The Federal Open Market Committee met this week and released its latest statement on monetary policy.  The Fed maintained its federal funds target range between 5.25% and 5.50%.

It is expected that the Fed will start cutting its target rate in June and have a total of 3 cuts in 2024.  This is in spite of price inflation remaining stubbornly above the Fed’s supposed target of 2%.

It is even more curious that they are expecting more growth than originally anticipated, yet they are still planning on rate cuts.  It’s not that we should believe the establishment narrative that the Fed needs to “cool” the economy when it gets “overheated”.  But the Fed’s own narrative now seems to contradict its other narratives.  If GDP is going to be higher than expected, and price inflation is still stubbornly high, then why is the Fed talking about rate cuts in the near future?

The only explanation I can see is that the Fed is terrified of a massive recession.  Some will probably speculate that they are doing it because it is an election year, but I really don’t think that is it.  That doesn’t explain why the Fed somewhat aggressively raised rates last year.

They really are looking for a Goldilocks scenario where price inflation isn’t too high but the economy is still roaring.

Financial Assets Explode

It is even more curious on the Fed’s rate cutting anticipation as the stock market hits all-time highs.  The S&P 500 has hit new highs several times recently, and it did so again after the Fed announcement.  The Dow is about to hit 40,000 for the first time.  Bitcoin has exploded to new all-time highs before having a bit of a pullback.  Even gold, where there has been no mania, is hitting new all-time nominal highs.  It has now breached the $2,200 per ounce mark.

So, let’s assess what’s going on here.

We are in a massive Everything Bubble where major assets are hitting new all-time highs.  Price inflation is still stuck above the 2% mark.  Meanwhile, the Fed is saying that it plans to lower its target rate several times this year.

It’s almost as if they want the biggest asset implosion in history.  “Hey, we’ve loaded this building with dynamite and gasoline and it hasn’t blown yet.  We should just pile up some more dynamite.  I’m sure it will be fine.”

Rate Cuts With Monetary Deflation?

There is one contradictory thing about the Fed’s policy itself, aside from what was mentioned above.  The Fed is talking about rate cuts in the future, which will return us somewhere close to real zero interest rates (adjusted for inflation).  But the Fed is still deflating.

The Implementation Note that goes with the statement still says that the Fed will reduce its holdings of $95 billion per month.  That’s $60 billion of Treasury securities and $35 billion of mortgage-backed securities.

Why is the Fed deflating its balance sheet while simultaneously implying a coming rate cut?  Now that the Fed pays interest on bank reserves, apparently it has no problem implementing this seemingly contradictory policy.

It’s hard to say how long this bubble will keep going, but apparently the Fed wants it to last a bit longer.  Maybe they anticipate a Trump victory and want the whole thing to come crashing down on his watch.

When the markets are roaring like this, it draws people in.  They don’t want to miss out.  It seems like it will just keep going higher.  Almost everyone is ignoring the inverted yield curve because it has been inverted for over a year and nothing has happened.

And nothing will happen, until it does.

Electoral politics in 2024 is not going to lack excitement, if that’s the right word.  Well, it won’t be boring.  But the primaries have been boring.  The major party nominees were basically already in place at the beginning of the year.

It was obvious that Joe Biden would be essentially unopposed in the Democratic Party.  The establishment made sure of that.  If Biden isn’t the nominee, it sure won’t be decided by the electorate.  It will be decided by the party elite and announced around the convention.

Trump was obvious for other reasons.  There were Republican debates, but Trump wisely didn’t participate.  Even though some of the media tried to create some drama and give it coverage, it was rather clear at the beginning of January 2024 that Trump was the easy favorite for the nomination.  This is why it was foolish for DeSantis to ever try this year.

There is more drama within the Libertarian Party, as it really isn’t clear who will get the nomination.  There was talk about Robert Kennedy Jr. trying to get the nomination, presumably for ballot access, but that isn’t likely to happen at this point.  Plus, there probably aren’t a lot of libertarians within the party who would be willing to compromise on RFK, as he obviously isn’t a libertarian.

There are happenings in the arena in politics that will certainly impact the general election.  The powers-that-be are trying to throw Trump in jail, or bankrupt him, or do anything they can to keep him off the ballot.  They are quite determined to try anything to keep him away from the White House again.

But it is interesting that another piece of political drama that has popped up is that of the running mates.  I have said that I will not vote for Trump if he picks someone establishment as his running mate.  I will consider voting for him, even though there are many areas where I disagree, if he picks someone that the establishment opposes as much as him.

Anyway, aside from the question of whether Biden gets replaced this summer, perhaps the biggest political drama over the next few months will be the picks for vice president.  If Biden remains the nominee, then Kamala Harris will likely remain the nominee as his running mate.  It would be difficult politically to throw her aside at this point.

Vice Presidential Contenders

One name that is supposedly on Trump’s consideration list is Tulsi Gabbard.  It is interesting that I have also heard her mentioned as a possible running mate for RFK.  It seems unlikely that the same person would be mentioned as a possible running mate for two different presidential candidates in the same race.

If Trump picked Tulsi, it would give me some assurance that there is hope for a less interventionist foreign policy.  Tulsi is no libertarian when it comes to foreign policy.  She has her issues.  But she is seemingly far better than what we have gotten over the last many decades from major party nominees.

It is hard to believe that Tulsi was running as a Democrat just 4 years ago.  In fact, she is the one who took down Kamala Harris in the debates.  I don’t think Kamala is looking forward to a rematch in a vice presidential debate.

Unfortunately, I don’t think Trump is going to pick Vivek Ramaswamy or Tucker Carlson or anyone like them.  I think Tulsi is probably the best we can realistically hope for.  Any establishment pick like Tim Scott will just tell us that Trump didn’t learn anything from 4 years in office and that he will continue to surround himself by people who hate him.

Even more interesting than Trump’s contender list is RFK’s contender list.  RFK appeared on Dave Smith’s podcast and offered him the spot.  Then they argued for over an hour about Israel and Gaza, and then RFK proceeded to repeat his offer to Dave.  It looks like Dave Smith has declined the offer because of their opposing views on the Israeli state.

Next, we heard that Jesse Ventura and Aaron Rodgers are on the short list for RFK.  This is encouraging in some respect because it shows the RFK is still running a somewhat anti-establishment campaign in spite of his position on supporting funding for Israel.

Jesse Ventura literally had a show on conspiracy theories, including an interesting one where he met some lady who warned about the government trying to cull the population with vaccines.  He would be a good insurance policy for RFK.

Talk of Aaron Rodgers doesn’t even seem to make sense.  He is still playing football.  I don’t think he can continue to play for the Jets and run a campaign.  I see the appeal of having him, and the two share similar skepticism of vaccines.

I like Aaron Rodgers, which is partially why I hope he doesn’t get into politics.  If he is forced to take certain political positions, I will probably like him a lot less.

It is also interesting that as soon as his name came up, some establishment hack accused him of saying that he believed the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax.  It is complete hearsay.  I think this was a shot across the bow for Aaron Rodgers.  If he gets into a presidential race, he is going to face relentless attacks from the media.  He should definitely be prepared for this if he does decide to accept an offer to run with RFK, but that is looking highly unlikely now.

Conclusion

I think RFK is going to pick an interesting running mate no matter what.  He really does fear for his life, and rightly so.  The best protection is finding someone at least as anti-establishment as him.  Still, we don’t know if RFK will be allowed in the debates, even though he is polling around 10%.

Trump’s VP pick will be interesting initially.  It will tell us whether he might actually change anything of significance other than rhetoric.  I think Tulsi would actually be a decent pick, as at least it would give us some hope for reducing the American empire overseas.

There is no Biden pick.  The only pick is coming from the establishment and whether they decide to keep Biden out there as the nominee.  He is deeply unpopular.  They will go with whomever they think has the best chance at beating Trump, whether fairly or not.

The legislation attempting to ban TikTok in the United States is unconstitutional, immoral, and tyrannical.  It is a violation of property rights and free speech.

The Biden regime has done many bad things.  This legislation would probably make the top 5 list of bad things done by the federal government since January 2021.  The funding of wars, killing of innocent people, and vaccine mandates were worse.

This legislation to ban TikTok is considered to be bipartisan.  Whenever anything is called bipartisan in Washington, it means it is bad for the average American.  This is no exception.

Every single person in Congress who votes in favor of this legislation should be voted out of office.  It is an egregious violation of the rights of Americans.  In the name of national security, it forces the sale or divestment of TikTok by Chinese holders or else the app/ website will be banned in the United States.  It has been pointed out that the Chinese ownership (not the Chinese government) is a minority stake in the company, not that it should matter.

You can look at a list of the votes in Congress.  All of the tyrants who support this legislation should be tossed.  There are disappointments like Lauren Boebert and Anna Paulina Luna, who voted “yes”.  They should be tossed.

Some of the people considered more right wing and left wing voted the right way.  Some notable “no” votes are Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Thomas Massie, Barbara Lee, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Some of the reasoning behind voting “no” was not necessarily the correct reasoning, but at least they got the vote right.  It is hard to speak of property rights and free speech directly when you don’t typically make these arguments with all of the other horrible things done in Washington.

This legislation will not only impact TikTok, but it gives something close to a blank check to the president to ban any app or website that could be considered under the influence or control of a foreign entity.  For this reason alone, all Republicans should have opposed this legislation.  All we hear from the establishment Democrats is that this or that person is under the thumb of Putin.

With this legislation, it is not at all out of the realm of possibility that the president could get rid of Twitter or Rumble or any platform hosting anyone who supposedly spreads “Russian disinformation”.  The president could effectively ban people like Joe Rogan or Tucker Carlson.

National Security?

TikTok is especially popular with young people.  Some people have the false impression that TikTok is just people doing little dance videos.  Maybe it started out this way primarily, but it has become a huge platform for communication and conveying information.  Like any platform, some information is more informative and accurate than other information.

Even if the Chinese government had access to information coming from TikTok, how is this a national security issue?  What are they going to do with an American’s email address after signing up?  Or is the Chinese government going to use information based on the viewing habits of the American people?  And what exactly will be done with this information that is any different from YouTube or Facebook or Google?

Actually, the companies other than TikTok are a far bigger threat to the American people.  These are the companies that the federal government controls.  And that is just the point.  Biden and company can tell YouTube and Facebook to censor vaccine misinformation or any other information (i.e., information that is likely true that opposes the establishment narrative).  They don’t have this control over TikTok.  That is the key behind all of this.

It is rather rich coming from the criminals in Washington that China may use information from TikTok to harm our national security.  It is the National Security Agency (NSA) that collects all of our information including text messages and email messages.  It is the NSA, FBI, CIA and other agencies that collect our data and use it against the American people.

The Chinese government never told me that I would lose my job if I didn’t take an injection in my arm.  The Chinese government doesn’t take nearly half of my money every year.  The Chinese government doesn’t read my emails and text messages.  Maybe the Chinese government does that to the Chinese, but that is the business of the people in China to deal with.  The big threat to Americans is the U.S. government, particularly the so-called intelligence agencies.  They are the criminals who commit crimes and injustices against the American people.

National security is the excuse to attempt to ban TikTok.  The problem for the American criminals in Washington isn’t that TikTok is partially owned by Chinese companies.  The problem for the criminals is that they can’t control it, and they can’t control the information that is coming out of it.  A teenager on TikTok might actually learn that the COVID “vaccines” aren’t safe and effective.  They may learn that the U.S. helped foment a coup in Ukraine in 2014 that led to the current war.

Property Rights and Free Speech

At its core, this is an issue of property rights and free speech.  The two are often intertwined.  Any legislation targeting a particular person or company is almost always bad.  This is a violation of property rights.  The owners of TikTok should at least have their day in court.  If they are jeopardizing national security, then the government should have to prove their case against TikTok.  Of course, there is no case based on the talking points being repeated by the establishment.

The establishment figures in Washington don’t like that the internet is wide open.  They don’t like that they can’t fully control it.  They used to have a near monopoly on information, as the big newspapers and media outlets would mostly repeat the establishment narrative.  They would keep any debate within a narrow range.

The federal government has had influence on social media companies.  It was already known, but it became more known with more proof after Elon Musk bought Twitter.  The government was giving instructions to the social media companies on what should be allowed and what should be banned or not show up in people’s search results or feeds.

Political Fallout

The one piece of good news from this is that there may be a strong backlash.  In some ways, I hope that TikTok isn’t sold and that it is actually banned from the U.S.  It is going to anger tens of millions of people.

Sure, I wish the COVID lockdowns, vaccine mandates, the national debt, and wars had sparked rage in these people.  Still, it’s better late than never.  We naturally get more upset at things that directly impact us.  The majority of young people who are on social media use TikTok.  They like TikTok because they get the content that they want, and it isn’t censored.

My hope is that there is a campaign to dethrone every single member of Congress who voted “yes” for this legislation.  They should also dethrone Biden who has promised to sign the legislation.

It is interesting that Trump, while president, threatened to ban TikTok, but then dropped the issue.  Now he has reversed course and said that he doesn’t really favor this legislation.  It is all in good Trump fashion, but at least he has a pulse on the people.  I think he at least understands that it isn’t a popular move.

I want young people to understand that this isn’t just a matter of having their favorite social media app taken away from them.  It is a violation of property rights.  It is a violation of free speech.  It is a fight against the criminals who are residing in Washington DC and ruling over us.  They are the enemy.  It isn’t China.

The latest consumer price index numbers came out for February 2024.  The CPI was up 0.4% for the month, while the year-over-year stands at 3.2%.  This was a little higher than expected.

The median CPI also came in at 0.4% for the month.  The year-over-year median CPI now stands at 4.6%.

It’s interesting that the market is expecting a rate cut by the Fed in June, even though price inflation seems to be a stubborn problem.

CNBC ran an article detailing some of the specific price increases.  The most unbelievable thing is the rise of 20.6% in vehicle insurance.  Of course, it may not be unbelievable if you’ve had to pay it lately.

Some food prices and items are actually down.  Others are up.  A few other notable things are rent (up 5.8%) and motor vehicle repairs (up 8.5%).

This is why it is significant.  These few items make up a huge chunk of a middle-class American budget.

If you don’t own a house and you rent, imagine if you paid just $1,000 per month in rent last year.  Now it is up 5.8% or $58 per month.  That adds up month after month.

If your car insurance was $1,000 last year, now it is up 20.6% or $206 per year.  And if you have a vehicle repair that would have cost $2,000 last year, it now will be 8.5% higher, or $170 more.

These may be very conservative numbers for some people.  Rents are much higher than $1,000 per month in most cities for anything livable.  Many renters are probably paying an additional $1,000 or more extra per year.

So just the cost of driving your car and renting your apartment may have gone up $1,500 for the year.  If you make $60,000 per year and get a 3% raise in pay, that is an increase of $1,800 per year.  After taxes, that barely covers the expenses to drive and rent your apartment.  We haven’t even started considering food and other items.

Bidenomics

This is why it is a joke that Biden or any of his handlers would be even attempting to brag about the economy.  There are some people who will actually try to justify the state of the economy by saying that the stock market is up and housing values are still high.  The higher housing prices only price out those who don’t already own.  There are few people who are selling and making a good profit to then only rent (at higher prices).

The stock market may be nice for some people with a 401k plan, but that doesn’t apply to some people.  And for others, it doesn’t do them any particular good right now, as that is their retirement money and they may not even be able to access it.

For most people, they just see their expenses going higher and wages not keeping up.  This is the true state of the economy, and it is hard to trick people into believing that they are doing well when they aren’t.

Even if a recession doesn’t officially hit before November 2024, it is hard to imagine Biden being reelected with this disaster of an economy.  It is curious why Republicans who were running for president did not emphasize this issue.  They could have easily acknowledged that average Americans were getting the short end of the stick.  Instead, they were too busy assuring us of their allegiance to Ukraine.

Most people have quietly moved on from COVID.  There are still a few fanatics who preach vaccines and COVID safety, but luckily there are few of them.  There may be some who still endorse COVID protocols reminiscent of 2020 through 2022 and are silent about it.  The reason they are silent about it is because it is too embarrassing to preach it any longer.  Most people will shake their head or laugh at them.

There is a large percentage of the American population who endorsed the lockdowns and vaccine mandates. We can’t be sure if it was a majority because there is always a segment of the population who accept government directives even though they may not explicitly endorse them.

Still, regardless of the percentage, it was probably somewhere around half the country that largely accepted the COVID tyranny.  Most of them have moved on.  They don’t say much at all.  If the topic comes up and they have to say something about it, they will usually say that we didn’t know as much about the virus at that time.

This is not true because it was known in March 2020 that it was mostly old people and people with major health problems who were dying of COVID or supposedly dying of COVID.  I can’t speak as much for what happened outside of the U.S., but I can say that many Americans who supposedly died of COVID were people who probably would have died soon anyway.  And for the younger or healthier people who supposedly died of COVID, it seems they actually died of deadly hospital protocols.

There was still mass hysteria in 2021.  Many states still had strict protocols, and this is also when the vaccine mandates showed up.  But in 2021, it was quite obvious that this was not the killer disease that it was originally portrayed to be.  So, I don’t buy the excuse that “we” didn’t know a lot about the virus back then.  Many people did know, but they were dismissed as whackos or conspiracy theorists.

Still, there is a bigger factor in this whole thing than knowledge that I have a problem with.

Compulsion

Most people won’t admit they were wrong.  It is a hard thing for humans to do.  There are a few people who will admit that they didn’t quite get things right though.  There is an even smaller percentage who will apologize or at least say that maybe the other side got things right.  Some are more genuine than others.

But even if someone apologizes for getting things wrong, this isn’t good enough for me.  I won’t accept this apology.  The problem is that these people advocated for the use of government force to keep people in their homes and to mandate a medical injection in order to keep their job.

There may be an extremely tiny percentage of people who got things wrong on COVID, and perhaps were hysterical about it, but did not advocate for the use of any government force.  I may not fully trust the judgment of these people now, but I could accept an apology from them if they just say they got some things wrong on COVID.

However, for most of the people who do admit getting things wrong and offer some sort of apology for getting things wrong, they advocated for the use of force.  Are they offering an apology for using force, or are they offering an apology for not understanding more about a virus?

The same goes for the vaccine mandates.  Are they sorry for mandating the vaccine, or are they sorry for not believing people who questioned the safety and efficacy of the so-called vaccines?

I don’t want an apology because the vaccine didn’t work.  I want an apology because force was used.

I won’t accept an apology from someone who is merely saying they got some of the facts wrong.  That means they will just make the same mistake the next time.  They will be willing to use government force again in the future.  They just want to make sure they get their facts straight before using force.  Of course, they probably thought they had their facts straight three years ago.

The lesson of this whole thing isn’t that the vaccines were not safe and effective as sold.  The lesson should be that force never should have been used.  Biden should be in prison for threatening to fire approximately 100 million people if they didn’t get jabbed.  Any politician, bureaucrat, or media figure who supported these mandates should be shunned from society.  They should never be in a position of power ever again.

The problem in 2020 through 2022 wasn’t that people got the facts wrong on COVID and vaccines.  The problem is that they were willing to use the force of government to impose their way on other people.

The price of gold in dollars has broken above the $2,100 mark and closed at its highest level ever this week (in nominal terms).

The price of gold is not near its all-time inflation-adjusted high, even using the government’s price inflation data.  The price of gold briefly went above $800 in early 1980.  Using the BLS CPI inflation calculator, you can plug in $800 in January 1980.  44 years later, that has the same buying power as $3,171.

This is probably understated, if anything, but it shows that gold could still surge a lot higher if we get into another gold-buying frenzy.  And that is at today’s level.  There is no telling how much the Fed will inflate in the future to service the massive debt and support the financial system.

This isn’t a prediction that gold is going to surge above $3,000 per ounce any time soon.  It is just to show that it is possible.

Up until now, we haven’t been in any kind of a gold bubble, unlike most other asset classes.  It is quite surprising that we haven’t seen the price of gold go up with worries about price inflation.  Stocks have gone up a lot.  Real estate went up a lot until the last year or so.  Bitcoin is booming again.

Gold has risen, which is evident by it hitting an all-time high, but it has moved slowly.  It tends to make a move, then maybe pull back a bit, and then trade in a somewhat narrow range for a while.

It wouldn’t be surprising for the same thing to happen here, but if I could say for sure, I would be extremely wealthy playing the futures market.

Gold has simply not been part of any speculative bubble.  It has gotten little attention over the last many years.  This is noticeable by watching CNBC during the day.  You can see the three major indexes constantly updating.  You can see the yields a little less frequently.  You can see the price of Bitcoin frequently enough.  The price of gold appears once in a while.

There seems to be something wrong in a world where the price of Bitcoin is popping up more than the price of gold on a television station that primarily follows the investment markets.  I am not blaming CNBC.  They are actually probably responding to consumer demand.  There are more people interested in the day-to-day movements of Bitcoin as compared to gold.

Will Gold Stocks Finally Follow?

Gold stocks have done rather poorly over the last several years, even with the price of gold going higher.  The costs of mining, just like the costs of most things, have gone higher.  But the price of gold hasn’t exploded as might be expected in a relatively high price inflationary environment.

Couple this with a lack of enthusiasm in the gold market, and gold stocks have generally underperformed. This could all turn around quickly, but it would have to be with a sustained rise in the price of gold.

Buying gold stocks, gold mutual funds, and gold ETFs is a rather high-risk proposition, but it could come with high rewards when investors and speculators finally pile in.

Of course, investing in the broad stock market seems like a high-risk proposition these days too.  But it doesn’t feel like it to most people because they are accustomed to stocks just going up in the last decade and a half.  Every time there is a decent pullback, the bull market resumes.

The Fed has been in tightening mode for a couple of years now, and the yield curve has been inverted for well over a year.  Yet, investors seem to have little fear of a recession or a major pullback in stocks.

If we do finally get a deep recession, we shouldn’t expect gold or gold stocks to do well in the short run.  They may do well if the Fed starts creating massive amounts of new money out of thin air.  The price of gold will probably hold up better than most stocks in general, but we may have to wait for more Fed funny money before we see a dramatic surge in gold and mining stocks.

It isn’t easy to be a good parent.  Most parents hope to teach their kids to be respectful and productive human beings.  They hope to equip their children to be independent adults.

You can tell your kids things until you’re blue in the face.  What you say may or may not stick.  If you really want to teach something to your kids, the best way to do it is to set a good example.

You can tell your kids not to smoke, but if they ever see you smoking, then there is a good chance they will follow.  You can tell your kids not to curse in public, but if they hear you doing it, then they are likely to follow your example.  And good luck telling your kids to eat their vegetables if you don’t have a serving on your own plate.

And so it goes for teaching others the benefits of liberty.  You can talk all day long about the latest government boondoggle.  You can do your best to explain good economics.  But often the best way to exert your libertarian influence is to simply just set a good example.

Setting Examples

During COVID hysteria times, I didn’t wear a mask anywhere unless I was explicitly told.  I remember walking around Publix (the grocery store) and being the only person not wearing a mask.  While it might have made a few people mad, I hope it inspired some others to be brave and also not wear one.  (The Publix employees were always very kind, and I was never once questioned about not wearing a mask.  I can’t say the same for Whole Foods.)

You can preach all day long about how the government shouldn’t be involved in education.  But if you actually homeschool your own children, it will show others that it can be done.  They might even talk to you about it and explain their fears of doing it.

The Best Example

The best way to set a good example is to just be a good person.  Also, it helps to be a somewhat normal person.  Some libertarians like to act as outcasts of society, and it is certainly their right to do so.  But it doesn’t do any favors for selling liberty.

It’s ok to fit in to society in many aspects, even if you believe in a minimal or no state society.  You aren’t selling out your libertarian principles by watching the Super Bowl or enjoying a concert at your local park.  In fact, the more you fit in, the more likely that others will listen to you when it comes to your politics (or maybe I should say anti-politics), as long as you aren’t overbearing.

There are many great things in our society in spite of a massive state.  We should embrace those great things and join others in embracing them, even if those other people are not completely on our political team.  You may find you have more influence when you embrace these things and generally are a happy person.  Other people want to be around happy and friendly people, and that is how you will have the most influence.

While U.S. stock market indexes hit new all-time highs, the Japanese stock market is also hitting new marks.  The Nikkei hit an all-time high last week, finally beating the high reached in late 1989.  That’s right.  It only took a little over 34 years.

It could be said that Japan has its own bubble, especially given its debt-to-GDP ratio that makes the wild spenders in the U.S. Congress look conservative by comparison.  The Japanese government has finally gotten the inflation it wanted, and it brought stocks to new highs.

Perhaps the business cycle in Japan is just running a bit slower than in the United States, which is like Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride.  Japan’s last major stock bubble happened 3 and a half decades ago, which is at least a generation.

It’s not that every time an asset hits a new all-time high that it is in a bubble.  But when it is driven by a policy of loose money and artificially low interest rates, the distortions tend to point to it being unsustainable in the long run.

You have to wonder if there are people who bought near the top of the market in Japan in 1989 and have held on this entire time without selling.  It would have had to have been someone relatively young.

Of course, it’s not as if a lot of people put a lot of money in stocks right at the top of the market without investing at any other time.  So we shouldn’t make it sound as if every investor from 1989 in Japan is a loser.  Maybe they bought a lot of shares after it plummeted.

Still, it calls into question the whole strategy of buy and hold.

Buy and Hold, For How Long?

There are many financial advisors and media personalities who give the advice to buy low-cost index funds and to hold them for a long period of time.  Some even advocate that all or most of your investment money should go into mutual funds.  They say that the market always goes up in the long run.

And I suppose Japan has just proven that to be true.  In the long run, stocks do go up, especially in our world of fiat currencies.  But just how long are you supposed to wait?

Warren Buffett is considered by many to be the greatest investor of all time.  He probably is.  But Buffett doesn’t advocate that others do what he did.  Buffett got incredibly wealthy by buying solid companies that he researched for long-term growth.  This isn’t really the advice Buffett gives to others.  He just says to buy an index fund and hold it.

Up until now, Buffett’s advice has generally been sound.  He says he is long on the U.S. economy.

But what about Japan?  It’s not as if Japan is some third-world country.  In fact, in the 1980s, people were saying that the Japanese were going to overtake the U.S. economically.

Imagine someone who invested in the Japanese market in 1989 who was 45 years old.  Now they would be close to age 80.  And the market just finally got to where it was in 1989?

When people say to buy and hold for the long run, how long are you supposed to wait?  Are you supposed to base your retirement plans on this long run?

Can It Happen Here?

Americans think it can’t happen here.  There have been stock crashes, but the market always seems to recover relatively quickly.

In many ways, there are a lot more problems in the United States now than there were in Japan in 1989. Japan wasn’t trying to run a world empire back then.

The same thing probably won’t happen in the U.S. only because the central bank will resort to greater money printing (digitally speaking).  Still, the example of Japan shows what is possible.

Even if the U.S. market went down by 50% and stayed down for half as long (17 years), how many people would be financially devastated?  How many people would have to come out of retirement?  How many people would have to delay retirement by many years?

You don’t have to listen to the conventional advice and put most of your money in stocks.  There are options, such as the permanent portfolio.  Buying mutual funds is only diversification as compared to buying individual stocks.  But most stocks tend to move up and down together as an asset class.  You can diversify in different asset classes.  The hardcore stock investors in Japan in 1989 should have at least diversified into bonds.

I am a hardcore defender of free market capitalism.  And this isn’t an article saying that I believe in free markets except for this one particular area.

I frequently hear people say things like the following:

“I am all for the free market, but we need some government regulation.”

“I am all for the free market, but we can’t just have the poor dying on the streets.”

“I am all for the free market, but we have to have fair trade with China.”

Perhaps I am intertwining the terms “free market” and capitalism”, but generally speaking I am just referring to a lack of government interference in the marketplace beyond upholding property rights and contracts.

I even believe in the free market when it comes to money.  We certainly don’t need a Federal Reserve or any kind of central bank.  We don’t even need the government to issue a gold-backed currency.  The marketplace can figure out the best form of money (or moneys).

With that said, there is a downside to free market capitalism.  It produces a massive amount of wealth over time and people get to enjoy great prosperity.  By itself, this is a wonderful thing.  So what’s the problem?

The State as a Leach

If we could maintain a libertarian society with a very minimal state, there is no problem.  The problem is when we get away from liberty.

We end up with a tyrannical government that feeds off of the prosperity that came from free market capitalism.  And if there is still some semblance of the free market, wealth is still produced, even if at a slower pace.  It continues to feed the beast.

The United States over the last century is the perfect example of everything right with free market capitalism, along with everything that is wrong with it.

The American people have enjoyed prosperity and a level of wealth that would have been unimaginable a century ago.  We are walking around with handheld computers in our pockets.  We walk onto an airplane and fly across the country in a few hours.  We press a button in our house to make it hotter or colder.  The list could go on forever.

With that, the state at all levels, but particularly the national level, has taken a cut of this wealth and has used it to do great damage.

There would be no nuclear weapons without the great wealth that came before their development.  There would be no drone strikes in Syria or bombers flying over Iraq if it hadn’t been for our prosperity.  We wouldn’t have a national security state capable of spying on every American if the technology and wealth didn’t exist.

In some ways, free market capitalism has helped fund its own demise.  The whole thing seems like a giant contradiction, and it almost hurts your brain to think about it.

The U.S. government is spending over $6 trillion per year because of our vast wealth.  This spending is mostly destructive (to varying degrees), and it enables the state to make us less free.

If free market capitalism were simply being used by the state to make us less wealthy, then it wouldn’t be such a big problem.  We could accept that we are still better off with it because we are far wealthier than not having a somewhat free market.  The problem is that the government isn’t just taking our wealth and making us poorer.  It is using our wealth against us to repress us and sometimes to even kill people.

The Alternatives

My critique of free market capitalism isn’t really a critique of the free market but moving away from the free market.  The problem here is that you have to maintain a minimal state with all of the new wealth and prosperity.  There is the problem that people with a lot of wealth have a lot of extra time on their hands to act as tyrants.  The wealth generated from the free market funds the very people who would do away with the free market.

The fact that we have had a relative free market makes the chances of the world being blown up by nuclear weapons greater than it would have been.

With that said, I will never not favor free market capitalism for this or any other reason.  If we don’t have some semblance of the free market, what is the alternative?  We could have state control from a state that is relatively poor, but we would all be living in poverty.

We take risks in life every day.  Although the lockdowns in 2020 seemed to indicate that people did want to live in a safety bubble, there is a reason the lockdowns didn’t last.  Even if you thought it was a really dangerous and deadly virus, at some point you want to live life, even with the risks.

If someone offered you a lifestyle of poverty but could guarantee that you live until at least the age of 80, would you take it?  I don’t think most people would.  We would rather take some risks and live a fulfilling life.

I will take the risk of free market capitalism funding a tyrannical state that can and will be used against us.

Of course, there is always the possibility of having free market capitalism and keeping the state in check or not having a state at all.  This requires educating others on the benefits and morality of liberty and not relying on the state.

It is possible to have great wealth and prosperity without using it to fund a giant tyrannical state apparatus.  I think this will be the ultimate achievement of the human race if we can get to a point of great wealth while maintaining peace.

In a recent debate for a California Senate seat, Barbara Lee defended her proposal for a $50 per hour federal minimum wage.

Barbara Lee is currently a member of the House of Representatives.  She is perhaps best known as the sole “no” vote on the authorization of the use of force after the September 11, 2001 attacks.  Unfortunately, her anti-war credentials were thrown out the window in the last couple of years by supporting U.S. involvement in the Ukraine/ Russia war.

She has always been bad on economic issues, so that is nothing new.  But maybe there is something to celebrate with her proposing a $50 minimum wage.  Some of the other candidates for the Senate seat are advocating for a more “moderate” $20 to $25 per hour.

Those of us in the Austro/ libertarian camp sometimes like to use a reductio ad absurdum to make our point.  In this case, it means using an absurd example to show the fallacy of a proposal, particularly in economics.  And the most classic example involves the minimum wage.

When some candidate proposes increasing the minimum wage by, say, $2 per hour, a libertarian might retort by saying, “Why not make it $100 per hour?  After all, if a higher minimum wage is beneficial without drawbacks, why not just keep raising it up?”

Well, Barbara Lee has taken the reductio ad absurdum and applied it well on this issue.  The only problem is that she is serious.

This might even be too radical leftist for California voters.

Minimum Wage, Minimum Impact

A principled libertarian supports no minimum wage imposed by the state.  Any interference in wages is an interference in the market.

In recent years, it is interesting that one government intervention has minimized the impacts of another government intervention.  In this case, Federal Reserve inflation has diluted the negative impacts of a minimum wage.

While wages don’t necessarily go up in line with inflation, they do tend to go up in nominal terms in an environment of high price inflation.  If prices are going up 5% per year and wages are going up 3% per year, this is a yearly drop of 2% in real wages.  But the nominal wages are still going up 3%, which dilutes the impact of minimum wage laws.

In other words, there aren’t many jobs now that would pay less than the federal minimum wage in the free market even if there were no minimum wage laws.  So, the negative impacts of minimum wage laws are minimal right now, and it is largely due to the impacts of inflation.

The Problem with a $50 Minimum Wage

Unless we have really high price inflation, a $50 minimum wage would be disastrous.  I don’t think this will happen any time soon, and I don’t think Lee will win the election, but let’s just say that we got a $50 minimum wage in effect now.

It would cause mass unemployment, and it would misallocate resources on an extreme level.

I saw a segment of Gutfeld (the television show on Fox News) where this issue was discussed.  Greg Gutfeld and several of his guests were rightly criticizing and making fun of this $50 minimum wage proposal. Unfortunately, they got it wrong on the impacts.

They said it would cause hyperinflation like Venezuela or Weimar Germany.  But this is not good economics.  A massive increase in the money supply is what ultimately leads to hyperinflation.

With a $50 minimum wage, it’s possible some prices will go up.  A fastfood restaurant, like any business, will try to maximize its revenue when pricing its products.  If they had to pay workers this much money, then prices would have to go up to a certain degree.  The problem is that most people won’t pay $15 for a cheeseburger at McDonald’s.

This leaves a lot of scenarios with companies everywhere.  They can try to automate more, which means less employment.  They can raise prices, but again, customers might not be willing to pay.  This could mean that many businesses would simply go out of business.

We’ve never seen such a massive distortion in wage controls as this would present.  Therefore, it is hard to say exactly how things would take shape, but it seems certain that there would be a lot of “under the table” employment.  We would live in one giant black market of employment.

With a $50 minimum wage, it means a majority of workers would likely be officially terminated.  The majority of people in the United States earn less than that amount in the first place.

The good news is that if anything like this ever happened, it wouldn’t last long.  The consequences would be so drastic and immediate, it would be apparent what caused the consequences.  But it would make for an expensive economics lesson.