

While it has cost him a lot of money, that probably isn’t what matters most in terms of missing tournaments. Djokovic is trying to win the most number of major tournaments ever for a man. He wasn’t allowed to play in the Australian Open or the U.S. Open last year, and if U.S. policy stays the same, he won’t be able to play at the U.S. Open this year.

Djokovic was allowed to play in the 2023 Australian Open, and he handily won the tournament on the men’s side. He is now tied with the vaccine enthusiast, Rafael Nadal, who was able to win last year when Djokovic wasn’t there.

Defying the Rulers

It was a bit entertaining watching Djokovic win the Australian Open and then watching the so-called media have to deal with it.

John McEnroe, to his credit, addressed the situation and said that he should have been permitted to play, while his fellow commentator Chris Fowler said that Djokovic “made choices” that led to this situation.

Yeah, he had a choice to obey the state and the ruling elite and inject something into his body that he assessed as potentially harmful. He chose not to obey the totalitarians.

Djokovic hasn’t always been likable for some, and he has lost his temper in the past on the tennis court. But it is easy to imagine that every tennis fan (and many people who don’t follow tennis) who were criticized for not being vaccinated feel good about this one.

A Victory for Djokovic and the Non-Vaccinated

After his win, Djokovic didn’t directly talk about the COVID “vaccines”. He didn’t need to. He hasn’t been going around telling people not to get vaccinated. He wanted the freedom to choose. He wanted to make his own health decisions. He was deported from Australia last year before the tournament, even though he thought he had received the proper permission to enter the country and play.

One year later, he stood on Australian soil and was declared the champion. He was incredibly thankful and gracious. He acknowledged that he had been through a lot. His words were perfect. He didn’t need to preach about the unsafe and ineffective shots. His words and actions spoke for themselves, and people understood his position. He took a stand and stuck to it.

This was one more thing that will continue to help shatter the narrative. How incredibly embarrassing will it be for Biden and company if he is not allowed in the U.S. later this year to play when just about everyone has moved on from COVID and COVID hysteria?

Despite not being able to play in many tournaments in 2022, I hope that Djokovic gets his record for the most major wins. He can do it with his head held high, knowing he didn’t sell out. He stood strong against the critics, and we need more of that.

Although I was heavily influenced by Harry Browne in terms of political thought and investing, I also read his book How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World. You could call it a self-help book. It pointed out the many traps that people put themselves in and the ways to escape them.

I enjoyed the book when I read it (probably almost 2 decades ago), and it was interesting to see where he changed his views on certain things from when he first wrote the book. Overall, the book points out the many choices we have to make in life, and sometimes that is a choice of not falling into conventional wisdom or accepting cultural norms.

I remember in his discussion of going around government interventions, he was surprised decades later how intrusive government had become and how difficult it was to get around many government taxes and regulations.

It is important to not box ourselves in. It is important to not fall into false choices, or to think we have no choice at all in certain matters. Sometimes it is a matter of choosing the least bad option.

Over the last year, I have seen countless times people describe how they were forced into getting the COVID “vaccine”. There certainly were (and still are) elements of government force. The government was telling employers that they had to have their employees vaccinated. They were (and still are) restricting certain people from traveling.

There was never a time that the government actually went to anybody’s house (that I know of) and pinned them down and put a needle in their arm. Sure, the government was using its preferred method of violence in threatening people, but nobody was technically forced to get jabbed.

Even Elon Musk recently was complaining about the COVID shots, and he said that he had to take the injections because of his business dealings overseas. But the guy is a billionaire. He didn’t have to get jabbed. He could have not visited his Tesla factory overseas. He had a number of options, even if none of them were particularly good.

If someone had to choose between their job and getting jabbed, it was a terribly unfortunate choice, and it was probably directly put on the person by government force. Again, it’s a bad choice that shouldn’t have to be made, but it is still a choice.

Harry Browne on Rights

I remember a radio show Harry Browne did one time where a caller asked him about his thoughts on rights. I wish I could find the clip. It was a quite interesting response. I can only paraphrase based on my memory.

Browne said he certainly sympathized with those who argue based on rights. Those people are generally fighting for the same thing, which is liberty. “I have the right to own a gun. I have the right to free speech. I have the right to my property.”

The problem is that rights only extend as far as others are willing to recognize them. Browne used an example. Maybe it was Iraq or some other war-torn country at the time. He said that it doesn’t do much good for some kid born in Iraq (or wherever) to say that he has natural rights.

You can tell someone they have natural or God-given rights, but it really does them no good if others around them don’t recognize those rights. It won’t get you very far.

I can say I have the right to my property, but if I deliberately don’t pay my taxes, I am likely to go to jail.

I can say that I have a right to freely associate with any other person or business, but it doesn’t do me much good if the state is making threats against others with whom I want to associate. At the very least, it severely limits my choices.

Imagine living in primitive times. Imagine that there was absolutely no respect for people’s lives or their property. I’m sure this is a false assumption, as there has always been human cooperation to some degree since humans have existed, but just go with me here.

Let’s say you build a shelter and catch some food. Some other guy comes along and tries to take your food and take over your shelter. Are you going to sit there and declare that you have a right to your property? It doesn’t do you much good.

Meaningless Freedom Chants

I read this or hear this from many people in the liberty camp. I hear that you just have to choose your own freedom. They falsely say that if you ignore the state, then the state doesn’t exist.

This is different from Harry’s Browne’s message in his book and elsewhere. Browne wanted you to live in reality. He just pointed out that you had choices. You had the freedom to make your own decisions, even if those decisions were bad because of state interference.

It is also different from Étienne de La Boétie, who, many hundreds of years ago, wrote about withdrawing consent. He said that if people withdraw their consent, then the state’s power collapses. But this was collectively speaking. If you, just one person, withdraw your consent, it doesn’t mean that the state collapses and Joe Biden’s proclamations no longer mean anything.

It is rather stupid to say that you just have to not obey the state and they will go away. This may be collectively true, but it does no good for any one individual.

You can try to just ignore the state, but you will pay a heavy price. Eventually, that price will be your entire livelihood.

It is also a stupid message in trying to sell liberty because it is obvious to most people. It doesn’t convince any non-libertarians of being more libertarian because they know that it is not true. They cannot just ignore all state edicts. They can’t just not obey when they feel like it.

It is beneficial to point out the use of state violence wherever it is happening (which is almost everywhere). But to say that you should just ignore it and choose your own freedom is naive at best. It is also hypocritical because anyone writing these words does not follow their own advice. If they did, they would be dead or in jail.

Conclusion

It is important to distinguish between have choices and having liberty. You can have your liberty restricted but still have choices.

In places like the Soviet Union, some people did make the choice to die because it seemed like the least bad choice. It is a choice to die instead of living as a slave.

But let’s be clear that your rights only go as far as those around you are willing to recognize. If nobody around you values liberty, then you will not have liberty.

The only way for us to have long-term liberty is to convince those around us that it is the moral thing to do, and that human cooperation provides for the greatest prosperity and happiness. Most people aren’t going to enjoy a world filled with violence or violent threats. Most people value liberty at least to some extent.

2022 was not a good year for stock investors, or at least for long-term, buy-and-hold investors.

If you are a day trader, you can make money or lose money in virtually any environment. If you trade individual stocks, there is always money to be made (or lost). And you always have the option of shorting stocks as well.

But for the typical buy-and-hold investor who purchases broad-based index funds on the assumption that the stock market always goes up in the long run, 2022 was not a good year.

The technology sector was the hardest hit. The Nasdaq lost about 33% in 2022, which is a massive loss.

Not to get too nerdy with math here, but it is important to realize that you don’t need a 33% gain to offset the 33% loss. You need a 50% gain from here. If you go from 100 to 66.66 (33% loss), you need an approximate gain of 33.33 to go back to 100, which would be a 50% gain from your new base.

Since the Nasdaq was down so much in 2022, some people say it is a great time to buy. After all, it is better to buy when stocks are down.

It is true that it is a great time to buy in early 2023 compared to what it was in early 2022. You get far more shares of stock or index funds for the same price. But just because it is a great time to buy now relative to a year ago, it doesn’t mean it is a great time to buy if stocks could fall more.

The Previous Tech Bubble

History does not repeat, but it can rhyme. So let’s review the tech bubble that happened in the late 1990s and came crashing down in the early 2000s. It’s not to say that today’s market will follow this, but only to show what is possible.

Wikipedia shows the Nasdaq’s performance from 2000 to 2002.

• In 2000, the Nasdaq lost 39.28% of its value (4,069.31 to 2,470.52).
• In 2001, the Nasdaq lost 21.05% of its value (2,470.52 to 1,950.40).
• In 2002, the Nasdaq lost 31.53% of its value (1,950.40 to 1,335.51).

This means, if we were to follow a similar trajectory today, we would be somewhere around the end of 2000, with 2 years of losses still to come.

It is even worse than this if you look at the absolute peak of the Nasdaq, which very briefly went over the 5,000 mark in March 2000.

It is also interesting to note that the recession of 2001 was not considered a severe recession. The financial crisis of 2008/ 2009 is considered to be much worse. After the attacks on 9/11/2001, the Fed injected new money out of thin air, yet stocks continued to fall for another year after that.

Today, we have a highly inverted yield curve, and the Fed is battling the inflation that it created by raising its target interest rate and slowly draining its balance sheet. The recession we have coming will likely be far more severe than what happened in 2001.

The Fed Won’t Save the Stock Market

Some people think the Fed will just reverse course when needed. This may be true. But the Fed will reverse course if there is a major problem in the bond market or if any major financial institutions are facing bankruptcy.

The Fed isn’t going to intervene to save the stock market. The Fed will save the dollar before saving the stock market.

Plus, as written above, the return to a loose monetary policy in 2001 did not stop stocks from falling. They kept going down for another year after 9/11.

So if you think the bear market in stocks is over and it is a good time to buy at these new lows, you may want to think again. We may be only at the beginning of a major bear market in stocks.

Consider that the Nasdaq is still about 11,000 right now. It hit 10,000 in 2020 when we were likely already in a massive bubble. The Nasdaq bubble in the year 2000 hit the peak just above 5,000. We are more than double that number now. Of course, the money supply has gone up a lot since then, but it puts it in perspective.

People who have mapped out their retirement on the basis of buy-and-hold index funds, with the assumption of 8% or more annual returns, are going to be in for a rude awakening if that hasn’t happened already. In addition, they have to deal with higher consumer price inflation than was expected.