I suffered through another debate.  I was thinking about skipping this one, but the presence of Tulsi Gabbard, along with the recent Biden/ Trump/ Ukraine saga, was enough to get me to tune in.

I will go through the 12 different candidates with a little bit of commentary.

Tom Steyer

He was new to the scene, and he immediately fell flat.  He started out saying how much better all of the people on the stage are than Donald Trump.  He waited for applause and got just a little after an uncomfortable pause.  I thought he was going to pull a Jeb Bush and say something to the effect of, “It’s ok to applaud now.”

Steyer is going nowhere.

Kamala Harris

She is still an authoritarian.  She is still unlikeable.  Luckily, I think others are not finding her likeable either.  I don’t think she will gain more traction, and I really hope that I’m right.  Her main platform at this point seems to be that Twitter should be forced to ban Donald Trump’s account.

Pete Buttigieg

Mayor Pete, as they call him, is certainly more likeable than many of the other candidates. I am not counting him out yet. If Joe Biden goes down quickly, I think someone will fill the void.  It won’t just be a runaway for Elizabeth Warren.  Buttigieg still has a chance at the nomination.  He doesn’t seem as scary as some of the others, but maybe we should fear him more because of the fact that he can be likeable.

Cory Booker

Cory Booker just seems mediocre in everything.  Even if you are a hardcore Democrat, I don’t see how Booker stands out or really excites anyone.  We would have to see 4 or 5 of the other candidates implode for Booker to have any significant chance.

Andrew Yang

Andrew Yang is likeable.  He is different. I don’t think the establishment really wants him because he is a little too forward with his welfare.  He is not engaging in the trickle-down (from government) theory.  He wants to give everyone cash directly.  He doesn’t understand the Democratic playbook of funding bloated bureaucracies.

Because he is likeable and little bit different, I don’t fully discount Yang’s chances.  I doubt the Democratic establishment will allow him the nomination, but he may be around in this race for a while.  I disagree with most of what he says, but at least he is mildly interesting.

Joe Biden (and CNN)

Anderson Cooper, when asking Joe Biden about impeachment, said that Trump made false allegations against Joe and Hunter Biden.  I guess CNN doesn’t even try to give any appearance of objectivity any longer.

I wonder why Anderson Cooper didn’t ask Joe Biden about the video of Joe Biden bragging about threatening to withhold money to Ukraine unless a prosecutor (who was investigating the company that employed Hunter Biden) was fired.

In spite of the existence of the internet, my guess is that way more than half of voting Americans have not seen the video of Biden bragging about what he did, which is an explicit version of what Trump is being accused of doing.

I think the impeachment proceedings against Trump are ultimately going to take down Joe Biden if Biden doesn’t do it to himself first.

Julian Castro

Castro is just annoying.  I don’t think he has any significant chance of getting the nomination.  He is horrible on virtually every issue, and have I mentioned that he is annoying?

Beto O’Rourke

Luckily for Castro, he isn’t the most annoying candidate on the stage.  Beto is so incredibly annoying and obnoxious; I don’t understand how he almost beat Ted Cruz in Texas in the senate race.  This guy can’t drop out of the race soon enough for me.

Bernie Sanders

Sanders may have just had a heart attack, but he is still high strung.  He is also still a socialist wanna-be.  He goes on and on about going after the wealthy. He should really say “high-income earners”.  It is Elizabeth Warren who more often talks about an actual wealth tax.

Bernie focuses all of his energy on expanding the welfare state.  He does not focus on foreign policy, which is a place where some money (and lives) could actually be saved.  He opposed Trump on withdrawing troops from Syria recently. He campaigned in 2016 for the bloodthirsty Hillary.

Bernie said that Trump’s withdrawal of troops in Syria sends a message to others to not trust the president.  He was basically saying that the Kurds or any other group will never trust the U.S. as an ally again in engaging in war.  But isn’t that what someone should want if they are anti war?  Sanders’ position on this issue is despicable. He is just trying to score political points against Trump.  Sanders is an interventionist to the bone, and it isn’t just domestically.

If Bernie becomes president, I don’t think foreign policy will change.  He will be taken over by the establishment quickly.  He will also be put in his place in regards to the welfare state.  He will probably get a slightly higher tax rate on high-income earners. Maybe he will get some more spending if the conditions permit.  But overall, a Sanders administration will bring the status quo for the most part, and the leftists who support him are delusional if they think otherwise.

I think Bernie is done.  When I saw him on Joe Rogan’s podcast a while back, I thought he had a good chance because of the positive comments I saw on YouTube in favor of Sanders.  But I have since changed my mind.  I think his heart attack is a major setback. People were already questioning his age.

He may stay in the top 3 for a while, but the Democratic establishment runs away from the far leftists when it comes to a presidential nominee.  I don’t think Sanders will be the nominee.

Amy Klobuchar

She is trying to play the role of moderate, which would make her a disaster when it comes to foreign policy.  She is hoping for the downfall of Biden.  Her only hope is to take some of the Biden supporters when they finally realize they must abandon him.

She may end up getting the support of the Democratic establishment.  She would certainly be acceptable to them.  If Biden goes down quickly and she picks up a sizeable percentage of his current supporters, then she may be around for a while.

The only problem (for her) is that she doesn’t exude a lot of confidence.  During the debate, it sounded like she was going to cry.

Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren is still Elizabeth Warren.  She is still Pocahontas, or will be if she is up on the stage with Trump. She has a plan for everything, so I don’t know what her plan will be when Trump is up on a debate stage with her calling her Pocahontas.

She has so many plans, I am not so sure that we should fear her too much.  She will be an establishment shill if she becomes president.  She certainly won’t be good for liberty, but I don’t think most of her crazy ideas will be implemented.

She is the frontrunner at this point, especially with Biden having been damaged.  But it is far from being a done deal.  She will be accepted by the establishment, so that is in her favor.  I still think her phoniness will present a problem for her.

Tulsi Gabbard

And then there’s Tulsi.  I am glad she didn’t go through with her threat of boycotting the debate.  Tulsi is likeable and unique.  She has a unique name.  She is from Hawaii.

I think she should stress foreign policy even more than she does.  With that said, when she was asked about Syria, I thought she was great.  She called out the New York Times and CNN, the debate sponsors, for smearing her.  She blamed the media and both parties for the war in Syria.

Her exchange with Mayor Pete was good.  I think she should have pointed out that the chaos in Syria happened because of the U.S. intervention in the first place.  Aside from that, I thought she was strong and showed confidence in that exchange.

She wasn’t all that good when responding to the question of age.  She criticized Trump on Syria, which I think would only confuse people with her previous message of supporting a withdrawal.

I believe that Tulsi needs to be less afraid of going against the grain, which seems funny to say because she is already the most unique candidate of the Democrats. She should not be afraid to praise Trump when he does something that deserves praise.  She should not be afraid to go against the leftist talking points.  She should focus on getting independents, libertarians, and even conservatives on her side. It’s not that these people need to like everything about her, but she needs enthusiasm.

I hope she stays in the race and in the debates.  She is a lone voice of a peaceful foreign policy.  I don’t think she is as good as Ron Paul on foreign policy, but she’s close.  She needs to gain the enthusiasm that Ron Paul gained in 2007/ 2008 and 2011/ 2012.

She recently did an interview with John Stossel.  It was a good discussion.  Stossel challenged her on some things.  For example, since she favors marijuana legalization, he asked why she didn’t favor the same thing for harder drugs.  Even when I disagreed with her, she came across as likeable.  She needs to make more appearances on the libertarian circuit, including podcasts.

I don’t think Tulsi stands a chance to get the nomination because the establishment is so against her.  Trump somehow got through, but I think it’s even harder in the Democratic Party.  I appreciate her voice though.  I wish Trump had made her Secretary of State instead of Mike Pompeo.  We – the anti interventionists in foreign policy – need to unite against the establishment.

Let’s hope we see Tulsi in the next debate so that Americans can hear a pro peace message.  We sure aren’t hearing it from the other candidates.

“Trump’s move will not put an end to endless wars.  What it *will* do is reward Russia, Iran, and ISIS.”

~Ilhan Omar on Trump’s plan to start troop withdrawal from northern Syria

On the occasion that Obama did something good in terms of liberty, I could compliment the move while still opposing all of the horrible things that Obama did.

There were wars and coups started by the Obama administration, or assisted in some manner, in various countries such as Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Ukraine.  But when he loosened sanctions against Cuba, I acknowledged that it was a move in the right direction.  When he signed the JCPOA to ease sanctions against Iran, I praised the move.  It may not have been the perfect agreement, and he really should have just dropped all sanctions without any agreement at all, but overall I praised the action as moving towards peace.

I didn’t like Obama then, and I don’t like him now.  I think he is a fraud.  I think he sold out to the military-industrial complex and the spy state.  He broke the few promises from his original campaign that were actually good.  But I don’t have Obama Derangement Syndrome.  I am capable of not liking him while still acknowledging when he did something positive for peace, even though most of his policies were against peace.

This brings us to the so-called progressive left.  They have Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) for the most part.  No matter what Trump says or does, they will flip out about it and heavily criticize him.  The high-profile leftists in Washington DC may or may not have TDS, but they prey on those who do.

So if it comes to choosing to help end war or to score political points against Trump, they will generally choose the latter.  Maybe this is what their constituents prefer, but it is still telling nonetheless.

This tells us that these politicians aren’t really concerned about protecting innocent lives. If they do care, it is secondary to scoring political points.  You may think it makes no difference, but it makes a huge difference.  If the far left were to fully support Trump on his foreign policy when he occasionally does or says the right thing, then we would have a much better chance of gaining peace.  Instead, the only support Trump gets for a peaceful foreign policy is from libertarians and a fraction of his base.  There are a few leftists who will praise Trump when he does the right thing, but it is a tiny fraction of the left.

Bernie and the Hypocrites

Ilhan Omar is one of the women in Congress who has gained national attention for her leftist politics.  I think she occasionally gets things right on foreign policy.  She was accused of being anti-Semitic when she implied that American politicians are being bought out by Israelis.  I don’t know if she is anti-Semitic, but her statements in this regard are obviously true and not hostile to Jews in general.  Is it really any different than saying American politicians are bought out by pharmaceutical companies or defense contractors?

So it is disappointing when she gets on board the anti-Trump train to criticize his foreign policy when he is actually seemingly doing (or trying to do) something right.

On Twitter, Omar said, “Trump’s move will not put an end to endless wars.  What it *will* do is reward Russia, Iran, and ISIS.  He’s not leading us toward peace.  He’s showing the world that his political interests are more important than reliable leadership and keeping our commitments to our allies.”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), another darling of the left, also tends to be decent on foreign policy issues on the occasion that she isn’t promoting her welfare/ socialist polices on domestic issues. But again, she has to criticize Trump, no matter what.

AOC said on Twitter, “Trump’s sudden withdrawal from northern Syria & endorsement of Turkey’s actions could have catastrophic consequences & risks laying the ground for immense violence and suffering.  We can pursue a strategy to stop our endless wars without endangering the lives of innocent people.”

Actually, whenever any proposal is made to scale back a war or reduce the presence of troops, the war hawks themselves will claim that it will endanger lives and cause more violence.  In other words, there is never a right time for troop withdrawal according to the war hawks.  It is hard to differentiate what AOC says as compared to any shill for the establishment.

Bernie Sanders said on Twitter, “I have long believed the U.S. must responsibly end our military interventions in the Middle East.  But Trump’s abrupt announcement to withdraw from northern Syria and endorse Turkey’s incursion is extremely irresponsible.  It is likely to result in more suffering and instability.”

Again, saying we must do it “responsibly” is no different than any typical war hawk.  There will never be a “responsible” time to do it in their eyes.

And Trump has to be “abrupt” in his announcement because otherwise the opposition will have time to build up against him.  If he has any chance of a troop withdrawal, it almost has to be done abruptly.

This isn’t to say that Trump said everything right in regards to withdrawing troops from northern Syria.  I certainly wouldn’t have chosen all of the same words as Trump, but his intended actions seem to be on the right track in reducing U.S. government interventionism overseas.

This also isn’t to say that Trump will follow through on what he said, just as his previous announcement of withdrawal from Syria didn’t happen.  But a major part of the reason it doesn’t happen is because there is so much backlash against him when he makes such an announcement.  If the left were to align with Trump when he actually does something that they would typically see as correct, then we would have a much better chance of seeing a reduction in interventionism overseas.

This is why I don’t trust Bernie Sanders at all when it comes to foreign policy.  He barely puts any emphasis on foreign policy because he is too busy talking about vastly increasing the welfare state at home.  And we must always remember that Bernie campaigned for the bloodthirsty war hawk that is Hillary Clinton in 2016, even after her campaign and the DNC rigged the primaries against him.

If Bernie became president, his foreign policy would almost immediately be taken over by the establishment.  There is little doubt about this.

You should never trust a socialist/ statist, even when it comes to foreign policy.  If they think violence is the solution on the domestic front, then they can find reasons to excuse violence when it comes to foreign affairs.

Libertarians (and I mean true libertarians who oppose initiated violence) are the only ones who can be trusted to consistently oppose wars and foreign interventions.

The good news is that in reading the comments to these leftist Twitter rants against Trump, there is recognition of the hypocrisy. If Bernie Sanders, AOC, and Ilhan Omar will not support a troop withdrawal in northern Syria, then they should be recognized as the hypocrites that they are.

There are, unfortunately, some people who are stuck in poverty who will always be stuck in poverty.  There are whole societies that are stuck in a poverty mindset.  They tend not to respect property rights.  They look down on entrepreneurship.

In the United States, for all of the problems, there is still a spirit of entrepreneurship. There is a respect for property rights up to a certain degree.  This is obviously not absolute or we would be living in a libertarian society. But Americans have a stronger respect for property rights as compared to many other people around the world.

Within the U.S., there are still people stuck in a poverty mindset.  This is especially unfortunate because these people are essentially enslaving themselves.

I am quite sympathetic to the plight of the American middle class and the lower class.  I hate the term “working class” because it implies that rich people don’t work.

I wish other libertarians were more sympathetic as well.  If libertarians would emphasize the struggles of the American middle class in particular, I think our platform would get more attention.

I know that there are many millions of people who work hard out there and are still struggling to get by.  Most aren’t struggling in the sense of putting food on the table.  Many of these struggling people have cell phones and televisions. But it is unfortunate that they work so hard but can’t manage to get out of the grind of living paycheck to paycheck with little in the way of savings.

If we didn’t have a central bank creating money out of thin air and manipulating interest rates, and if we didn’t have a government that took almost half of our income and that imposes thousands of regulations, then we would be far wealthier.  Someone could work a middle class job for 40 hours a week and meet their obligations and have plenty of money left over for savings.

Even though I think the government makes life extremely hard for us, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t seek to better ourselves.  It makes me sad when I see people who have basically given up all hope. They have a poverty mindset, and it will stay that way forever.  Their only hope in life may be buying a lottery ticket.

Even here, we know the stories about lottery winners.  If you have a poverty mindset and win the lottery, it will probably just make you even worse off in the long run.  You won’t know how to handle the money.  You will spend it on material goods instead of setting up a secure and permanent cash flow.

Getting Ahead

There is a commonly repeated phrase that it takes money to make money.  There is certainly some element of truth to this, but I also think it is overplayed.  There are plenty of people who have made it big while starting with very little.  There are plenty of rags to riches stories.

I think to get out of a poverty mindset, it is important just to get ahead a little bit and to stay ahead.  You need a cushion. If you have a cushion, this will make the difference of many thousands of dollars over the years.  It may make the difference of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars over a lifetime.

The most obvious example of this is in regards to debt.  When you owe debt, you are typically paying interest on the debt.  This is a cost.

It isn’t so bad if you have a mortgage on a house that you can reasonably afford.  Shelter is a basic human need.  If you buy something with a mortgage instead of renting, then the interest you pay may be worth it over the long run.  Still, for somebody who is on the cusp of poverty, I would recommend renting at least until getting that cushion built up (and some).

Think about other debt such as credit card debt.  If you don’t pay off your balance in full each month, you are paying interest on that debt in most cases.  It is hard to recover from this.  You are essentially throwing money away in most circumstances.  You need to pay off this debt so that you are at least starting from zero and not negative.

It is even worse if you look at people getting a payday loan or something equivalent.  These are high interest loans.  People taking these loans are generally not in a good situation.  The cycle tends to be continuous too.  At some point, they are taking out a payday loan because they don’t have money from paying back the previous one a couple of weeks earlier.

For someone in this situation, they could find extra work for just a couple of weeks.  Or they could cut down to the bare minimum for a couple of weeks.  They could drink water and eat for 4 dollars per day if they absolutely had to.  If they would just do this for a couple of weeks, they may be able to break the bad cycle.

This would be the same for someone with no money who is living paycheck to paycheck.  Take one month and try to live way below your means.  Save this extra money. Do it for a few months if you have to.  Put the extra money away in savings and don’t touch it except for an absolute emergency.

Having a cushion will not only save you from paying interest on debt.  It will help you save money by buying things at a discount. Maybe you can buy certain things in bulk that you would have bought anyway.  Maybe you can pay your insurance premiums for a whole year for a substantial discount.  This alone may save you a couple of hundred dollars per year.

When you have some money saved, and you have the discipline to not use it for impulse buys, you will find you have more power.  You can make smarter decisions over the long run with your money.  You will find little places to save that you might otherwise not bee able to if you had no extra money.

This is an important factor in breaking a poverty mindset.  You should have savings for emergencies and to buy yourself discounts.

There are tens millions of Americans right now who have virtually no money or, worse, a negative net worth.  They would not be this bad off if it weren’t for the size and scope of government.  But given the situation, most of these people could suck it up for a few months and find a way to build up a little bit of cushion.  Once you have some extra money, you will find it easier to keep it.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president in November 2016, certain segments have been trying to delegitimize him and even outright overthrow him.

Even though Trump has not drained the swamp, he has been a threat to the establishment/ deep state. He is loose with his words, and the powers-that-be see him as a threat to their power.

You can imagine just how much the deep state would react if someone was president who was actually cutting budgets, withdrawing troops from overseas, and threatening to break apart the intelligence agencies.

Although Trump doesn’t go along with the establishment in terms of his rhetoric, his policies have largely been a maintenance of the status quo.  I believe this is one of the reasons why he hasn’t been taken out in the same fashion as John F. Kennedy.  Instead, the CIA, FBI, and other deep state operatives can just delegitimize Trump and distract the country with impeachment hearings.

Let’s remember the words of Chuck Schumer prior to Trump taking office.  He said, “You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”

I guess the allegations of Russia collusion and the newest allegations of Ukraine interference are what Schumer was talking about.  There is little doubt that the CIA and FBI (and maybe the NSA) are involved in these.  It is not inaccurate to say that there is a CIA/ deep state attempted coup going on right now.

There could be valid reasons for impeaching Trump, such as starving people in Yemen or dropping bombs on innocent people.  But these are things that most presidents of the last one hundred years have done, and these aren’t the stated reasons for going after Trump.

The craziest thing about these latest allegations against Trump is that Joe Biden actually admitted to doing what Trump is accused of – that is, bribing a foreign government with foreign aid.

Biden clearly admitted that he threatened to withhold money if a prosecutor in Ukraine wasn’t fired. That prosecutor was investigating an energy company that employed Hunter Biden (Joe Biden’s son).

Trump did not explicitly threaten to withhold money from Ukraine in exchange for favors, or if he did, there has not been any proof provided yet.

Of course, there are two major differences between Biden and Trump in dealing with Ukraine.  The first, as just discussed, is that Biden’s threat was explicit, whereas Trump did not explicitly threaten anything from what we’ve seen so far.

The other major difference is that Trump was requesting an investigation into possible criminal activity.  Biden was requesting a cover-up of an investigation.  These are major differences.

One is saying, stop investigating criminal activity or I’ll withhold money.  The other is saying, investigate criminal activity.

The Power to Abuse

This may be good political theater, but I believe this is important because it shows the power of the intelligence agencies and the evil things those at the top will do to stop any disruption of their power.

Even though there are major differences between what Biden did and what Trump did according to what we’ve seen evidence for so far, there is another point in all of this that has been completely missed.  I think only a libertarian could credibly point it out.

Let’s say that the worst allegations of Trump are true and that he withheld money from Ukraine so that the president of Ukraine could help Trump by destroying Joe Biden’s campaign for president.  If this were true, then we have the vice president at the time and the current president both using their powers in office to gain personally by using taxpayer money in the form of foreign aid.

We can have all of the investigations and impeachment hearings in the world, but this doesn’t really solve anything in the long run.  The only way to solve the problem is to eliminate foreign aid. This is the obvious conclusion that nobody seems to be mentioning.

Harry Browne liked to say (quoting Michael Cloud), “The problem isn’t the abuse of power; it’s the power to abuse.”

Biden abused his power.  Trump may have abused his power.  He is being accused of abusing his power.  Regardless of whether it’s true, he certainly could have abused his power.

And this is the problem.  It is the power to abuse.  If the American people insist on foreign aid, then why aren’t all of the terms set by Congress? Why isn’t there a specific amount designated to be distributed at a specific time with specific qualifications to receive it?

Of course, there really should be no foreign aid at all.  This is actually one budget cut that a majority of American people agree on.  It would not only save many billions of dollars for the American taxpayer, but it would eliminate these situations of alleged bribery.

As long as foreign aid is available, and as long as presidents and vice presidents have discretion on how and when it is to be distributed, then it is almost guaranteed that corruption will continue now and into the future.

The answer to these specific allegations isn’t impeachment hearings.  The answer is to eliminate all foreign aid.

Then we can work on eliminating the budgets for the so-called intelligence agencies.  This would have to be demanded by a large percentage of the American population.  We would have to ask Chuck Schumer if the intelligence agencies have six ways from Sunday at getting back at the American people.

I recently went with my family to a meet and greet with a family that does YouTube videos. My kids have watched their videos for a couple of years, so they had the pleasure of getting to meet the family and take a picture with them.

The family we saw has over 3 million subscribers on YouTube.  It is geared towards kids.  If most of the subscribers are from the U.S., that would be about 1% of the total population.

There are some YouTube celebrities with many millions of followers.  There are a few who are in the tens of millions.  And I am talking about people who are famous because of their YouTube videos.  I am not talking about people who were already celebrities and then posted videos.

It’s interesting that we still consider someone more famous if they are on television.  But you could appear on a YouTube video for someone who has a million subscribers, and you would get more people watching you than the total viewership for many cable news shows.  Even measuring against the major networks, many videos on YouTube are seen more than the average television show.

One difference is that a celebrity from Hollywood may be more widely known.  I know of many actors in which I may not be able to name a movie or tv show that they have been in.  With YouTube celebrities, they are quite well known amongst their fans, but the average guy on the street may have no idea who they are.

After the meet and greet, we were talking at dinner about meeting celebrities.  The question was posed: if you could meet one person, who would it be?

I didn’t have an obvious answer.  I have been fortunate enough to meet many famous people.  I have met Eli Manning and many other famous athletes.  I’m not saying everyone would know them, but anyone who follows sports would know them.

In my libertarian world, I have met many stars.  I met Harry Browne before he passed away.  I have met Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Dave Smith, Bob Murphy, Ron Paul, and many others.  I don’t know any of them well, but I have had conversations with all of them, regardless of whether they remember me.

This has really been my greatest thrill in meeting people.  They are only celebrities in a limited circle of like-minded people.  Ron Paul is the only one outside of libertarian circles who is a common name.  I enjoy a good discussion with any libertarian, so it is especially fun getting to talk to people whom I have read and listened to, and have also been an influence.

Outside of political circles, my comment was that I would like to do an activity that a particular person is famous for.  For example, I would like to shoot hoops with Michael Jordan.  I would like to sing a song with Billy Joel or the Backstreet Boys.  I would like to play a round of golf with Tiger Woods.  It is best to do the activity for which you look up to the person.

It would also be great fun talking to anyone that I listen to on a regular basis.  That could include YouTube videos or podcasts. Again, I would want to talk about the subject that is the general topic of the podcast.

Making a Difference

When I thought about someone I would like to meet, at first I was thinking that I have little interest in meeting any political figures outside of libertarian circles. But then I thought again.

If I could meet one person right now, I might pick Donald Trump.  It wouldn’t be for a picture, although I would certainly take one if given the chance.  I would love the chance to have a conversation with him.

Trump is not overly impressive to me.  I think it is impressive that he has been able to accomplish a life in business and his road to the presidency.  He has some great instincts when it comes to marketing.  But the purpose of meeting him wouldn’t be for me to learn something, although I am always open to learning something.

My hope is that I could spend a few minutes with him to give him some unsolicited advice.  I would have to try not to be overbearing. I would be very complimentary of his original campaign and his ability to fight the establishment.  This would be sincere.

I would tell him that he is still surrounded by the establishment.  He should already know this, but I am not sure that he does fully understand it.  I would warn him about Pompeo.  I would warn him about Pence.  I would warn him that none of the intelligence agencies are on his side. The CIA, the FBI, and the NSA will all take him down in a heartbeat if given the chance.  The same goes for people like Lindsey Graham, who sometimes pretends to be Trump’s ally.

I don’t know if the insiders have explicitly threatened Trump, but I would tell him to go down swinging.  They are either going to get you to adopt their agenda, or they are going to destroy you.  Either way, you lose and the American people lose.  Why not just order all troops to be withdrawn from the Middle East immediately?  Why not start cutting budgets everywhere? They will blame you for the recession once it starts anyway.

I don’t know if Trump fully understands the threats from the deep state.  Maybe he does, but I am really not sure.  He knows there are bad people on the inside, but I don’t think he realizes how systematic it is.  I don’t think he realizes that Pence would shove him out the door if the time were right.

I would encourage Trump to pardon Assange and Manning and Snowden.   I would strongly encourage him to stop all sanctions against other countries.  I would encourage him to pardon all people convicted of federal drug charges, if that is their only offense.  I don’t think I would get too deep into economics unless he wanted to talk about it.  That is a much harder subject to tackle.  It isn’t easy to overturn someone’s worldview in economics in a relatively short conversation.

I doubt any of it would make a difference, but you never know.  Trump is a different kind of being.  While he has largely governed like a swamp creature, there is still something different about him.  His rhetoric is obviously different.

I wouldn’t bother talking to someone like Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush or Joe Biden if any of them were president.  They are too corrupt to the bone.  Trump may be corrupt, but it is on a different level.  He has an element of honesty about him, and maybe he would be open-minded enough to consider doing something against the deep state and for the people suffering under the thumb of the state.

Maybe my conversation would make no difference, but it would be worth a try.

With more talk about impeaching Trump, the biggest beneficiary is perhaps Elizabeth Warren. It’s not so much that Trump has been weakened, because the people who hate him will continue to hate him, and the people who like him will continue to like him.

The whole basis for going after Trump now is that he asked the president of Ukraine to look into Joe and Hunter Biden and the firing of the prosecutor who was investigating the company that Hunter Biden worked for.  No matter which side of the aisle you are on (or no side at all), it is hard not to ask about what happened with Biden.

Hunter Biden was being paid up to $50,000 per month working for an energy company in Ukraine by serving on the board.  This was a man who had drug troubles, and his only real qualification was that his father was vice president of the United States.  Joe Biden actually bragged at a CFR meeting that he threatened to withhold money to Ukraine if the prosecutor in question wasn’t fired. In other words, Joe Biden is unquestionably guilty of the exact thing that Trump is being accused of.

Even if Biden fans (are there any?) try to justify these actions, it is easy to understand that the American public at large won’t be so forgiving.  The main reason Biden had been the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination is because he was seen as the most likely person to be able to beat Trump in a general election.

With this latest story, that is no longer the case.

The Rise of Senator Pocahontas

Elizabeth Warren was already gaining momentum before this story about Trump and Biden and Ukraine gained traction.  She has now become the clear frontrunner for the Democratic Party’s nomination.

Trump likes to give nicknames to his rivals.  It is his form of branding.  Whatever you may think of Trump, his branding is effective.  This is how he was able to fend off “Low Energy Jeb”, “Lyin’ Ted Cruz”, and “Lil’ Marco”.  He was also able to beat “Crooked Hillary”.

The funniest nickname of them all is for Elizabeth Warren.  She has long claimed to be a Native American.  Trump calls her Pocahontas or Senator Pocahontas. It is actually quite hilarious.

Trump challenged her on this, and Warren was stupid enough to take a DNA test and publicly display it.  She thought this was a wise political move, but it essentially backfired.  Her Native American blood may be as little as 1 out 1,024.  She may actually have less Native American DNA than the average European-American.

She has evidently survived her blunder, as the polls show.  The problem is (for the Democrats) that she hasn’t really been tested in the Democratic debates.

If Warren wins the nomination and faces Trump in 2020 (assuming Trump is not removed from office), it is going to be a whole different ballgame.  Is Trump going to call her Pocahontas on the debate stage?  I sure hope so. And the more the establishment media complains about the disrespect he’s showing, the more he should do it.

When it comes to actual policy, is Warren going to keep responding that, “it’s just another Republican talking point”?  That may work in a Democratic primary debate, but it isn’t a very effective answer when you’re talking about nationalizing healthcare or imposing a massive wealth tax.

Imagine if Trump were removed from office and Pence became president.  Imagine if Pence is running for president next year against Warren.  This would be so incredibly boring and predictable, and not in a good way.

Warren will have her challenges if she faces Trump.  Trump will have his challenges too.  If the inverted yield curve continues its historical accuracy in predicting recessions, then the economy may already be in the toilet by November 2020, which would be bad news for Trump.

President Pocahontas

Let’s say that the economy does turn south in the next year and Warren is able to win the presidency. What should we expect for 2021 and beyond?

One of the main reasons she is doing well right now is because she is something of a hybrid candidate.  She is acceptable enough to the mainline establishment portions of the Democrats, and she is acceptable enough to some of the far left.  There will be a few on the very far left who end up voting for the Green Party, but this is an acceptable loss in favor of having some appeal to the independents and other swing voters.

Biden is seen as too establishment, and now he has all of these problems with his past in Ukraine. Kamala Harris is also too establishment and has sunk in the polls.  Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders is seen as too far to the left.  He is more openly socialist than Warren.  The establishment doesn’t care for him because he could be too disruptive to the status quo.  I don’t think he would rock the foreign policy establishment vote, but he does say some things against the war state that are probably concerning to the establishment.  The establishment will just say that Bernie is too far to the left and unelectable, or else they’ll at least hint that.

Warren is the compromise candidate of the far left and the establishment.  This means she will be an establishment politician once she is in office.

She has big plans to nationalize healthcare and implement a wealth tax on the rich.  While I have no doubt she favors these things, I think it is mostly for rhetorical purposes to satisfy the left.

The full nationalization of medical care in the United States will depend on the makeup of Congress.  Even if the Democrats have a majority in both houses of Congress, it is no guarantee.  Bill Clinton failed on this in 1993 and 1994.

As far as a wealth tax, I doubt that it will pass.  Some of the senators will be doing harm to themselves.  There are too many lobbyists and donors who would oppose it. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it isn’t likely.

In terms of overall spending and welfare, Warren does not scare me.  How much worse can it get?  The government is already running an annual deficit near one trillion dollars.  This is during a supposedly prosperous time.

Consider that most of the federal budget is spoken for.  Most of it goes to Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, the military, and interest on the debt.  Maybe Warren would cut a little out of the military.  That would be fine by me.

There is little room to expand the budget.  It will be a fight over peanuts.  A few million – or even billion – here and there between agencies isn’t going to have any kind of significant impact.  In other words, while Warren will continue the status quo and promote things that are against liberty, I don’t think she will do any more damage than what we have already seen.

On an even more positive side, Warren is not really that likeable.  She doesn’t come across as cold and calculating as Hillary Clinton, but she doesn’t come across as warm either.  She comes across as a total phony to me, and I suspect that many others will see her the same way.  She isn’t going to have a commanding presence as president. When you lack charisma, you aren’t going to be that effective in implementing your agenda.

In addition, Republicans will band together against her.  They will fight again.  They will care about out-of-control spending again.  They seem to ignore these things when a Republican is president.  We may actually hear some opposition to the budgets coming out of Washington DC.

Conclusion

When I make a libertarian case for a President Pocahontas, it doesn’t mean I, in any way, endorse her or support her or would vote for her.  I think she is a liar, and I think her policy proposals are horrible.

However, I want other libertarians (and conservatives, too) to understand that it won’t be the end of the world if Warren wins the presidency.  She may be one of the least bad options at this point. No matter who gets elected, we generally get more war, more sanctions, more welfare, and more debt.

If Warren is president, I don’t think she will be all that effective.  This is the best that libertarians can hope for at this point, at least until we have more people on our side.  We want an ineffective president because it means that less liberty will be taken away from us.

Andrew Yang is a businessman and a presidential candidate in the Democratic Party.  It is hard to believe that he may actually have the biggest spending plans – or in his case, plan (singular) – of all the Democratic candidates.

They all have their ideas for making government bigger, but some are definitely bigger than others. Bernie Sanders has identified himself as a socialist in the past, yet he is one of the top tier candidates.

While Yang may have the single biggest proposal, there is something unique about him.  It is even a little refreshing in a sense.

He is a strong advocate for a Universal Basic Income (UBI).  Under his plan, every adult American citizen would get $1,000 per month from the government.  I don’t know if this would be bigger than Medicare-for-all (nationalized healthcare), but it’s got to be close.

Yang says that robots are going to take our jobs.  Therefore, we need a guaranteed income from the government.  He has tried to appeal to people from all different political angles.  He has even mentioned libertarians.

He is wrong that robots/ technology will cause us to lose our jobs.  The only exception would be if we could get to a point where robots and machines could produce everything that we want.  But then we wouldn’t need jobs, since we would have everything we want.

It is illogical to think that only a select few will get all of the wealth from owning the robots. People get wealthier by trading with others.  How will someone get wealthy if everyone else around him is poor?  Bill Gates could not have become rich if it hadn’t been for many millions of people and businesses buying his products.

Maybe it is possible that someone owns a bunch of robots that produces great wealth just for himself.  But this doesn’t automatically make everyone else poorer.  Everyone else can still have their own society where they trade with each other.  Nobody has to do business with the robot owner, assuming there is no threat of violence involved.

To be sure, robots, and technology in general, will make some jobs obsolete.  Some people will lose their jobs to technology. This is nothing new.  But there is virtually endless work to be done because there are virtually endless wants and needs.  Until robots can provide everything we want, there is work to be done.

Therefore, there should always be jobs for people.  The nature of the work may change with the times.  If there is high unemployment, then it is either because some people want to be unemployed or because there is government interference. Taxes and regulations (such as licensing laws and the minimum wage) can make unemployment rates higher, but this is not the fault of robots.  If a fast food restaurant sets up robots to take the place of some workers because it is cheaper to set up the robots than to pay the workers, this isn’t the fault of technology.  If it is due to the minimum wage exceeding the costs of the robots, then that is the fault of the government law.

Welfare for All to See

Yang comes across as being more genuine than most of the other candidates.  The reason is that he is putting his welfare plan right in front of you.  You see what you get.  It isn’t some abstract concept.

The Democrats like to make fun of trickle-down economics.  In other words, if something (say, a tax cut) benefits a rich person, the Democrats will generally make fun of the concept that this could somehow benefit the lower and middle classes.

Yet, the Democrats believe in trickle-down economics in the worst kind of way.  They believe that you should be forced to hand over a bunch of money to the government and all of its alphabet agencies, and this money will trickle-down to the poor and middle class.  When you collect trillions of dollars per year, it isn’t hard to throw some goodies back to the people.  But what percentage is eaten up through the bureaucracies? This doesn’t even account for the massive distortions that are caused.

With Yang’s proposal, the money would just go directly to people, if it works as he claims.  You aren’t getting a subsidized loan to go to college.  You aren’t getting subsidized healthcare.  You aren’t getting a special government housing loan with a low down payment.  You aren’t getting a job training program.  You are getting direct money into your bank account.

The only thing is, I haven’t heard Yang say that he will be doing away with everything else. If you got rid of all welfare programs in the United States and substituted the UBI, I could see this being attractive even to some libertarians.  I, personally, wouldn’t trust it (and it would still be immoral), but I can at least see where some people might find it appealing.

Yang isn’t talking about eliminating Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and housing subsidies and food subsidies.  As far as I know, he just wants to mostly add to the existing structure. Even worse, while he has a laser focus on the UBI, he does propose Medicare for all.

Yang says that “people already receiving benefits would have a choice between keeping their current benefits and the $1,000, and would not receive both.”  But these “benefits” are for limited things such as food stamps and disability.  It doesn’t include Medicare, Social Security, and education for the kids. And we can be certain that his plan won’t go through Congress just the way it is.  Would someone with a major disability end up getting the same exact amount as everyone without a disability?  Oh, and what about the non-citizen residents who pay taxes?

If his proposal did become a reality, what about fraud?  How many dead people would there be trying to claim their $1,000 per month?

According to Yang’s website, he proposes to pay for this by enacting a value-added tax (VAT) of 10%. In other words, the businesses would pay (ha, ha).  He also has some other proposals, such as removing the Social Security cap, which would be a significant tax on high-income earners.

Let’s Do the Math

There will soon be 250 million adult Americans.  Multiply this by $12,000 per year ($1,000 per month times 12 months). This comes out to $3 trillion per year.

The federal budget is already nearly $4.5 trillion.  The annual deficit is currently running close to $1 trillion, and there is no sign of this slowing down.  This is during a supposedly booming economic period.

I don’t believe it is even possible for Yang’s proposal to raise this much money from taxes. If it is possible, the other consequences would be disastrous.

Businesses would have to raise prices significantly or else face bankruptcy.  And if there are a lot of bankruptcies, then there will be fewer businesses paying taxes and fewer products being offered.

There is also the option to print more digital money by having the Federal Reserve buy up even more U.S. government debt.  But this will ultimately raise prices as well.

It sure does sound nice to get $1,000 in “free” money every month.  If you have a spouse, you could be “making” $2,000 per month. The problem is, you will be paying something like $50,000 for a basic car.  You will be paying $10 for a loaf of bread.  You will be paying $12 for a gallon of gasoline.

Yang’s proposal is ridiculous.  All of the other candidate’s proposals are ridiculous too, but they are more concealed and vague. That is what I like about Yang. He is putting the ridiculousness out there on the table.  Maybe that is why he is not an establishment favorite at this point.

In the last debate, Yang told people to sign up on his website and that 10 families would win $1,000 per month for a year.  I’m pretty sure that is illegal, but again, there is something refreshing about him coming right out and saying that.  His bribery is out in the open.  You can promise free college and free healthcare for all, and this is supposedly perfectly legal.  It is bribery, but the candidates and most of those who ask them questions dare not call it that.

Yang is wrong in his prediction of mass unemployment due to technology.  Even if he were not wrong on this, his solution of a UBI is wrong.  However, he is clear on what he is proposing.  For this, I am glad he is in the presidential race.

Imagine what you are your family could do with an extra $1,000 per month without any hike in the general price level.  This could be reality if government were significantly scaled back. Unfortunately, that is not on the table from any of the current candidates.

I recently heard a meditation/ reflection session by J.L. Collins.  The whole idea is to calm people down during a bear market in stocks, or an expected bear market.  The idea is to prevent you from freaking out and selling your stocks when they are down or heading down.

Of course, it isn’t a good idea to sell your stocks when they are down, unless they are going to go further down.  The best idea would have been to sell them before they went down and then buy them back when they are at the bottom.  Since we can’t predict the future and don’t know when stocks will hit highs and lows, it is best to have a strategy to deal with the volatility.

I follow the FIRE (Financial Independence, Retire Early) movement in the sense that I listen to podcasts, read articles, and connect with others.  I am more about the “FI” part of the FIRE movement.  I don’t really want to retire early so much as just having more choices in life.

One of the common held beliefs in the FIRE movement is that stocks always go up in the long run. When most people say this, I think they are talking about U.S. stocks.

There is no clear definition of “the long run”, but I don’t think a hundred year time span would be appropriate.  If we are talking about FIRE, then the long run has to be within a somewhat reasonable period of time.  Is 30 years the long run?  Even that seems too long.  If you get a 10% total return on your investments after 30 years, good luck with that formula. And that isn’t even factoring inflation.

In the context of FIRE or FI, I think 20 years is an appropriate measure to be considered “the long run”.  Anything longer than this, and you are only going to hit FI by saving your money without any return on your investment.

In other words, let’s say you start your march towards FI when you are 30 years old.  You invest everything in stocks.  After 20 years, your investments are worth the same amount as what you have contributed over the years.  Is this considered the long run?  You are now 50 years old, and you probably haven’t achieved FI, unless your savings rate has been incredible.

FIRE Credibility

J.L. Collins is part of the FIRE movement.  I listen to the ChooseFI podcast.  I also listen to Paula Pant on the Afford Anything Podcast.  All of these people are advocates of buying low-cost index funds.  I believe they all generally advocate investing 100% of your portfolio in stocks after you have an emergency fund, at least for younger people.  This does not include real estate investments.  And to be fair, I believe they would advocate moving a portion to more conservative investments as you approach retirement, or if you are going to need some of the money in the near future.

These are all very smart people.  I listen to them for a reason.  There is a lot of financial wisdom to be learned.

I disagree with them on investing.  I do not advocate anything close to a 100% stock portfolio.  I recommend the permanent portfolio for diversification. It is for wealth preservation and growth.  It is designed to hold up in virtually any economic environment.

I am not saying that the permanent portfolio is the ultimate solution for everyone.  But I think a 100% stock portfolio is highly risky, even for “the long run”.  I can understand if someone young without a lot of money takes this path, but it really isn’t appropriate for most people.

As warned by the SEC, past performance does not necessarily indicate future results.

My fear is that we are going to have a severe and prolonged bear market in stocks.  People who followed the advice of pouring everything into stock mutual funds are going to get hammered.  It is going to alter their life plans.  They are going to then ignore the people who gave them this advice.  Worse, they will be resentful.

To be sure, there are many who follow the FIRE movement who do not advocate the stock investing advice.  Some people prefer more diversification.  Some people prefer paying down their mortgage and keeping a big cash fund. Some people prefer most of their money going into cash-flowing real estate.  (Paula Pant is a big advocate of real estate investing, aside from stock investing.)

Again, J.L. Collins and the other leaders of the FIRE movement are intelligent people. They offer mostly good advice. I think the advice on heavily investing in stocks is wrong.  It is a major component, but it is just one component.  I have learned a lot from these people, and I don’t want to see their reputations suffer because of this one component.

The Long Run in Japan

In 1989, the Nikkei (the Japanese stock market) hit almost 39,000.  It topped out at an intra-day high of 38,957 in December 1989.  As I write this, the index is just over 22,000.

If someone had invested $500,000 (or the equivalent in yen) at the top of the market, they would now have about $275,000 almost 30 years later.  If this isn’t the long run, then I don’t know what is.  The market would still have to nearly double from here just to get back to even.  I hope nobody dumped a bunch of money in 3 decades ago thinking they would be living off the dividends and capital gains today.

And Japan is a first-world country.  It has had its economic struggles to be sure.  But in comparison to the rest of the world, it is a relatively wealthy country.

To be fair, most people aren’t going to invest all of their money at one time.  And most aren’t going to do it right at the peak of the market.  Still, I think the point stands.  Even if someone had just started investing at the peak and contributed to an index fund on a monthly basis, it would still be a disaster.  At best, they might be even after 30 years in Japan.

Imagine it is the year 2049 (30 years from now).  The Dow is at 15,000.  This already happened in Japan.

It doesn’t mean it will happen here.  I don’t think it will happen here, but I also think we will have higher price inflation here than what Japan has seen over the last 3 decades.  In real (inflation-adjusted) terms, I can’t discount the possibility that the overall stock market in the U.S. will be flat or down in 30 years from now.

This is not a prediction.  Stating that something is a real possibility is not the same as a prediction.  We don’t expect bad things to happen to us, but we still get insurance.

I think we are going to see a severe bear market in stocks in the U.S.  I have no idea how long it will last.  Maybe it won’t last long at all if the Fed resorts to massive inflation.  But then we will have other problems to deal with, as our dollars won’t go very far.

I wholeheartedly endorse the FI movement.  It is good to save money.  It is good to look to the future.  It is good to give yourself choices that come with having money.

I don’t think heavy stock investing is an element of FI, but it is something that many in the FI/ FIRE movement advocate.  I do not endorse this one aspect.  With that said, someone pursuing FI who is heavily invested in stocks will still be in better shape financially after a bear market than the average person who isn’t pursuing FI.

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) released its latest monetary policy statement.  It had become widely thought that the FOMC would lower its target of the federal funds rate by one-quarter percent.  This is what the Fed delivered.

The markets were rather tame after the announcement, which is almost an event in itself. There is typically a parsing of words that leads to a market overreaction one way or another. With this recent announcement, stocks were down a bit at first, but ended up little changed for the day. Gold did fall a bit.

While nearly everyone focuses on the statement itself and whether the Fed is “lowering rates”, I like to look at the detail found in the Implementation Note.

There wasn’t a lot that was interesting this time around.  The Fed will now pay a rate of 1.8 percent on bank reserves. In other words, there is still free (for them) money for the banks, but a little less of it than before.

The 1.8% interest is just above the bottom of the target rate.  The target rate is now set between 1.75% and 2.00%.  The Fed is actually dropping this rate by 30 basis points (0.3%) from its previous 2.1% announced in the July meeting.

The most important takeaway is the statement on the balance sheet.  All holdings of Treasury securities will continue to be rolled over.  Meanwhile, up to $20 billion per month of mortgage-backed securities will be reinvested in Treasury securities.  On net, the balance sheet should stay about the same.  But the Fed will be shifting some of its holdings from mortgage-backed securities to U.S. Treasury securities (government debt).

The Fed’s short period of monetary deflation ended with the previous meeting in July.  So even though the Fed is lowering its target rate, its overall stance on monetary policy is neutral.  In other words, the Fed is not inflating or deflating the money supply at this time.

This doesn’t mean that prices won’t change.  It just means that the base money supply is relatively neutral.  I think it will stay this way until there is more evidence of an economic downturn.  When things get bad, we can expect monetary inflation again.

How Bad Are Things Going to Get?

Trump says that the economy is booming, yet he wants the Fed to lower rates to zero or negative. He wants the boom to keep going until November 2020.  If things get bad before then, his chances of winning reelection will be reduced significantly.

While the establishment media is mostly very unfavorable towards Trump, and in an obvious way, there is more silence in regards to the economy.

Even though the establishment media wants to see Trump lose the election in 2020, they are mostly keeping with past trends in not talking down the economy.  There have been a few warnings about the inverted yield curve, but most pundits are not screaming that a bad recession is coming right at us.

But if the economy is doing well, then why is the Fed lowering its target interest rate? Why did the Fed abandon its balance sheet reduction so quickly?

The unemployment rate is near an all-time low.  Stocks are near all-time highs.  Price inflation, as measured by the CPI, is around 2%.  It is just below 3% if you use the median CPI.

We are supposedly 10 years into the recovery, yet the Fed is lowering its target rate.  And consider that rates are still historically low.  Even short-term rates, being at 2%, are very low.

The Fed is saying that there are “implications of global developments” and “muted inflation pressures”.  Is this the best they can do for giving a reason to lower rates?

I think the Fed members are worried.  They are just not showing their hand.  They see the inverted yield curve.  They see that you can buy a 20-year bond for close to the same interest rate as a one-month Treasury bill.  They know something bad is brewing.

They aren’t going to come right out and say that a recession is likely in the near future.  They would be accused of talking down the economy, and not just by Trump.

They also want to be seen as doing something.  If the economy tanks 6 months from now, they can say that they had already started dropping rates in anticipation of trouble ahead.  Meanwhile, Trump will continue to blame the Fed for not being aggressive enough.

It doesn’t really matter what the Fed does at this point, barring some kind of massive monetary inflation as never seen before.  They can lower short-term interest rates all they want at this point, but it isn’t going to stop the massive correction that is coming.

The Fed was lowering interest rates in 2007 before the official recession began.  The financial crisis didn’t become evident until late summer of 2008.  In other words, the Fed’s tinkering had no impact in stopping the recession that was coming.  It won’t be any different this time around.

I am still expecting a recession in 2020.  We’ll see if it hits with full force prior to the election.

I think everyone should prepare for what is coming.  Unemployment is going to go up.  Nominal wages will go down.  The good news is that consumer prices will likely go down too.

While I expect housing prices to go down in most areas, I don’t think it will be as severe as what we saw a decade ago.  The biggest bubble now is in stocks.  I will not be surprised to see a major drop of 50%, or 60%, or even more.  It will eventually depend on how fast and furious the Fed reacts to the situation.

We could end up seeing a return to QE like never before.  It was astounding what the Fed did from 2008 to 2014, more than quadrupling its balance sheet.  If we hit a deep recession, we could see the Fed creating $100 billion per month.  Maybe it will be $200 billion per month.  That will be the time to buy gold and silver and other hard assets.

We could also see our first $2 trillion annual deficit.  It was amazing to see it hit $1 trillion.  It is amazing that it is close to $1 trillion now, and that is with a supposedly booming economy.

It is impossible to say how all of this plays out.  But with the Fed lowering short-term rates during a supposed economic boom, we know something is up.  It is wise to prepare for what is to come.

I watched three hours of torture so that I could bring you this libertarian analysis of the debate.

It was incredibly disappointing not having Tulsi Gabbard on the stage, but it was not surprising. Her anti interventionist positions, at least when it comes to foreign policy, could not be tolerated by the establishment.  It would have been surprising if the DNC had not found a way to keep her off the stage.

Here is an analysis of the 10 candidates who were on the stage.

Andrew Yang

Andrew Yang said something about 10 American families winning $1,000 per month (sign up on his website) and what they could do with an extra $1,000 per month for a year.  I like Andrew Yang better than most of the rest of the candidates, but this is incredibly stupid.

Of course any family getting an extra $1,000 will be better off.  If it is only ten families getting this money, then it will be a huge benefit to those families.  But what happens when 120 million families get this?  Who pays?

We can approach this the same way as minimum wage laws.  If $15 per hour would be so good, then why not $50 per hour or $100 per hour? So my question to Yang is: Why not $10,000 per month?

Let’s do some math. If every single adult American – let’s say 250 million people – received a monthly check for $1,000, that would be $12,000 per year times 250 million.  That is $3 trillion per year.  The federal budget is currently just over $4.5 trillion. The annual deficit is near $1 trillion.

Is Yang going to cut $3 trillion elsewhere out of the federal budget?  No.  His proposal is to have a value added tax (VAT).  If he is going to collect $3 trillion per year with a VAT, that is going to be one high tax.  So you can get your $1,000 per month, but you will be paying $10 for a loaf of bread and $3,000 for a new iPhone.

But there is something really positive about Yang.  He brings the welfare state directly to the front and center.  The Democrats like to make fun of Republicans for believing in trickle-down economics (although this originally started with George H. W. Bush against Ronald Reagan with voodoo economics). The Democrats believe in trickle-down economics by going through government bureaucracy.  Andrew Yang is directly exposing the welfare state.  He is saying, “let’s just give the money directly to the people.”  But that might impact our system of lobbyists and bureaucracy. It would expose the administrative state.  This is why the Democratic establishment doesn’t really like Yang.

Kamala Harris

Kamala Harris is still the scariest of all the candidates.  She is an authoritarian leftist.  Maybe this is somewhat redundant, but she is really the worst of all worlds.  She is bad on virtually every issue.  She favors the police state.  She favors the war state.  And she favors more welfare and bigger government in virtually everything.

I hope that Tulsi Gabbard saved us from this dangerous woman.  It was a secondary reason for the Democrats to get Gabbard off the debate stage.

Beto O’Rourke

Beto O’Rourke is an incredibly annoying gnat, although that may be an insult to gnats.  He is just annoying in almost everything he says.  It is surprising that he almost beat Ted Cruz for a senate seat.  It shows you how much Cruz went down in public opinion after running for president.

O’Rourke started out by saying that the racism of Donald Trump was welcomed with open arms when someone went on a shooting spree in Texas.  This is over-the-top hyperbole, and I hope that even Democrats can see right through it.

Most of what he says is dangerous.  I hope most everyone else finds him as annoying as I do.  Actually, everyone else can find him half as annoying as I do, and that will be good enough for him to get little traction.

Bernie Sanders

Sanders opened up talking about Medicare for all and a green agenda.  He says almost nothing about foreign policy unless he is directly asked.  When he does talk about foreign policy, he tends to be pretty good from a libertarian standpoint, at least as compared to the other candidates.

But I don’t trust Sanders at all.  He will be quickly taken over by the war faction if he becomes president.  He puts no emphasis on his foreign policy. The fact that he campaigned for Hillary Clinton in 2016 says it all.  She is as much of a war hawk as anyone.  Sanders may say some good things about non-intervention, but he has no strong principles on this most important issue, and the one significant issue where he sometimes makes sense.

I do not fear a Sanders presidency as much as others.  I believe he would be ineffective at getting most of his welfare state initiated.  It is already big, and there is a massive annual deficit during supposedly good times.

One amusing moment was when Sanders was asked about Venezuela and how that compares to his version of democratic socialism.  He said not to equate his democratic socialism to what is going on in Venezuela.  Then he went on to say we should be more like Canada and Scandinavian countries.  He said we need universal healthcare, a living wage, etc.

The point that is often missed is that Sanders supported the socialism of Venezuela a decade ago. He only repudiates it now because of the results.  Venezuela is just an example of bringing socialism and continuing it to its ends. When the market is not allowed to function, then the state is eventually left with a choice of easing back restrictions and allowing somewhat of a market economy, or bringing death and violence to anyone who opposes it and even to those who are too weak to do anything about it.

Socialism is violence, but Sanders won’t express it this way.

I expect Sanders to be one of the final three standing for the Democratic nomination.

Joe Biden

There isn’t much to say about Biden.  He is trying to win by default.  And with this field, it just may work.

He has to say some things that he wouldn’t have said in the past to satisfy the left.  But we know he is a true establishment candidate who will not rock the boat.

He said a few decent things regarding the criminal justice system, but this is hard to take seriously.  Where was Barack Obama for 8 years?  Obama could have pardoned everyone convicted on federal drug charges, but he didn’t.

At this point, Biden is just hoping not to mess up.  He has to minimize his gaffes.  He made a few minor ones during the debate.  He should be happy that Elizabeth Warren is now leading in some polls.  It takes some pressure off of him, and I think Warren has many issues that could be exposed.

Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren has become the left’s alternative to Bernie Sanders.  She is a leftist, but a little bit more acceptable to the establishment.

I don’t fear a Warren presidency any more than the other establishment candidates.  I think she comes across as phony, but apparently some people have bought in to her rhetoric.

She has still not been asked on the debate stage about her lying to get into college by claiming she is a Native American.  Aren’t some celebrities on the verge of going to jail because they lied to get their kids into college?

If she ends up on the debate stage with Donald Trump, he may just continually call her Senator Pocahontas.  If the Democrats were smart, they would address this issue now to see if she can survive it.

Warren does not come across genuine as it is.  I think she will have a likeability problem in a general election.  She will look like a more incompetent version of Hillary Clinton, although less criminal.

Pete Buttigieg

Mayor Pete, as they call him, does come across as likeable.  It was interesting how he said he wants to have a Medicare option for all and to let each person make the choice.  He somehow tried to come across as being in favor of individual freedom (pro choice) while proposing something that would vastly increase government.

The problem with his proposal is that it does not give you a choice because you don’t have a choice to not help pay for it.  Under his healthcare plan, you can choose an expensive private health plan or a less expensive government plan.  Your taxes will be high either way.

Buttigieg is a second-tier candidate, but he has the potential to make it to first-tier status if any of the others slip.

Amy Klobuchar

She was incredibly boring and stands little chance at being the nominee, unless every other candidate implodes, which isn’t completely out of the question.  She was given favorable reviews in the post-debate polls because she came across as half sensible at times.  If Biden drops out, maybe she will get some traction from the so-called moderates.

Julian Castro

Castro is slightly less annoying than O’Rourke, but not by that much.  His big moment was going after Biden and challenging his memory.  The establishment media is saying he was making fun of Biden’s age.  I don’t think that was his intent, but I don’t care either. Castro is horrible and annoying.

Cory Booker

Booker does not stand out much.  He could be a compromise candidate as an establishment leftist, but Warren is beating him out for that right now.  Several of the other candidates would have to implode for him to have much of a chance.

Conclusion

As of right now, I would put Warren, Sanders, and Biden in the top tier of the candidates, meaning they have the best chance of getting the nomination.  I think our country can survive any of them, even it won’t be pleasant.

Harris is still a contender unfortunately, but I think her chances are slim.

We should also watch Buttigieg, who may make a run if the stars align for him.

Unfortunately, it is probably near the end for Tulsi Gabbard.  She needed to be on that debate stage.  Maybe she can make one last run to get her poll numbers higher.  She should be reaching out to libertarians who like her mostly anti-war message.

It may not matter anyway because we know the DNC likes to rig things to keep out anti-establishment voices.

It would have been more fun to have Gabbard on that stage challenging the other candidates on foreign policy.