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.
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.
It’s not that I ever thought price inflation was dead. But if you listen to most of the talking heads in the financial media, along with the government politicians, you would think that the war against price inflation had been won. You might even get the false impression that prices were actually coming down.
The rate of price inflation had been going down, but the CPI was still coming in higher than the Fed’s goal of 2%. And if you have had to make a payment on your car insurance premiums lately, you really know that price inflation has not been defeated.
The CPI numbers came out for January 2024. The price index rose 0.3% for January. It was expected to rise 0.2%. The year-over-year number came in at 3.1%.
Stocks, bonds, and gold all got crushed on the day after the CPI report came out in the morning. This is because it is bad news for investors who expect the Fed to loosen its monetary policy. Now they are not counting on a drop in rates any time soon.
You would think that higher inflation would be good news for gold, but the same situation applies to the yellow metal. In our bizarre world, higher inflation can mean that gold will go down because investors are anticipating tighter money from the Fed going forward.
It’s a House of Cards
This really demonstrated how delicate the bubble economy is. One big wind can blow down the house of cards.
Investors in the bubble economy aren’t too worried about earnings reports or company financial statements. They are worried about having access to loose money. In other words, the dramatic rise in asset prices, particularly stocks and real estate, is built on the Fed’s easy money. When there is a threat that the easy money will disappear, then stocks go down.
Maybe this move down in stocks will be a small blip and they will continue to go on to new all-time highs in short order. But I do think this slightly higher than expected CPI report shows the vulnerability of the Everything Bubble.
If a rise in overall consumer prices of 0.3% sends stock prices into a tailspin, what would have happened if it had come in at 0.5%? Or what if we get another report next month showing that prices went up higher than expected in February?
I can’t say that this is the beginning of a bear market. However, it shows the fragility of the stock market and the whole financial system. If stocks are that sensitive to a higher reading in the CPI, imagine what will happen when a new financial crisis hits.
I watched all 2 plus hours of the interview Tucker Carlson had with Vladimir Putin. Before the interview even aired (if that’s the right term), the establishment media was blasting Tucker and the whole thing. The people who lie for a living were accusing Carlson of not being a real journalist.
This is actually what a real journalist is supposed to do. This is what a journalist who isn’t controlled by the government and power elite does.
Overall, I thought Tucker did a good job. You can always say there are questions you wished had been asked. I wish he had been more direct on getting Putin to list his demands in order to bring the war in Ukraine to a close. Still, just giving Putin a platform was good, as it gives the American people an opportunity to hear from the person who is deemed the enemy.
Putin – Marketer, Propagandist, Politician?
Putin is a politician. He is not like a typical American politician, but he is still a politician. He is going to use propaganda to his advantage, just as we all do in certain situations. Using propaganda is similar to marketing. It can be honest, but you use the words in a way to convince others of your viewpoint. This can be to sell a product or to sell ideas.
Some people thought Putin did a brilliant job of using propaganda. I think in many ways this is correct, but I thought his very long lesson on Russian history may not have been that brilliant.
It showed Putin’s intelligence and vast knowledge. In that sense, it was well played. Putin is far more intelligent and knowledgeable about history than any U.S. president I can ever remember. Of course, it doesn’t mean you are a good person. You can be evil and intelligent. Hillary Clinton is not as intelligent as Putin, but she is far more intelligent than Joe Biden or Nikki Haley. She is still as evil as them though.
Putin’s long history lesson did not answer the question for me on whether there was some justification for launching a war in Ukraine. I really don’t think any wars can be justified from a libertarian perspective unless it is somehow fought to not endanger any innocent people.
With that said, some wars are far worse than others. I think there are more justifications for Putin invading Ukraine than there were for Bush invading Iraq. And despite what the media likes to say, the war in Ukraine was far from being “unprovoked”.
Going back in history over 1,000 years ago does little for me, and I suspect it is the same for most others. I don’t think anything that was done 1,000 years ago could justify any sort of war today. I feel the same way when the discussion turns to the state of Israel.
The problem is that Putin spent so much time on this history that it diluted the much more important parts of the interview.
The majority of his time would have been better spent talking about the coup in Ukraine a decade ago that overthrew the democratically-elected president who was somewhat friendly towards Russia. He could have pointed out the seeming involvement of the U.S. government in the coup.
Putin could have spent more time talking about the slaughter and abuse of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. He certainly did reference this, but with a disproportionately small amount of time.
Putin also talked about the NATO push eastward to the Russian border, but he probably could have gone into even more detail on this.
Why the Interview Matters
I don’t care about people liking Putin, but I do want the American people to see the human side of Russians, and I want them to see that Putin is not an irrational human being.
Most of all, I want Americans to realize that their own government officials have been lying to them. This wasn’t an unprovoked war, and it was the U.S. that was the biggest outside provoker.
If Americans understood it to this degree, they would at least take the position that the U.S. government should stop interfering in Ukraine and other parts of the world.
If the U.S. government stopped funding Ukraine and simply promised not to admit Ukraine into NATO, this might be enough to bring the war to a quick close. This would save a lot of lives on both sides, but particularly innocent Ukrainians. Without U.S. support, the Ukrainian government would feel forced to reach some kind of negotiation. Perhaps it would involve allowing free independent states for the ethnic Russians.
Even if you think Putin is a really evil person who just wants to perpetuate war, it is good to hear his reasoning for it. It is not much different from someone listening to the complaints of Osama bin Laden. You don’t have to be a bin Laden fan to realize that U.S. involvement overseas contributes to people not liking America and wanting some kind of revenge.
Instead of taking the lying media’s word for things, it is usually a good idea to go directly to the source. In this case, Tucker gave us the source. He allowed a long interview for Putin to give his positions, which are not something that the corporate media will give you.
If Tucker were still at Fox News, I don’t think this interview would have happened. Maybe Fox did us a favor by firing their most popular host.
The S&P 500 index closed above the 5,000 mark for the first time in history today. The Nasdaq closed just short of 16,000.
The yield curve is still mostly inverted with the 3-month yield considerably higher than the 10-year yield and 30-year yield. It has been inverted for over a year now. Does this mean that the coming recession will be much bigger than normal?
And while the Fed has seemingly stopped hiking its target interest rate, it is still draining its bloated balance sheet. The Fed balance sheet peaked at about $8.965 trillion in April 2022. It now stands at about $7.63 trillion.
Even though the balance sheet had exploded from about $4 trillion in early 2020, we have still seen well over a trillion dollars drained in almost the last 2 years. The correction is going to come sooner rather than later if the Fed doesn’t do anything drastic.
It is still the Fed’s policy to allow maturing debt to roll off the balance sheet to the tune of $95 billion per month.
Bullish Investors
But none of this matters to the bullish investors. They are pushing stocks to their all-time highs while ignoring the Fed monetary deflation and the inverted yield curve. They think the party will keep going.
Maybe some aren’t ignoring it and just figure they can get out at any time. You can get out at any time, but at what price? Only a select few can get out at today’s prices. It doesn’t take a lot of sellers, relatively speaking, to drive down the prices.
Of course, this is why almost nobody gets rich by timing the market. If the market goes down 5% next week, what does that tell us? Is it the start of a bad bear market? Or is it just a little blip down before the bull market resumes?
I continue to believe that a recession in 2024 is likely. The problem is that investors are completely irrational at this point. They are bullish because others are bullish. They feed each other’s optimism. When the optimism breaks this time, it is going to break hard.
I think of the people who have retirement plans in the near future and are still heavily invested in stocks. I hope they have a Plan B.
The Correction
A major correction could actually help much of middle-class America if the government and the Fed don’t intervene too much to stop it. We need a correction to get some rational prices. We need a correction so that consumer prices can come down. We need a correction to set the stage for some real growth and rising real wages in the future. It would also help people who have been priced out of the housing market.
Most of all, we need a correction in order to force the government to cut back on its wasteful and destructive spending. It seems like there is no limit to what the government can spend, but there are political limits, even if it doesn’t seem to be the case right now. We just haven’t quite reached those limits yet.
This was one of the most bizarre and fascinating interviews I’ve seen in a long time. Dave Smith interviewed Robert Kennedy Jr. on his podcast. At times, it was more of a heated debate than an interview.
If there’s been one small area where I’m a tiny bit critical of Dave, it is that he doesn’t push hard enough when he has guests where he has significant disagreements. I remember when he had a woman from Reason on his show and he seemed to take it a bit too easy on her. Still, I understand not wanting to be rude to guests on your show.
When Dave had Tucker Carlson on his show, there are obviously areas where Dave could have challenged Tucker, but I’m glad he didn’t. It would have been easy to get bogged down in some argument about libertarianism when Tucker probably has a slightly different definition of what constitutes a libertarian. It is good that they focused on the issue of foreign policy and hammering away at the deep state.
I was surprised at how forceful Dave was with RFK Jr. I don’t think Dave was rude at all, but he definitely made it clearly known when he disagreed. It was mostly about Israel and Gaza. This is an important issue, and like many libertarians, I am not sure how RFK can be so right on Ukraine and other important areas and yet be so wrong on his support for U.S. government funding of Israel.
When Dave asked Kennedy about the Israeli lobby, I thought Kennedy was going to get up and walk out of the interview. Dave asked him about Israeli influence on U.S. government policy, and there was a pause of at least 5 seconds. After the incredibly uncomfortable pause, Kennedy answers, “I don’t know.” He then goes on to say that he hasn’t been in political office. It’s kind of a strange response. I have never been in political office, but I can easily recognize that there is a military-industrial complex. I can see that big pharma has great influence on U.S. government policy. I’m sure Kennedy can easily see those things too.
Overall, I thought Kennedy did a poor job of explaining his position. He rambled on about a lot of things that didn’t directly answer the objections to his position.
I have been turned off of Kennedy since shortly after the October 7th attacks in Israel because of his stance. Kennedy has repeated the establishment narrative and seems to offer no criticism of killing tens of thousands of innocent people in Gaza.
I have also been critical that Kennedy seemed to disappear from the alternative media world after this. He gained back some credibility with me for going on Dave’s podcast, even though I disagreed with much of when he said. I give him credit for at least facing some hard questions.
And if That Wasn’t Enough
The podcast episode was even more bizarre than that though. At the beginning of the podcast, Kennedy said that he heard that Dave had considered running for president on the Libertarian Party ticket. He complimented Dave and said that he’s glad he doesn’t have to go up against him.
Dave explained that he had considered it but that he decided against it this time around for family reasons. Then Kennedy made an offer to Dave to be his running mate. I believe this came completely unexpected to Dave. You normally don’t get offered a spot to run for vice president of the United States when you are interviewing someone on a podcast.
Maybe Kennedy was only half serious when he made the offer. After that, they get into all of the Israel/ Gaza talk, and it gets quite heated at times. There was no name calling, and it mostly remained civil, but there was complete disagreement on the issue.
After over an hour of debate on the topic, Dave starts wrapping up the podcast and saying that he at least appreciates Kennedy for coming on the show.
What is Kennedy’s response after an hour of debate? He reiterates his offer to Dave to be his running mate.
Are you serious?
When I watched this, I was partly in shock, and I was partly laughing.
And then Dave responded about it being dangerous to be on a Kennedy ticket. Dave basically joked about Kennedy being assassinated, but then said that he would actually be good life insurance because he is no LBJ. Kennedy responded, “That’s exactly why I want you.” He said Dave is a worse version of himself that nobody will want.
Kennedy was exactly correct on this point. That’s the same reason I say that Trump should pick someone like Tucker Carlson or Vivek as his running mate. It will be his best protection against assassination or impeachment.
Should Dave Consider?
It seems that Dave Smith has declined the offer as far as we know. He still has the same family reasons as before as a reason for not running for president. Perhaps, running as VP would be a little less intense, but it is obviously still demanding.
I have no idea if Kennedy wants to run on the LP ticket. It is a way to get relatively easy ballot access. Even though it makes it easier and cheaper to get on state ballots, there is a big question of whether he would get the LP nomination, even with Dave’s support.
Or maybe Kennedy really just wants Dave on his ticket as an independent candidate.
Let’s just say that Kennedy wants to stay as an independent and is serious about having Dave as a running mate. And let’s say Dave decides he can handle this and his family is ok with it.
Would this be beneficial to liberty?
Let’s say that Kennedy wants to run on the Libertarian Party ticket with Dave and Dave’s family is ok with it.
Would this be beneficial to the Libertarian Party?
Those are two separate questions. They are not necessarily the same thing. It could be harmful for the LP but beneficial for the cause of liberty.
The Mises Caucus took over control of the party just a couple of years ago. There hasn’t been a presidential cycle yet with the Mises Caucus in control. So, it might not look good if the first candidate nominated is someone who was just recently a Democrat and still holds most of the same positions as when he was a Democrat.
You might see some of the Mises people quit the party over it. Some might endorse it because they agree with Dave’s message. It is really hard to say. It makes it harder to make a case for principled candidates in the future.
With that said, there is a case for Dave to be Kennedy’s running mate, regardless of whether it is or isn’t on the LP ticket. I think Dave would only do it and should only do it if Kennedy agreed that Dave can openly state his positions even on issues where they disagree.
They could just be open with the media and say they have a big disagreement over Israel policy and also some economic issues. But for the sake of the country and uniting against the deep state, they are running together.
If Trump asked me to be an advisor on foreign policy or economics or COVID vaccines, I wouldn’t necessarily say “no” just because I have so many disagreements. If there is a chance he will listen to me, maybe I would consider it. If I could explain my views in public, then it could serve to educate others.
And that is the key to this whole thing. We gain greater liberty by educating others on the morality and benefits of liberty. If tens of millions of people got a dose of Dave Smith (truth telling), then this would be a great advancement in liberty.
I don’t care about maximizing the number of votes. I highly doubt this ticket would win the election. But imagine if 15 million people enthusiastically supported the ticket and all of these people get familiar with Dave’s hardcore libertarian views. This could be a great win for the prospects of liberty in the future.
Conclusion
I understand that hardcore libertarians don’t want to compromise their principles. And I am not telling Dave to compromise his principles. I don’t think Dave as Kennedy’s running mate would necessarily be selling out his principles. If anything, he might help move Kennedy in the right direction while influencing millions of people.
If you have someone offering you a major platform for your libertarian views, I don’t think it is necessarily an unlibertarian thing to accept it, as long as you continue to tell the truth.
The latest FOMC statement on monetary policy was released on Wednesday afternoon. As was widely expected, the Fed kept its target federal funds rate the same. The release of the statement was followed by a press conference from Jerome Powell.
Powell does not exactly speak like Alan Greenspan did. He is a bit more coherent. At the same time, he really parses his words and holds back. He is careful with what he lets out. You know there is something wrong with our world when a few words from a central banker can dramatically change market conditions and cause billions of dollars in buying and selling.
Powell indicated that it would not be likely that we will see a rate cut in March at the next Fed meeting. On the one hand, he’ll say that inflation is under control. On the other hand, he’ll say that they aren’t confident enough yet (that inflation is under control) to lower rates.
Stocks were already down on the day, but they moved even lower. Gold was up earlier in the day and retreated in the afternoon, but still managed to show some gains. The 10-year yield fell a little bit and sits just below 4%.
For some reason, the statement dropped the language that “The U.S. banking system is sound and resilient.” Is it because people like me were making fun of it, or are they worried they will get made fun of when it is obvious that the banking system isn’t all that sound?
The Implementation Note from the statement shows that the Fed will continue to drain its balance sheet by $95 billion per month. It is for this reason that I do believe that the Fed is determined to bring price inflation under control, at least for as long as the economy seems to be humming along.
Things Change Quickly
Sometimes time just flies by in life. You wonder how we have entered another year. Or maybe you wonder how you’ve hit another birthday when that time comes. Sometimes things just hum along, until they don’t.
I remember the 2008 financial crisis quite well. There were warning signs in 2007 and early 2008, but things were mostly just humming along. All of a sudden, in September 2008, which happened to be right before a presidential election, the economy imploded. It seemed unreal at the time of the things that were happening. At the same time, life mostly went on. It was particularly devastating for some people, but not that big of a percentage. Most people kept their jobs and just watched their portfolios go down. Some people also saw housing prices plummet, but it wasn’t a huge deal for anyone who could comfortably afford the mortgage payments.
The point is that things change slowly, and then they change all of a sudden. They aren’t really expected. If they were expected, then the market crash or whatever would have already happened. If everyone expected stocks to crash next month, then most everyone would be selling now.
When the financial crisis finally does come, then it is like watching a train wreck from the distance. You just have to be careful not to get too close so that it doesn’t directly impact you.
We could be set up for a financial crisis and economic implosion that beats 2008. Even there, life usually goes on. It is more important to stay out of World War III than to stay out of a bad economic recession. Unfortunately, we don’t have much control over either one.
I know Jerome Powell is saying that a March rate cut is unlikely, but it is meaningless. The reason it is meaningless is because it can change in an instance. The economy could implode tomorrow morning, and we’d be seeing an emergency Fed meeting within days.
The yield curve is still mostly inverted, which seems hard to believe. This points to trouble ahead, but we don’t know how far ahead. I suspect that Powell knows there is trouble ahead. Politically, he is not allowed to admit this.
I have maintained that I don’t think the Fed will return to quantitative easing (money creation) just because stocks go down 20 or 30 percent. Maybe they will lower rates sooner if this happens. What will cause the Fed to return to balance sheet expansion is trouble in the bond market or bank troubles.
Don’t expect the Fed to bail out your stock portfolio. You can expect the Fed to bail out the banks as needed.