The latest Consumer Price Index (CPI) numbers are out for July.  While the CPI came in flat, the median CPI was up by 0.2%.

Over the last 12 months, the CPI rose 0.8%.  The median CPI was up by 2.6%.

I always have to give the qualifying statement that the CPI numbers are not necessarily an accurate measure for price inflation.  If anything, they are probably understated.  Still, these are the numbers that many economists use, including Federal Reserve officials, and they are also useful in determining trends.

I like to follow the median CPI because it is less volatile.  Year-over-year, it was coming in at 2.5% for the last three months.  Before that, it was 2.4%.  With it now hitting 2.6%, this shows an upward trend, although it is nothing to get too excited about.

I believe there continue to be strong forces on both sides of the price inflation tug-of-war.  It is amazing that the CPI has remained as stable as it has.

There was a lot of monetary inflation from the Fed from 2008 to 2014.  While much of this new money is bottled up in excess reserves held by banks, it is still inflationary nonetheless.  We just don’t get the dramatic effect of fractional reserve lending.

The Fed stopped its QE3 program in October 2014.  It is approaching 2 years now.  This will mean that the dislocations from the previous monetary inflation will get revealed as malinvestment.  This will have a recessionary effect.

However, there is a time lag for everything.  While the market will attempt to price in certain events, even upon announcements or expectations, the actual flow of money through the economy takes some time.  Prices don’t instantly rise when the Fed monetizes debt.  Prices don’t instantly fall when the Fed stabilizes the monetary base, or even sells off assets.

The expectations for significant price inflation remain low, at least according to bond investors.  With interest rates so low, even on long-term bonds, it is an indication that investors are not demanding any significant extra compensation for dollar depreciation.

I continue to recommend being mostly conservative in this environment.  There is strong potential for a major downturn, but it is hard to predict the timing.

As long as the price inflation numbers are coming in relatively low, the Fed will not likely hesitate in printing more money (digitally speaking) when a downturn hits.  It will be QE4, or whatever it is called.  The government deficits will also get worse, and Congress will rely on the Fed to monetize some of the debt.

Even though Congress is still running huge deficits (in a supposed recovery), the Treasuries are being bought up by foreigners or private investors.  Rates are remaining low, or even going down, despite the Fed not currently buying assets (except for rolling over maturing debt).

As long as the CPI numbers stay low, the Fed will not feel inhibited in being aggressive with its monetary policy should the need arise.  Of course, this is the wrong policy, as it just prolongs the problems and misallocates more resources.

Since we can’t depend on the Fed or the federal government to do the right things, we have to prepare based on reality.  And the reality is that we should expect more monetary inflation in the future.  This will ultimately benefit those invested in commodities, but it will hurt virtually everyone in terms of living standards.

As the Olympics close in Brazil, it is interesting to reflect on the games and the politics involved.  As a libertarian, I would like to share my opinions, with the realization that some libertarians simply despise the Olympic games.

From a libertarian standpoint, there are obviously several things to not like about the Olympics.  The first thing is that much of it is funded through the taxpayers (i.e., through the threat of force).

It was especially hard to watch the Olympics take place in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil because it is a third-world country.  The government is spending billions of dollars while millions of Brazilians live in poverty, perhaps some on the brink of starvation.

Every country has its poverty, but it is especially bad in Brazil.  Even in comparison to China, it just seems far worse.  We know there is poverty in China, especially in the rural parts.  The state controls almost everything in China, yet leaves parts of the market economy to somewhat function.  Still, China has well over a billion people and the overall poverty is not quite as grinding as in a place like Brazil.

As a libertarian, I don’t think taxpayers anywhere should have to pay for the Olympics.  There is no reason it could not be 100% funded (including the facilities) through voluntary donations.  There are plenty of corporations and rich individuals who would contribute, perhaps for a little advertisement.

There are other political elements that are disappointing as well.  It was probably a corrupt process that led to Rio being the host city in the first place.  And then we nearly saw the entire Russian team banned because some were using banned substances.

In addition to the host city (and country) having to seize taxpayer funds in order to host the events, it is also well-known that governments pay huge sums in order to train their athletes.

This article discusses the economics of it, and also points out that the United States is one of the few countries that does not have its government subsidizing the Olympians.  Yet, the U.S. collected the most medals, despite China having a population about four times as great.

This is a great economic example of where voluntarism works better than the use of force.  There is no denying that the Chinese now, and the Soviets in the past, have had some great success at winning Olympic medals.  But at what expense?

The Chinese (and others) are trying to train tens of thousands of athletes in the hopes that a few of them will win medals.  Is it for national pride?  Is it for prestige?  Meanwhile, the ones who don’t make it get cut with nothing to show for it, all of a sudden finding themselves looking for work with few skills outside of their specialized sport.  And this is all funded at the expense of the general population, most of whom are living in poverty.  Talk about a misallocation of resources.

From this perspective, I actually do cheer for the Americans.  I also understand that people generally will cheer for those whom they identify with.  If you live in Topeka Kansas, you are more likely to cheer for someone from Topeka than someone from Los Angeles.  You are definitely more likely to cheer for that person than someone from South Korea.

Unfortunately, I also don’t find it that appealing watching NBC when everything is revolved around the greatness of the Americans.  Many of these sports are individual events, and I see nothing wrong with acknowledging individual greatness, even if the person is from another country.

I know some Americans will disagree with me on this, but I did not at all care for Lilly King, one of the American swimmers.  She was obnoxious and rude and kept going after the Russian swimmer for supposedly not being clean.  Of course, the story is far more complicated than that.  I was actually cheering against King because I found her too obnoxious.

I know some libertarians find the whole Olympic games objectionable, but I personally enjoy watching the sports and the competition.  I also enjoy watching the generally good sportsmanship, especially between individuals from different countries.

When Michael Phelps was getting ready to swim one of his races, the media was blowing up the story about one of his competitors stretching (and sort of taunting) in front of Phelps before the race, as Phelps sat there with an angry look.  But when the race was over, they congratulated each other.  And overall, I found more competitors were humble and gracious at the end, as opposed to not.

I will continue to enjoy the Olympics in the future, despite the political elements.  Let’s just try to convince the world to stop stealing from poor people (or any people) in order to fund these games.  It can be done voluntarily.

The current mix of political and Olympics news involves swimmer Ryan Lochte and 3 of his swim teammates. They claim they were robbed at gunpoint, and now Brazilian authorities have prevented two of the swimmers from leaving the country due to possible inconsistencies in their stories. Lochte was also supposed to have his passport seized, but he had already left the country.

I typically don’t like commenting on fresh stories because there will inevitably be more details that come to light. My initial reaction is that I doubt that four Olympic swimmers would make up such a story. It’s possible they could have embellished certain things or not recalled certain details. They were returning from partying late into the early morning and were all likely intoxicated.

The crime is really bad in Brazil. It was a concern about having the Olympics in Rio di Janeiro. The swimmers were probably stupid for leaving the Olympic village. But the Brazilian officials wanting to question the swimmers more and possibly bring charges against the athletes, only makes Brazil look worse.

The Brazilian officials don’t want to look bad, so they are, in effect, punishing these swimmers for reporting on this crime. But they are just going to make the Brazilian government look more corrupt than it already is. This is a high-profile story and public opinion will be against the Brazilian government. It will be interesting to see what the U.S. government does if they try to extradite Lochte. I think American public opinion will keep him here in the U.S.

This is a good reminder for Americans that they really should be thankful for what they have. I know that libertarians get hung up on injustices. And to be sure, there are many. But the U.S. is still far ahead of most other countries in certain key areas. There are three areas where I see American individualism and liberty coming in far ahead of other supposedly free countries.

The first area is free speech. Again, I understand things are not perfect in the U.S. Dinesh D’Souza was sent to prison for essentially making a movie critical of Obama. The charges were for illegal political contributions, but the handwriting is easy to see.

For the most part though, Americans can say pretty much whatever they want, as long as it isn’t threatening violence. There is harsh criticism of politicians and other government officials. This is not tolerated in other countries. And it isn’t so much that it is tolerated by those in power in the U.S.; it is just that public opinion protects free speech in most cases.

The second area where the U.S. is far better than most other places is homeschooling. Perhaps this is more symbolic, but it is important nonetheless. It is a view that children belong to their parents and not the state. In the supposedly free country of Germany, homeschooling is essentially illegal.

The third area is gun ownership. The American public owns more guns than anybody else in the world. The Swiss supposedly have widespread gun ownership, but this is basically mandated by the government for their militia. Voluntary gun ownership in the U.S. is by far the highest in the world on a per capita basis. Despite the attempts by some to institute further gun control, the public support just isn’t there. Americans don’t trust their government to be the sole owners of guns.

In conclusion, the U.S. has certainly declined in many areas in terms of liberty. But there are areas where things have gotten better. And compared to a third-world country such as Brazil, the U.S. really is a paradise.

We can’t predict the markets with any absolute certainty, and we certainly can’t predict the timing of events.  Still, there are signals we can pay attention to that indicate a possible recession in the near future.  Here are 10 reasons that a recession is likely close at hand.

1. The yields on long-term U.S. government debt are near all-time lows.  The 10-year yield is around 1.5%.  Bond investors are indicating fear, as they lock in long-term rates, even at low levels.
2. The yields on short-term U.S. government debt have gone up, even if slightly.  Although these rates are still low, they are no longer right near zero.  When you couple this with the fact that long-term rates are falling (see point number 1), there is a flattening yield curve, which is a classic indicator of a recession.
3. All three major U.S. stock indices recently hit all-time highs on the same day.  This was the first time this happened since 1999, which was right before the tech bubble came crashing down.
4. The last two major recessions happened right before or right after a presidential election.  Both Bush and Obama entered office with a recessionary economy.  While this by itself does not guarantee a recession, it seems to be the trend of one president leaving a mess for the next.
5. The Federal Reserve has only hiked its key interest rate once since setting its target near zero in late 2008.  When the Fed hiked the federal funds rate by a quarter of a percent in December 2015, stocks went down in January, temporarily providing some fear for stock investors.
6. The Fed now comes up with a new excuse every time it fails to raise its target interest rate, despite continually promising to raise it in the future.  Is there something these Fed officials know that they aren’t telling us?  Why are they so scared to raise the federal funds rate from historic lows, when the economy has supposedly recovered?
7. Despite low interest rates, banks have piled up massive amounts of excess reserves.  While this has helped keep a lid on price inflation, it is telling that the banks would prefer to collect 0.5% (previously 0.25%) interest from the Fed on their reserves rather than lend out the money.
8. The misallocations that resulted in the recession in 2008 were never allowed to be cleared out.  The financial institutions were bailed out, along with the car companies.  This just prolongs the inevitable, unless the Fed and government plan to bail out these companies forever.  Since General Motors and Chrysler were bailed out, it just means that they were allowed to continue making the same mistakes.  This is a massive misallocation of resources.
9. Since the fall of 2008, the Fed has approximately quintupled the adjusted monetary base from about $800 billion to $4 trillion.  This money creation produces a massive misallocation of resources.  So while the misallocations were never fully allowed to correct from the last recession, this massive monetary inflation has only made things worse.
10. Since the huge monetary inflation from 2008 to 2014 (see above), the Fed has actually maintained a tight monetary policy.  The Fed ended QE3 in October 2014.  The Fed pumped up its asset bubbles with its so-called quantitative easing programs, but now we have had almost two years of relatively tight money.  The Austrian Business Cycle Theory tells us that this tightening is going to lead to an inevitable bust.

So while we can’t guarantee a recession is going to happen in the near future, there are many reasons that it looks likely.  You should prepare yourself accordingly.

The Bank of England (BOE) recently announced a cut in its key interest rate, along with a new round of so-called quantitative easing.  This is nothing new amongst major central banks over the last several years.

The only major central bank with a tight monetary policy right now is the Federal Reserve.  It ended its QE3 program in October 2014.

One thing that caught my attention in the BOE’s announcement was what it will be buying.  Included in its asset purchases is corporate bonds.

Historically, central banks have bought government debt.  In the case of the U.S., the Fed’s policy was to buy U.S. government debt in the form of Treasuries and bonds.  It was only until after the fall of 2008 that the Fed went outside of this historical norm and started purchasing mortgage-backed securities (MBS).  The purchase of MBS was a pure bank bailout.

Now the BOE is buying corporate debt, and not just its own government’s debt.  This just further distorts markets and resources.

It is bad enough when these central banks tamper with the money supply and interest rates.  The buying of corporate bonds just adds to the cronyism and corruption.  At least in this case it might be a little more obvious.

These central banks have literally unlimited amounts of money.  That is how they purchase these assets.  They create money (or digits) out of thin air.

When you have a major central bank buying corporate debt, it is really going to drive prices in the market.  The interest rates on corporate debt should go down.

It would be hard to imagine that there won’t be any favoritism/ cronyism from such a setup.  Imagine if the Fed had such a program.  Any time a politically favored company had any trouble, the Fed could just buy corporate debt from the company to keep it afloat.  This could include car companies, financial institutions, “green” companies, etc.  The companies with the most lobbyists and political connections never have to worry about going under.  The Fed could just always buy more debt to keep operations running.

And if a company is not in favor, then the Fed can just let it sink.  It can pick the winners and losers.

This would be a terrible misallocation of resources.  It would allow for virtually endless bailouts.  It means that companies could operate at a loss and continue to keep their doors open.  They would be just like government entities in a sense, where there is no profit or loss system.

The Fed is not doing this now (except with the banks in the form of interest on reserves), as it is keeping its monetary base flat and just rolling over maturing debt.  But if the economy stumbles and the Fed announces another round of QE, it would not be surprising for the Fed to include this in its arsenal.  It is an easy and direct way to bail out any company that it wants to help.

The Bank of England may just be doing a test run for the other central banks right now.  It is just more potential cronyism that we have to look forward to in the future.

Are you ever frustrated that your toilet just doesn’t work like it should?  Are you constantly facing clogged toilets?  Do you ever wonder why something like a toilet would work so poorly in the 21st century with our advanced technologies?

The lack of properly working toilets is not due to a lack of innovation in the toilet industry.  It is due to us living in something of a nanny state.

There is virtually nothing in our world today where the government does not interfere.  This includes our trips to the toilet.

In 1992, George H. W. Bush signed the Energy Policy Act into law.  Part of this law mandated that new toilets meet a standard maximum of 1.6 gallons per flush.  This ushered in the era of low-flush toilets.

The law went into effect on January 1, 1994 for residential buildings and January 1, 1997 for commercial buildings.

Just as with Obamacare, the federal mandate followed a similar law in Massachusetts that had passed a few years earlier.

If you live in a house with toilets from 1994 or later, then you probably understand the problem here.  My kids have even been capable of clogging the toilets, and that it without shoving huge wads of toilet paper in there.

So if you want to blame anyone for your lack of properly working toilets, you can point the finger to George H. W. Bush and the 1992 Congress.  Of course, any Congress and president could have easily repealed this since that time, but they have failed to do so.

One thing that libertarians quickly realize about government laws is that they almost never fulfill their stated objectives.  In fact, it is typical for laws, especially at the federal level, to accomplish the exact opposite of their stated purposes.

You can see this all around.  The government wages a war on poverty, and they end up creating more poverty.  They wage a war on drugs and now you have drug dealers pushing drugs on kids in school.  The government passes laws to make healthcare more affordable (the “Affordable” Care Act), only to make it more expensive.  The government subsidizes student loans to make college more affordable, which ends up making it more expensive.  The list goes on and on.

With the implementation of low-flush toilets, this is no exception.  Not only do your toilets not work, but the objectives of the law aren’t met either.  In fact, you end up with the opposite.

It was reported in 2011 that San Francisco’s sewers were backed up with waste sludge because of the low volume of water.  Then the city reportedly used chlorine bleach in the sewers, which then causes its own set of environmental issues.

Of course, the stated objective of the low-flush toilets was to save water.  For the more cynical, the actual objective was for politicians and bureaucrats to have more control over your life.

Congress ignores economics and supply and demand.  Water does cost money, which means that people pay more if they use more, at least typically.  This is an incentive for people to use less water.  If it were simply a matter of buying a toilet that saved water, then the marketplace would fulfill this demand.

However, this law in many ways accomplishes the exact opposite of its stated purpose.  When you have to flush before using toilet paper just to make sure it doesn’t clog, then the double or triple flush really defeats the whole purpose of using less water per flush.

It gets even worse if the toilet clogs.  What happens when you have to flush it several times to plunge it, or to hope everything goes down?  And then you may have to flush it a couple of more times to clean it.  If you end up flushing the toilet six times, it sure does defeat the purpose of the low-flush toilet.  You  may end up actually using more water as a result.  It is just one more example of a law doing the exact opposite of its stated purpose.

This legislation, like so much other, needs to be flushed down a toilet, and a strong one at that.

The next time you are griping about your toilets not working well, just think of Congress.  Whenever you think of sewer waste, Congress should come straight to your mind.

I have heard many complain about the terrible candidates in this year’s presidential election.  My response is, “Compared to what?”

Were the choices really that great when it was Romney against Obama?  How about McCain against Obama?  How about Kerry against Bush?

At least this year is mildly exciting with Donald Trump upsetting the establishment so much.

Let’s take a look at the candidates from a libertarian perspective.  I think we can safely skip over Hillary Clinton.

While I don’t support Trump, I have been sympathetic towards him on several occasions.  His economic proposals are abysmal, which just goes to show that being a businessman means nothing when it comes to politics.  However, his lack of political correctness at times is actually refreshing in our time of hyper-sensitivity.

Most of all, Trump has shown signs of being good on foreign policy, or at least better than any major nominee in a long time.  He suggests getting out of NATO.  He says he wants to talk to Putin (instead of going to war).  He says that the war in Iraq has been a disaster.  It is these stances that has got the establishment so worried.

Unfortunately, Trump just endorsed Paul Ryan (going against a Trump supporter in his primary).  Trump also essentially endorsed John McCain.  This, coupled with his VP pick of Mike Pence, shows that the Republican establishment has rattled him.  Trump thinks he needs to play ball with them.  For this reason, I simply cannot vote for Trump unless something dramatic changes.

If I thought Trump would end the wars overseas and return the U.S. to a non-interventionist foreign policy, then I might actually vote for him, despite my other disagreements.  Foreign policy is the biggest issue and it is the one issue where the president could actually make a difference.  But since I don’t trust Trump on this issue any longer, I cannot even vote for him as the lesser of two evils.

So what about a third-party candidate?

Let’s start with Jill Stein, the nominee of the Green Party.  She is probably the best on the war issue.  She is more anti-war than Bernie Sanders.  I realize this isn’t saying much, but I am not sure that Sanders supporters realize that he is not anti-war.  Sanders is just less hawkish than Hillary Clinton, which isn’t hard.  Sanders is nothing compared to Ron Paul on the war issue and interventionism.

If foreign policy were the only issue, maybe I would consider Jill Stein.  But it is terribly difficult to vote for someone who promotes hardcore socialism.  She can call herself the peace candidate, but the bedrock of socialism is government violence.  Her other policies require violence to the extreme.

Are the people of Venezuela happy that they supported Hugo Chavez because he kept them out of war?  If that person is a brutal thug dictator, then the lack of a foreign interventionist policy doesn’t help too much, except perhaps for those on the receiving end of drone bombings overseas.

Now let’s consider the non-libertarian Libertarian Gary Johnson.  This is the man who personally chose Bill Weld as his running mate.  I know that the Libertarian Party selects the VP candidate, but it was because Johnson pushed for him.

Weld is what some would call a liberal Republican.  He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.  He is as establishment as they come.  He is just about the opposite of libertarian when it comes to many issues.

Meanwhile, Johnson himself is terrible.  He was a little more tolerable 4 years ago when he ran.  Now he just sounds ridiculous.  He is campaigning on the fact that he is not Clinton or Trump.  He claims to be the reasonable person at the table.

On his latest appearance on CNN, he was asked about whether a baker should be forced to bake a cake for a gay couple’s wedding.  (He had previously stated that the baker should be forced to do so.)

Johnson responded that although  the baker has to sell him the cake, it doesn’t mean he has to frost it for the couple.

Is this guy serious?  This just makes him sound even dumber than before.  This is not only trying to play both sides of the fence and missing; it is falling between the cracks of the fence.  How could anyone sound any more ridiculous on this issue?

As Bob Murphy pointed out, most (or all) of these bakers are not refusing gay customers who want to buy pre-made items.  The bakers just aren’t specializing cakes for ceremonies that they do not agree with.

The libertarian position is that it is the baker’s business (his property) and he should be able to use it or not use it how he wants, so long as he doesn’t infringe on others.  People should be free to associate or not associate with whom they want.  This is part of a free society.  It doesn’t mean you have to agree with the bakers who make this choice not to serve certain customers.

I realize that probably 95% of the American population do not agree with the libertarian position on this.  That is why Johnson is trying to play both sides, instead of actually attempting to educate people on the issue.  And that is really the main problem with Johnson.

Some libertarians say that we should support Johnson even if he is not a pure libertarian.  They say it helps to get the libertarian name out there.  But I don’t want the name to get out there if it is being misrepresented.

And this isn’t on just one issue.  It is on virtually everything.  He does not take a hardcore principled stand on anything.  He wants to legalize marijuana, but he never says he wants to get rid of the federal war on drugs.  He wants to audit the Fed, not end it.  Even on foreign policy, he is weak and I do not trust him at all.

It is funny that many libertarians say that you shouldn’t vote for the lesser of two evils.  Yet, isn’t that essentially what they are asking us to do with Johnson?  In this case, it is the lesser of three evils (or more if you count other third-party candidates).

At this point, if I were forced to vote for somebody on the ballot (not a write-in), I would have to go with Darrell Castle.  Who?

Darrell Castle is the nominee for the Constitution Party.  The Constitution Party is not well-known, but it isn’t completely insignificant either.

Chuck Baldwin was the nominee in 2008, and there is no question that he was the most libertarian (small l) candidate in that race.

The Constitution Party tends to promote Christianity to a high degree.  Castle himself served as a deacon.  I have no issue with this except it shouldn’t really be part of a campaign platform.  I understand certain people will take certain positions because of their religious beliefs, and that is fine.  It is just that I believe promoting your own religion should not play a significant role in the campaign.

In an interview last month, Darrell Castle stated that he is the most libertarian candidate in the race.  And by looking at his stance on the issues, he is correct.

He wants to end the Fed.  He wants a non-interventionist foreign policy.  He wants to end the federal war on drugs, which is the proper constitutional position on this subject.

Some libertarians may disagree with Castle on abortion and border control.  Castle is pro-life and wants secure borders.  But libertarians will always disagree on these two issues.

Even though Castle is firm in his Christian faith, he does not believe the federal government should play a role in gambling, prostitution, or polygamy.  He says that states should be free to regulate these things, but he sees no Constitutional role.

I don’t know if I will vote for Darrell Castle in November.  I may do some more research on him.  But there is no question that he is by far the most libertarian candidate in this race.  Perhaps I will not vote at all.  Perhaps I will write in someone’s name.  Or perhaps I will vote for Castle.

I am certain that I won’t be voting for the disastrous non-libertarian Libertarian Gary Johnson.

The Bank of England (BOE) just announced a cut in its benchmark rate from 0.5% to 0.25%.  The rate had been at 0.5% since March 2009, when the economy was still reeling from a recession.

Does this mean that the BOE thinks the economy is weaker now than it was in March 2009?

The BOE also said it will purchase an additional 60 billion pounds (about $80 billion) of U.K. government debt over the next 6 months.  It will also buy 10 billion pounds of corporate debt over the course of 18 months.

This isn’t quite on the level of the Federal Reserve during QE3 when it was purchasing $85 billion per month in new assets, but the U.S. is quite a bit bigger than the U.K. both economically and in terms of population.

Perhaps the most significant thing is that the BOE has indicated that there could be more rate cuts in the future.  This means it will likely go to zero or beyond.

And why not?  That is the world trend.  The European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan have engaged in massive monetary pumping and a policy of negative interest rates (NIRP).

The major central banks have done (or are doing) almost the exact opposite of what a libertarian/ free market proponent would recommend.  I would say it is straight Keynesian economics, but I am not even sure that Keynes would have supported this insanity.

On this news, the British pound fell in relation to the dollar and other major currencies.

Since the Fed does not want the dollar to strengthen too much, it makes it less likely now that the Fed will hike its own target rate.  Many think the Fed will not hike at all in 2016.

These central bankers have this goal of increasing price inflation.  It is an absurd goal, which only makes us poorer in the long run.  It is also rather ironic in that these moves just tend to increase fear amongst the public, which can oftentimes just leads to an increased demand for money, despite the monetary inflation.  This means a decline in velocity and lower price inflation, at least in the short run.

Despite the Fed not raising its target rate, other than 25 basis points back in December, it is the only major central bank that is anywhere close to a sane policy right now.  Sure, it approximately quintupled the monetary base from 2008 to 2014, but at least its monetary policy has been tight for almost two years now.

This is all a disaster that is just getting built up.  The more these central banks inflate, the more that resources are misallocated.  At some point, there is going to be a major correction.

And a correction is really what we need.  We need a return to sanity. We need for resources to properly align with consumer demand.  We need for the asset bubbles to pop so that prices are no longer distorted.

While a major correction will be painful, it is basically inevitable at this point.  This includes the U.S.  But the U.S. is in far better shape than Japan and parts of Western Europe.

The only thing worse than the correction itself is the possible responses from central banks and central governments.  It could bring more authoritarianism.  It could bring even more money creation and more debt, if that is even possible.

While the Brexit vote was a small positive step towards liberty, it doesn’t change the fact that the British people are just as much under the thumb of central bankers as everyone else.  And the BOE is doing virtually the opposite of what it should be doing.

Janet Yellen and company now have another excuse not to raise its target rate.  They probably don’t want to change anything right now anyway, at least until the election is over.  If the economy were to tank before November, it could mean a Trump victory, which they do not want.

This will all be entertaining in a sick kind of way.  It is important to watch Japan, as I see the Japanese getting hit the hardest of all when everything implodes.

There are pros and cons to having a workplace 401k plan.  It is an option people have to shelter some income, and options are always good.  And unlike Social Security, you are not forced to participate in it.

Still, 401k plans are widely touted as great investment vehicles, even by the establishment media.  Any time something is this widely praised, you should proceed with caution.

First, there is the issue of potential confiscation.  With ballooning government debts and unfunded liabilities, the U.S. government is going to be looking to get its hands on extra money more desperately than ever in the somewhat near future.

I don’t think outright confiscation is likely because of public opinion.  There are tens of millions of people with 401k plans now.  If there is any attempt at confiscation, it will be more indirect.  It will come in the form of higher marginal taxes, higher fees, bigger penalties for early withdrawals, and perhaps fewer choices.  The government may try to push people into “government-guaranteed bond funds” or something of the sort.  The only guarantee is that it will be a ripoff.

A second downside of 401k plans is that you are typically limited in your choices.  You generally can’t invest in individual stocks, ETFs, or options.  I will get to the other downsides later.

We know the advantages of 401k accounts.  They are a way to shelter income and capital gains from income taxes.  Sure, you will eventually have to pay, but there is no question there are strong benefits to this in choosing when to take your income.  You are also not getting hit with the taxes on the reinvested capital gains and dividends.

I often hear, especially from the “experts”, that if your company matches your contributions, you shouldn’t throw away free money by not contributing.  If your company contributes 3% of your income when you contribute 6% of your income, then we are told that you get a guaranteed 50% return.

But I would like to make clear that this is a one-time return on your contribution.  You aren’t continuing to get that return on your money.  The only return is on new contributions.

While this seems to be an unbeatable return, you need to consider your own circumstances and opportunity costs.

One of the major downsides of a 401k plan is that you are tying up your money.  If you still work for the employer that sponsors your 401k plan, then you typically can’t withdraw that money if you are younger than 59 and a half.  You may be able to get a hardship withdrawal (difficult) and you may be able to get a loan.

If you have most of your money tied up in a 401k account, you won’t be able to access most of it.  Are you going to quit your job in order to gain access?  And if you do leave your employer, you are going to then pay income taxes plus a 10% penalty for early withdrawal, assuming you haven’t yet reached the government-designated age.

In other words, this is all part of the nanny state.  You aren’t allowed to access your own money and you have limited investment choices. We wouldn’t want you making the wrong decisions.

Imagine someone in 2011 who had $300,000 in a 401k account with little else in the way of financial assets.  That person wants to buy a house, plus an additional investment property.  This was at the bottom of the housing bust when prices were really low.  But he doesn’t have the money to do so.  He doesn’t have a down payment or money for closing costs and other expenses.

If he had been able to access some of this 401k money, he could have bought houses at the bottom of the bust.  His return at this point would be a lot higher than having invested in mutual funds.

Better yet, imagine someone who wants to start a business and needs some capital, but doesn’t want to take on risky debt.  If all of his money is tied up in a 401k, he is out of luck, unless he wants to quit his job and then pay a penalty for early withdrawal.

The point here is that you have to consider your opportunity costs.  For some people, maybe putting a lot of their money in their retirement account is the best option.  Still, I would recommend it only up to the employer match.

But for someone young and innovative, you might want to consider keeping some money outside of your retirement account where you can access it.  I understand that some people will squander it on luxury items or things they don’t really need.  But even here, who am I to judge?  Maybe it is something that brings them great pleasure.

I know there are people though who can use liquid capital to fund a venture that will eventually pay great dividends in the future.  This could be real estate, gaining a new skill, starting a business, or investing in a start-up.

You have to make this decision based on your own personality and circumstances, but I believe it is always a good idea to have at least some money sitting outside of retirement accounts.  And make sure you factor in the opportunity costs of tying up your money.

For the last couple of weeks, the media has mostly focused on the national conventions, at least when it comes to political stories.  And while there were some interesting stories within the conventions, there has been little talk of the release of the 28 pages from the 9/11 report.

If you get your news from the internet, then you may have seen this story.  If you get your news from the establishment  (sometimes called mainstream) media, then you probably don’t know about it.  If you rely on television, radio, and newspapers, then you are probably out of the loop on this.

There has been a push to release these secret (not anymore) 28 pages from the 9/11 Commission’s report.

We can assume that if there had been a direct smoking gun, then the government wouldn’t have released the pages.  The powers-that-be had to weigh their options of withstanding pressure of revealing the documents versus how much the release of the pages would change public opinion.  So far, it seems that the establishment has bet correctly on an apathetic American public.

Of course, the establishment media really does help direct the narrative.  If these 28 pages had been headline news, then Americans might be more outraged.  So while the internet has been wonderful in spreading messages that were previously untouched, we still have to acknowledge that the establishment media somewhat directs the narratives.

While there isn’t one particular direct smoking gun, there are a series of events that look really bad for the Saudis when put together.  It would be too coincidental for at least some Saudi officials to have not played a role in the 9/11 attacks.

You can check out 28pages.org for a summary and for the details.  There seems to be little question that Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia was helping to fund the hijackers.

(Also, you can check out this informative podcast on the Tom Woods show.)

Some people might say, “Who cares?”  They might say that the victims of 9/11 are already gone and nothing can bring them back.  But if you had a loved one murdered, wouldn’t you want to know who was responsible for it?

Of course, if goes much deeper than this.  It is not just about justice, as important as that is.  It is also about the U.S. government and the entire premise of its foreign policy.

If Prince Bandar funded the 9/11 hijackers – which looks to be the case – then this all of a sudden implicates the Bush administration.  The Bush family is close friends with Bandar.  If Bandar has blood on his hands, then Bush and Cheney likely do too.

The entire foreign policy of the U.S. since 9/11 is a farce.  The hundreds of thousands (or millions) of people who have died are real.  But the American people have tolerated all of these wars that have all been based on lies, which includes Afghanistan.

I do not favor a war with Saudi Arabia, but if any country should have been attacked based on the 9/11 attacks, it should have been Saudi Arabia.  Meanwhile, almost 15 years later, the war and occupation of Afghanistan goes on.  The war and occupation of Iraq goes on.  And let’s not forget all of the other wars and drone bombings in countries such as Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, and Syria.

To top it off, the Saudis are still supported by the U.S. government, both militarily and financially.  The Saudis are our supposed allies.  With friends like these, who needs enemies?

When you examine these 28 pages and see that certain Saudi officials were helping to carry out the 9/11 attacks, it becomes clear that the Bush administration likely also played a role.  All of a sudden, the 9/11 conspiracy theorists shouldn’t seem so crazy.  It almost becomes crazy to think that no U.S. officials played a role in the attacks.

Unfortunately, most Americans don’t seem to know or don’t seem to care.  Yet, it is these people who blindly support whatever war is the flavor of the day.  They have been completely lied to and deceived.

If it was clear that the Bush administration played a role in the attacks, or at least knew about them beforehand, I wonder how the American people would react.  Unfortunately, all too many would still be happy to turn vast amounts of power over to the government.

Bush and Cheney should be in prison forever, but this isn’t just a couple of bad apples.  This is representative of the deep state.  We can be reasonably sure that Obama knows most of the truth of what happened as well.  This may be why the establishment is so scared of Trump.  They don’t want him to find out any deep secrets because he is a wildcard and can’t be depended on to carry on the secrets.

At this point, all we can do is let people know about these 28 pages and the implications.  Let’s hope that with the decentralization of information via the internet, that more will be found out as time goes on.  It took just a small minority of people to get to the point where the government felt compelled to release the 28 pages.

Public opinion matters.  The more people who find out about the implication of the Saudis in the 9/11 attacks, the better it is.  It means less consent for the U.S. government.  It means that perhaps, one day in the future, there will be a big enough movement that government powers are actually curtailed and our foreign policy changes.