It seems that in every presidential election cycle, we hear some version of this: “This is the most important election of our lifetime.” It is usually the establishment characters of the two major parties who make this claim. Unfortunately, some naively believe it.

I don’t want to say that it absolutely doesn’t matter who is elected president, but it is not nearly as significant as what most would like to believe. One way I can equally irritate Republicans and Democrats alike is by pointing out that Obama is mostly a continuation of Bush.

We are supposed to get excited about the presidential race so that we are under the illusion that we are in control. We are in control, but not because we are voting. As long as people consent to the government taking care of them, then we aren’t in control. We are only in control (in a collectivist sense) because we can deny this consent at any time.

We are told that we should exercise our right to vote. But we are supposed to vote for a Bush or a Clinton or one of the other vetted candidates. If you vote for Trump, or someone such as Ron Paul, then you don’t know what you are doing and you should allow the elitists to choose for you.

While electing a new president probably doesn’t make much of a difference, it can be a reflection of public opinion. That is one of the reasons I am paying such close attention, especially to this election cycle. It is obvious that people are simply dissatisfied with the status quo. Or perhaps more accurately, they are downright mad at the situation.

People have a right to be mad. They are struggling to get by as their wages do not keep up with the prices of basic goods and services. And while they can’t necessarily articulate the problem, they understand that they are getting swindled, while the big players are getting taken care of. And some of the rich people really are getting rich off of the backs of others because they are getting bailouts and other special favors from the politicians and central bankers. They are not rich because they are satisfying consumer demand in a voluntary market.

Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have identified a major problem, which is a start. It is better than any of the others did. And while most of their solutions are wrong, especially when it comes to economics, at least they are acknowledging that people are struggling.

As I write this, Donald Trump just won Florida and is likely to win the rest of the primaries on this Tuesday except for Ohio. John Kasich will win Ohio. While Trump is still not getting above 50% in most states, he is still dominating the Republican primaries.

At this point, it looks like it will be Donald vs. Hillary. But I can’t help but think it is not over yet.

On the Republican side, the establishment absolutely despises Trump. He cannot be easily bought and he questions the U.S. empire overseas. The establishment is still going to try to get rid of Trump, but it is looking more difficult to do so at the convention. If he is right around having 50% of the delegates and they still try to stop his nomination, it won’t look good. I think they will find other ways.

I have already discussed my fear for Trump that there will be an attempt to assassinate him. But even with that, the insiders probably don’t want to overplay their hand. If that were to happen, it would set his supporters on fire, who are already supporting Trump as a vote against the establishment.

I think the most likely scenario is that they try to treat Trump like they did Reagan. Of course, there was an attempt on Reagan’s life, and the alleged shooter was unsurprisingly connected with the Bush family. But the establishment learned to live with Reagan.

The reason is that it was mostly the Bush team that infiltrated the Reagan administration. The establishment probably knew they were fine as soon as Reagan agreed to have Bush as his running mate. Then James Baker and company got in the door.

This is something to watch for with Trump. Who will he choose as his running mate? Who will his most important advisors be? The Republican establishment may decide they can deal with Trump as long as they have some of their people helping to advise him.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton will be the nominee unless we see an indictment. While I wouldn’t bet on an indictment, I give it a much greater chance than I would have just a few months ago.

What will happen if the FBI issues an indictment just before the convention? Or what happens if an indictment is issued just after the convention? She may need to get elected just to essentially pardon herself and avoid prison time.

I think the Clintons and the Democrats absolutely fear Trump. He is a loose cannon. Is he going to say anything about Bill the rapist? Is he going to bring up Vince Foster or any of the number of Clinton associates who ended up dead? This could be really interesting.

I don’t know if Trump will be any good in scaling back U.S. intervention overseas. Maybe he will be a total disaster as president. But he sure is making things interesting and entertaining.

While my focus here is typically on libertarianism, economics, politics, investing, and money management (and sometimes all of those put together), I do occasionally have to remind others (and myself) that investing in yourself is more important than any financial investments you can make.

Investing in yourself can mean almost anything, but it generally means taking steps to improve your situation in life.  Some will mistake this as formal education, but that isn’t what I mean.  Formal education can serve this purpose, especially if it means a certification for a particular career.  But I am generally referring to informal education and other activities that can enhance and improve your life.

I recently wrote a post on Donald Trump as a businessman.  I made the point that you have to be willing to try different things and learn from your failures.  You can’t just try one thing and go for broke because you are likely to fail.  Even worse, some people never try anything at all.  You have to be willing to fail many times and then embrace what is successful.

I recently listened to a podcast with James Altucher interviewing Gary Vaynerchuk.  I am not really familiar with Vaynerchuk’s work, but I really enjoyed the interview.

As far as Altucher goes, he is a complete mess in some respects.  I have written about him in the past.  He is someone you can learn a great deal from.  You can learn from his creativity, and you can also learn what not to do.  His life is too much of a roller coaster for me, but his ideas and creativity are incredible.  He is also a great interviewer, as he is able to pull out a lot of great information from his guests.

In this particular interview, Altucher asked Vaynerchuk about a hypothetical guy working in middle management who wants to get out of a rut working in the corporate world (or something to that effect).

Vaynerchuk says that the first thing the guy should do is to not spend his whole Saturday watching House of Cards.  Actually, he used more colorful language than this, so be cautious about listening to this podcast in front of kids or sensitive ears.

Vaynerchuk’s point is about time management.  We find ways to whittle away our time.  I don’t watch House of Cards.  I do watch television, but I am fairly limited to a handful of shows, along with some sports and a few other things.  I don’t get a lot of downtime, so watching television is a little bit of time for decompressing (in the words of George Constanza).

Vaynerchuk said that the person should be spending that time (on Saturday instead of watching House of Cards) investing in himself.  He didn’t quite use those words, but that is what he meant.  It is about finding a passion, or something you are good at, or hopefully both, and making something out of it.

It could mean starting a blog, or a YouTube channel, or setting up a website to sell something, or to just give something away.  You aren’t going to get rich right away.  You probably won’t even make any money right away.  But you have to get started.

How do you eat an elephant?  One bite at a time.

When you do little things on a consistent basis, they start to add up to bigger things.

Vaynerchuk said in the interview that Johnny Crest (their fictional character) might realize that he likes his life.  He likes getting drunk with his friends on Thursday night.  He likes watching House of Cards.  It is really a matter of preferences.

Anyone can say they want to be rich, but that isn’t the question.  It is whether they are willing to sacrifice certain things (like watching House of Cards all day Saturday) in order to even have a legitimate chance to get rich.

The majority of people – probably the large majority – fritter away time easily.  I am not saying that you should never have fun or never have downtime.  Some relaxation is important.  But again, we do have choices to make.  Can you find an extra hour in each day to do something to invest in yourself?

The question that often gets asked is, “But how will I make any money doing that?”  The answer is that you may not make any extra money doing it.  It could go either way.  But there is one thing I am absolutely certain of.  If you don’t try that extra thing, you definitely will not make any money off of it.

It doesn’t mean you can’t abandon projects if you see a dead-end ahead.  You learn from your failure.  But it really isn’t a failure.  It is just a necessary step in the process of finding what you are good at and what people are willing to pay you for.

If you are happy in your job or whatever it is you do, and you are generally happy with your life situation, then that is fine.  You can have your daily gripes about little things, but just don’t gripe about your life or your big picture of things.

If you feel like you are in a rut, then change something.  Try something different.  This doesn’t mean leaving your responsibilities or quitting your job.  I am not talking about running away.  I am talking about embracing something new.  If it doesn’t work out, you can always try something different with little lost except some time.

But if you are in a rut and all you do is complain about it, then you are probably not going to get out of the rut.  You can keep complaining about it and be miserable.  Another option is to change your attitude and embrace your current situation.  But a third option is to change your attitude, embrace your situation, and try something new that may open up new opportunities.

Invest in yourself.  It is up to you to figure out the optimal way to invest.

There is obviously a lot of talk about Donald Trump these days, since he is currently the frontrunner to get the Republican nomination for president.

There are many things I don’t like about Trump, politically speaking.  He is absolutely terrible on economics.  Being good in business does not necessarily make one competent in economics.  I could say the same thing about Warren Buffett, but I’m not sure how much of it is economic incompetence or simple dishonesty when it comes to Buffett.

Back in 1999, Trump was talking about running for president.  He proposed a one-time wealth tax of 14.25 percent in order to pay off the national debt.  His plan would have applied to people with over $10 million in net worth.  Luckily he hasn’t floated this idea this time around.

Not only was his proposal immoral in stealing people’s property, but it would have been disastrous economically too.  Imagine businessmen having to sell off 15% of their businesses or stock holdings in order to pay the government.

Even without that proposal, Trump is still a disaster economically.  He wants to put tariffs on Chinese goods.  This is nothing more than a tax that will make life more expensive for the already hurting American consumer.

As a libertarian, I also oppose Trump for the simple fact that he doesn’t propose any serious significant cuts to government programs, except perhaps in scaling back wars.

And it is in foreign policy where Trump offers a glimmer of hope.  He is standing up to the Republican establishment on this issue and they absolutely hate him for it.  That is why the establishment can still tolerate Ted Cruz.  Cruz has no trouble in maintaining the U.S. empire.

Aside from Trump’s political views, what about Trump as a businessman?

Mitt Romney recently gave an anti-Trump speech.  It was sad and pathetic.  Romney is the face of the establishment, and it probably just solidified support for Trump.

I have never liked Romney and I have always hated his politics.  Still, he seemed like a half decent guy despite being embedded with the power elite.  I remember Ron Paul saying some nice things about Romney.  I think Romney’s wife was the only one who was friendly towards Carol Paul at the debates.  Mitt Romney’s wife really does seem like a nice lady.

I don’t know if Romney is trying to position himself as a candidate for a brokered convention, or if he was just pushed out there by the establishment to oppose Trump.  Romney never said such harsh words against Obama when they were facing off.

It was particularly interesting that Romney said Trump is not a good businessman because of all of his failures.

To be clear, I haven’t agreed with everything Trump has done as a businessman, particularly in his use of eminent domain.  Aside from that, I do understand his political donations and connections.  He has played the game that is given to him.

I have heard from more than one source that Trump is very kind and good to his employees.  I don’t know this firsthand, but that is what I have heard.

I have also heard that Trump University was a decent, if expensive, program.  Again, I don’t know firsthand, but supposedly the material was high quality as compared to other get-rich programs.

But for Romney to say that Trump has not been a good businessman because of all of his failures is utterly ridiculous, and someone like Romney should know better.  Maybe he does know better and was being dishonest.

How many people wouldn’t trade places with Donald Trump in terms of business success?  The numbers don’t lie.  And certainly Trump did start out ahead of others.  He says he started out with a million dollars.  Still, to turn that into billions is incredible.  It is not anything comparable to someone such as George W. Bush who used his family’s money and connections for business deals.  Bush was not actually an entrepreneur, nor a good businessman, except in using government power.

Trump has tried a lot of different things.  Some of them have failed and some of them have been successful.  That is what businessmen do.  Entrepreneurs have to somewhat guess at what consumers want.  They don’t really know until they actually offer the product for sale.  Profits and losses will dictate if it is something that the consumer desires.

In order to be a successful entrepreneur, you have to take chances.  You have to put things out there to see if consumers want them.  There are no 100% guarantees that anything will work because consumers have the final say, unless you are talking about government monopolies.

Trump is actually a great example for aspiring entrepreneurs.  I am not saying you should risk a lot of your money or dump all of your efforts into one thing.  Obviously Trump has money to play with.

But to be a successful entrepreneur, you have to try something.  You can’t be afraid of failure.  You just have to limit your risk on new ventures so that you can keep going if it fails.  And that is something that makes a great businessman – the fact that failure does not keep him down.

If someone puts out 10 products and 9 of them fail, then I guess Romney would consider that person to be a 90% failure.  But if the 9 failures were limited in losses, and cut when they were obvious losers, then these are just as much successes as anything.

And compare that person to someone who has an idea for a product or business who never puts it out there.  According to Romney, that person has never failed because he never tried.  But maybe that is the person who is failing all of the time.

The 90% failure guy has his one success.  He didn’t know which one of his 10 ventures would be a success.  But if he didn’t put all 10 of them out there, he wouldn’t have his success.

If you are an aspiring entrepreneur, don’t listen to what Romney says.  Failure is actually good as long as you limit the damages and it doesn’t discourage you from trying again.  Part of being a good businessman is trying many things and keeping with the things that work.

I find this is an economic myth that stays with us.  Even many libertarians fall into the same trap, or simply don’t understand the subject.

Anyone who talks about the dangers of a trade deficit better be really clear on what they are talking about.  At least 95% of people (probably higher) who complain about the trade deficit really don’t understand what they are talking about, at least on this subject.

A trade deficit is defined as when a country (or region) has imports that exceed exports.  In the case of the United States, there is usually a trade deficit.

To be clear, some of the reasons for a trade deficit may not be good.  But the trade deficit itself isn’t the problem here, but just a symptom.

For example, government deficits can contribute to a higher trade deficit.  In the case of the U.S., where a lot of U.S. debt is bought by foreigners – particularly the central banks of China and Japan – the trade deficit is higher as a result.  There are various reasons for this, which includes the dollar still being the world’s reserve currency, along with the fact that the central planners in China and Japan are a bunch of mercantilists.

But the answer to this problem isn’t to narrow the trade deficit.  The answer is for the government to stop spending so much money and running up the debt.

If you take government debt out of the equation, all of a sudden things don’t look bad at all.  In fact, a trade deficit can be a sign of prosperity, or an advanced civilization.

Instead of thinking about countries, think about cities.  New York City has to have one of the biggest trade deficits in the world.  How much agriculture or manufacturing of products happens in Manhattan?  I won’t say its zero, but it is pretty close.  Should New York City residents try to lower their trade deficit by focusing on manufacturing or farming instead of finance and banking?

The same people who say we need a lower trade deficit (without blaming the government’s deficits as the main problem) usually will also say we need more manufacturing.  Again, apply the example of New York City.

There is nothing magical about manufacturing jobs.  Actually, the U.S. is still huge in manufacturing goods, but it just takes fewer people to do it.  This is a sign of an advanced civilization and a high division of labor.  It is a sign of increased productivity.

If you go back over 100 years ago, the majority of people had to grow their own food.  Now only a tiny percentage of people consider themselves to be farmers.  This frees up our time to do other things, meaning we are able to provide other goods and services, including many luxuries.

There is nothing wrong with having what is considered to be a service economy.  Again, it is a sign of our prosperity, at least as compared to a long time ago.

There is also the issue of comparative advantage.  There are many goods that could be produced in the United States, but which are not.  They are produced by foreigners and imported by Americans.  It doesn’t mean that they are better at producing these goods (or perhaps they are).  It just means that our time is better spent producing other things, while their time is better spent what they are doing.

The CEO of McDonald’s could be the greatest cashier and hamburger flipper in the company.  But he isn’t going to flip hamburgers and collect money at the cash register, even though he is the best at it.  His talents are better spent in another function.  It is an issue of comparative advantage.

The only way all of this can be sorted out is by the voluntary marketplace where there is open and free trade, and buyers and sellers decide what they want to buy and what they want to sell.  This includes the buying and selling of labor.

In a free and open market without government debt, there is no need to worry about any trade deficit because there really is no deficit.  It is parties exchanging goods and services.  If one party buys a good (imports) and the other party sells the good (exports), why should we think the buyer is worse off because of a supposed trade deficit?  It is a voluntary exchange.

If anyone at all should be worried about a trade deficit, perhaps it should be the Japanese and Chinese who are collecting trillions of dollars of depreciating currency.

I understand this is premature because Donald Trump has not yet won the Republican nomination.  In fact, it would still not surprise me if the Republican establishment finds a way to rig the game and get a brokered convention to get Trump off the ticket.

Still, it is fun to speculate on who Trump should choose as a running mate if he holds on to the nomination.  It isn’t much fun guessing with Rubio or Cruz as the nominee because they are likely to pick another insider.  Maybe Cruz could surprise us, but probably not.

For Trump, I am not sure if he realizes how high the stakes are.  He has already taken out Jeb Bush, and he is likely to face Hillary Clinton unless she gets indicted.  Of course, even she does get indicted, he still may face her.

Trump is taking on perhaps the two most powerful families in existence.  They are extremely dangerous.

The Clintons have a long history of threatening people to make them fall in line.  It is incredible how many people associated with the Clintons have either gone to prison or met an untimely death.  Most of these deaths were labeled as accidents or suicides.

It is interesting that Roger Stone has recently released books on both the Clintons and the Bushes and their crimes.  I heard Roger Stone say he is planning to release a book on the death of John F. Kennedy Jr.  Kennedy was supposedly getting ready to announce a run for the Senate in New York.  This could have served as a stepping stone to the presidency.

This was the same time that Hillary Clinton was preparing her run for the Senate out of New York, which was also her stepping stone into the presidency.  Obama put a bump in her road, but she is trying to continue on now.

If JFK Jr. died in his plane accident due to foul play, elements of the establishment also had reason to keep him out of the Senate and the presidency.  He could have uncovered what happened in his father’s assassination.

On the Bush side, George H. W. Bush had his connections to Texas politics and the CIA.  He claimed he didn’t remember where he was when JFK was assassinated.  In other words, his hands are likely all over that one.

Bush 41 attended one of the Republican debates, right after his son Jeb had dropped out.  There is this creepy footage of Bush signaling a cut of the throat as Trump speaks.  He may be 91 years old, but people don’t become less evil with age.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooOpnJktxSY

And that brings us back to Trump.  I hope he knows that his life is in danger because of his threat to the establishment.  His best life insurance policy is to pick a running mate that is just as much, or more so, of a threat to the establishment as he is.  He should also stay separated from his running mate at all times.

I don’t think Ron Paul is at all likely because of his age and because of their difference in political positions.

The most obvious choice to me is Jesse Ventura.  Trump and Ventura have quite a bit in common.  Ventura is a truth seeker and he seems fearless in facing down the establishment.  Ventura has some libertarian leanings, but he isn’t that great on economics, which is similar to Trump.  Ventura is pretty good on the issue of war though, so him and Trump are not that far apart.

If Ventura were vice president, I don’t think the establishment would think about taking out Trump unless they could do a two-for-one deal.

If there are any attempts on Trump’s life at this point, it is unpredictable on what will result from it.  Obviously his base of supporters would be highly suspicious to say the least.  They would become even more anti-establishment.  I think most libertarians would figure things out too, but they already have things figured out.

Unfortunately, this is what we live in.  And it is nothing new.  The Kennedy assassination in 1963 was a coup.  It was likely the CIA and a few other insiders that did it.  It is the establishment.  Some refer to it as the deep state.

The deep state is not made up of any one individual or a defined group of individuals.  It is hard to describe, but it is definitely a group of insiders.  They don’t all have to have the same exact interests, but they share the interest of a secretive and powerful state.  Parts of the CIA are part of this.  The president may or may not be part of this.  Parts of the NSA are probably part of this now.

I find conspiracy theories fascinating.  And it would be nice if there is a smoking gun someday on something big that becomes widely known.  It is always nice when criminals are caught.

I think having conspiracies exposed does help our cause for liberty in the sense that it does weaken the consent for the state.

With that said, I’m not sure how much would change if a big conspiracy were uncovered.  If there was substantial evidence that the CIA took out Kennedy and it became widely known, would that change anything?  People might find it interesting, but they would say that it happened a long time ago and that most of the people involved are now dead.

But it is highly significant in the fact that it reveals there is a deep state.  When someone gets elected president who doesn’t go along with the deep state, then we can see what happens.

Ask someone you know what should happen if it were ever revealed that elements within the United States government were involved in the 9/11 attacks.  What do you think their answer will be?

Most likely, the answer will be that the people who were involved should be put in jail, or perhaps given the death penalty.

But this doesn’t solve anything in the long run because there is still an establishment.  It may take out a few individuals from the establishment and bring some form of justice to that one event, but it doesn’t change the deep state.

It is not as if a lot of people are going to say that since the government was involved in the 9/11 attacks that we should stop accepting Social Security from a bunch of murderers.  Even though elements of the government have no problem with the murder of thousands of people, most Americans will still say we need the federal government for protection.

Do you see the problem here?

Donald Trump made a statement a few months ago that he could stand on the streets of New York and shoot somebody and his supporters would still stick by him.  It was his attempt at a joke about the loyalty of his supporters.

I think we could have video footage of Hillary Clinton directing orders to take somebody out and I believe that some of her supporters really would stick with her.  I can just envision some women saying that it doesn’t matter what she does because she fights for women’s rights.

Again, I hope Trump understands what he has gotten himself into here.  Many people before him have been taken down by the establishment who were a lot less of a threat.

I’ve watched most of the Republican debate on Fox News, but that is not really the big political story of the day.

We just came off of Super Tuesday, and things seemed to be fitting into place. A Trump vs. Clinton matchup was looking inevitable. But what a difference a couple of days make.

It has been reported that the government has granted immunity to someone who worked for Hillary Clinton in order to gain evidence against her in the email scandal. In other words, it is actually possible that we could see an FBI indictment if Obama doesn’t step in to stop it.

Indictments tend to harm candidates running for political office, although not always. I will still be surprised if she does get indicted because of the politics involved and because the Clintons manage to get away with murder, figuratively and probably literally.

I have said for a while now that Bernie Sanders is Hillary Clinton’s third biggest threat. The first two are an FBI indictment and an economic recession.

On the Republican side, the most interesting story was seeing the establishment push out Mitt Romney for an anti-Trump speech. It came off as desperate. It showed Romney as having a lack of class, as well as being a hypocrite. I think a lot of Republicans are thinking, “Where was this guy when he was running against Obama in the general election?” He never said anything this bad about Obama.

There are only two people in the history of the United States who have signed legislation mandating that people buy health insurance or face a penalty. One is Obama. The other is Romney. You would think that the Republicans could have found any other candidate to go after Obama on Obamacare, which was the most vulnerable issue in 2012.

Trump is correct that Romney is a failed candidate. His campaign in 2012 was terrible. He played really nice with Obama compared to what he is doing with Trump now.

I don’t think Romney hurt Trump at all. If anything, he probably helped him. All of the people who are disgusted with the establishment (which is now a commonly used term) are probably just that much more disgusted after Romney’s speech.

It is also false to assume that all of the support for the other candidates would still go against Trump if it came down to two people. If it were Trump against Rubio, I think some Cruz supporters would go over to Trump over going to Rubio, who is now the establishment favorite.

The reason I said that things have changed in the inevitability of Trump getting the nomination is because Romney’s speech is a shot across the bow that the Republican establishment may try to thwart his nomination at the convention. If Trump falls one delegate short of 50%, you can bet that the Republican establishment will play games to get rid of Trump. Maybe Romney’s speech was a setup for him to step in as the possible nominee in a brokered convention.

If you go back to 2008, John McCain only won 9 states on Super Tuesday out of a total of 21 states. In terms of the popular vote, McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012 were far from a majority at the early primaries. The point is that Trump should really be the nominee at this point if the past is any guide. But it is not a guide because Trump is not acceptable to the establishment.

Right now, Trump is hated by the Bush family and the Clinton family, perhaps the two most powerful and evil entities there are. I hope Trump trusts the people around him and that he has good security.

If I were Trump, I would pick someone like Jesse Ventura as a running mate if he does end up holding on to the nomination. He needs to find someone who is more feared by the establishment than he is. It would be the best life insurance policy he could find.

As far as the debate, it was the same three hacks on Fox News asking the questions. Megyn Kelly was sent out again to do an attack job on Donald Trump. There was no question they were trying to get him as compared to the other candidates.

Most of it was personal stuff that often plays into Trump’s hands. There was one good and tough question to Trump about the federal budget. I only wish it had been asked to the other candidates. As usual, there have been a lack of specifics in terms of any government cuts. Trump is the only one who offers anything vague. Occasionally Cruz will say he will cut something, but he doesn’t go out of his way to say it.

If they actually want to damage Trump, they should ask him specific policy questions. But most of them are too stupid to do so. They haven’t figured out that he is at his best when he is being attacked, especially about his businesses and his personal traits.

Trump really is all over the place. I have no idea how he would be as president. But I never would have thought just a year ago that a Republican candidate could say that we were lied into war in Iraq and still be the frontrunner.

Trump has also said that Libya was better off with Gaddafi and that Iraq was better off with Saddam Hussein. He also has said we shouldn’t overthrow Assad, although he has been inconsistent on this. Trump also doesn’t want to go to war with Russia. He actually wants to talk with Putin, where the others seem anxious to do battle.

So I am not a Trump fan per se, and I have no idea what he will actually do while in office. But we know we will get continued intervention with all of the other candidates. With Trump, we may have a chance for some sanity.

And no matter how bad Trump may be, it is a great show to watch the establishment squirm.

Harry Browne passed away on March 1, 2006. It is hard to believe that it has been 10 years since this great libertarian left us.

For those who are relatively new to libertarianism, you may be only vaguely familiar with Harry Browne and his work, if at all.

When we speak of hardcore libertarians in today’s world, the majority of them have probably identified themselves as such only within the last 10 years. Most young libertarians I know today were introduced to it by the 2007/ 2008 Ron Paul presidential campaign, or the 2011/ 2012 Ron Paul presidential campaign, coupled with using the internet for the vast amounts of information.

I wish Harry had been around to see the Ron Paul presidential campaigns. While he was always critical of the state, he retained a great deal of optimism and hope for the future, even during a time when the number of libertarians was far fewer than today.

Harry Browne is most famous for being the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee in 1996, and again in 2000. Although he previously did not engage in the political process, even refusing to vote, he saw his presidential campaigns as an opportunity to educate others on the benefits of liberty.

When Harry ran for president, he never compromised his principles. He always had a way of delivering his message so that it would not necessarily come as a shock to the audience. But his message always revolved around seeking solutions outside of the state.

When he would do interviews during his campaigns, Harry would admit that he had no illusions of winning. He really didn’t even want to win. He would say what he would do as president just to make it obvious on how much our political process has failed. For example, he would say that he would pardon all people who had been convicted of victimless crimes only, including drug offenses. He also made it clear that he would bring all of the troops home immediately.

Harry’s most notable and most controversial articles appeared after September 11, 2001. He wrote a series of articles titled When Will We Learn. It was a critique of U.S. foreign policy, and he was one of the very few at that time willing to point out that the September 11 attacks were a result of blowback from an interventionist foreign policy. If you are not old enough to remember this time well, it was a period when Americans were seeking revenge, and patriotism was running at its highest. It was not an easy thing to speak out on at that time, and Harry certainly received a great deal of criticism and name-calling. It even somewhat fractured the Libertarian Party, although he was always clear that he was speaking on his own behalf and not for the party.

Harry saw himself as a salesman for liberty. He knew that we would not gain greater liberty through the political process, or at least not until a much greater percentage of the population understood the benefits of liberty. He took the opportunity of running for president to speak and write as often as he could to get his message out.

In 2000, he released The Great Libertarian Offer. It was a book that promoted his optimism, and also the need to offer something big for people to pay attention to. He correctly stated that a small tax cut isn’t going to get people excited. His offer was to eliminate the income tax completely (among other things) and to drastically reduce spending.

He pointed out that if you don’t offer something big, then people aren’t going to go for it. You can’t cut one little government program at a time because of the special interests. You have to offer something big so that people will get on board. If you never have to pay the federal income tax ever again, then you might be more willing to give up your favorite government programs.

Harry was very knowledgeable on the Federal Reserve and the issue of money. He would speak about it on his radio show and he would address the subject in articles at times. He didn’t talk about the issue a lot during his campaigns, as it was not something he saw as appealing to a large number of people. In this sense, he was like most other libertarians until the Ron Paul presidential campaign starting in 2007. Many libertarians today, including greats such as Tom Woods, will admit they had similar thoughts that this was not the ideal issue to present to the masses. But Ron Paul proved that this could be a popular issue, even amongst young people.

If you are a young libertarian, or simply new to the libertarian movement, then I strongly encourage you to read (or listen to) some of Harry Browne’s material. He wrote two books for his two presidential campaigns, which are really great primers on libertarianism. His writing is easy to read and understand.

Harry first gained notoriety in the early 1970s when he correctly predicted the devaluation of the dollar and the likely rise of gold. In 1970, he released How You Can Profit from the Coming Devaluation. While some of the book may not seem relevant today, the first 70 pages are a great primer on the issue of money and inflation.

Harry Browne was a financial advisor and helped develop the idea of a permanent portfolio. His little book Fail-Safe Investing describes the permanent portfolio, which is intended to help investors set up a safe investment portfolio designed to hold up in any economic environment. This book is still relevant today, and many people still use the permanent portfolio setup as a basis for their investment portfolios.

Aside from writing other books on investments and money, Harry helped many people with his self-help book titled How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World. While he recognized that our freedom was restricted by government, he pointed out all of the boxes people trap themselves in within their own lives. He showed that we all have options in making ourselves freer. The book was not without controversy, but some will still claim that it helped change their lives.

Aside from his many great speeches, Harry also hosted his own radio show discussing libertarian topics. For a short time before his death, he also hosted a separate show that just discussed the issues of money and investments.

If you don’t have time to read any books, Harry also wrote hundreds of timeless articles. They are on his website, which has been maintained by his widow, Pamela Wolfe Browne.

For me, Harry was instrumental in turning me into a hardcore libertarian. While many libertarians today will say the same about Ron Paul, it is important to recognize the people who helped lay the groundwork prior to the Ron Paul campaign in 2007/ 2008.

Harry Browne himself introduced many people to uncompromising libertarianism. If you haven’t seen any of his work, I encourage you to read it or listen to it. Even for those who are familiar with his work, I encourage you to look at some of it again. We can still learn a great deal from this man. Even though he left us 10 years ago, most of his writings and other works are as relevant and useful today as when he produced them.

Happy birthday to Carol Paul, wife of the great libertarian Ron Paul.

Carol Paul is celebrating her 20th birthday.  But before you think that Ron Paul married a much younger woman, consider that Carol Paul was born on February 29, 1936.  Since her birthday was on a leap day, the actual date of her birth only comes around once every four years.

Ron Paul and Carol Paul will celebrate their 60th wedding anniversary next year.

Ron Paul has converted more people to the ideas of liberty than perhaps anyone in history.  Thankfully, he has had one of the greatest supporters in his wife.

Happy birthday Carol Paul!

I am not a big chart person, but they can still be useful for reference and some historical perspective.  One interesting chart is the Dow-to-gold ratio.  It tells us how many ounces of gold it takes to buy the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

For example, if the gold price is $1,000 and the Dow is trading at 16,000, then the Dow-to-gold ratio is 16.  It would take 16 ounces of gold to buy the Dow index.

The current ratio is between 13 and 14.  It has gone down from over 16 in late 2015.  This is a result of a higher gold price and lower stock prices.

The ratio actually went over 42 back in 1999.  This is when gold was trading for under $300 per ounce.

On the other hand, the ratio briefly went close to one back in late 1979 and early 1980.  This was when gold briefly went over $800 per ounce before crashing down.  This was the biggest bubble in gold in American history.  The bubble popped after Paul Volcker, then chairman of the Fed, adopted the appropriate policy of stopping the monetary inflation and letting interest rates go higher.  This saved the dollar.

Again, there is nothing magical about the Dow-to-gold ratio, just as there is nothing magical about the gold-to-silver ratio.  There is nothing to say that it can’t break a certain range.  It is even less accurate using the Dow as a measure because of the change in the 30 stocks that make up the index.

It is just interesting to note how wide the variances are.  It is hard to believe that in 1979/ 1980, you could nearly buy the whole Dow index with one ounce of gold.  Then, 20 years later, it would take you 40 ounces of gold to buy the same Dow index.

Just think what it would take for the Dow-to-gold ratio to get back to one.  If the Dow fell by over 50% to 8,000, then gold would still have to go up by more than 6 times its current price.  A lot will have changed if we see the Dow at 8,000 and gold at $8,000 per ounce.

As of right now, we seem to be in an economic downturn.  This makes sense due to the tight monetary policy of the Fed since QE3 ended in October 2014.  While interest rates have remained low, the Fed has stabilized the monetary base for well over a year.  As long as we have a Fed, this is the right policy.  The problem is the massive monetary inflation from 2008 to 2014.  All of the misallocated resources from this loose monetary policy mean we will have a correction at some point.  The only question is whether we are near that full correction.  We have already seen it in the oil market.

Gold has done well in the last two months in the face of a falling stock market.  I believe investors are looking for positive yield.  With interest rates near zero – or even negative in some countries – it makes sense that at least a few investors would be looking at other asset classes.

The only way we will see anything close to a 1 to 1 ratio for the Dow to gold is if the Fed starts inflating again.  This is certainly a good possibility if the economy shows further signs of weakness, including falling stocks.

We should not hope for a 1 to 1 ratio.  This would mean some form of economic chaos.  We really don’t want a repeat of 1979/ 1980.  We should only want a repeat of the Fed’s response, which was to maintain a tight monetary policy, despite recession.

Still, what we want is not the same as what we should prepare for.  We should know that a Dow-to-gold ratio of 1 is a possibility, even if it seems remote at this time.

If we ever do get anything close to that, I hope I am smart enough to sell some of my gold to buy stocks.  If someone had done that in early 1980, they would have made out very well.

The latest Consumer Price Index (CPI) numbers were released on February 19, 2016 for January.  While the CPI is flat, the year-over-year change is now 1.4%.

The more stable median CPI ticked up, as the 12-month change is 2.4%.  You can view the numbers here.

Energy prices have had a big impact on the numbers.  It is the primary reason for such a low CPI reading.  For example, while the 12-month change in the CPI is 1.4%, it is 2.2% when you remove food and energy.  This is actually above the Fed’s supposed target of 2%.

I continue to stress that although the CPI is a government statistic that is far from perfect, it is still useful for a couple of reasons.

First, the CPI can show us trends.  As long as the weightings are the same, it does give us a picture of whether consumer prices are trending up or down.

Second, we have to believe that the Federal Reserve uses the CPI statistics in its decision making.  I believe that the numbers are probably understated, especially when it comes to health insurance premiums.  The weighting and methodology for including health insurance premiums is complicated to say the least.  We all know that premiums have skyrocketed while the actual health plans cover far less.

But to the Fed, consumer prices look tame.  In most things, prices are relatively tame in our fiat currency era.  Prices are going up, but nothing compared to the 1970s.

For this reason, I think it is more likely that the Fed will not be afraid to lower its target rate again, or start another round of so-called quantitative easing.

I know we hear about negative interest rates now, but the Fed is currently paying banks 0.5% on reserves.  This is to support its targeted federal funds rate.  So before the Fed imposes a negative interest rate, it would first have to actually stop paying the banks to not lend.

The Fed is sitting in a sweet spot right now in terms of lower unemployment and relatively low price inflation.  Therefore, the Fed will probably sit tight until the stock market falls a lot more, or until it is more evident that we are in, or heading into, a recession.

Things can happen quickly as we saw in the fall of 2008.  You could wake up on Monday morning and see the Dow futures down by 1,000 points.  If we see a few days in a row of plunging stocks, the discussion can change quickly.  It won’t be talk of whether the Fed will raise interest rates again, but whether the Fed will lower them or start more money creation.

The Fed has had a tight monetary policy since October 2014 when it ended QE3.  It has not been expanding the monetary base since that time.  Due to the tight money, I believe the misallocated resources built up from the easy money of 2008-2014 will be exposed shortly.  As stocks fall and long-term yields fall, a recession is looking more and more likely.

If the CPI were running at 3 or 4 percent, then I might think the Fed would sit still in the face of plunging stocks.  But since consumer prices are relatively low, the Fed may not hesitate as much to inflate.  We should consider this going forward.  It looks as though gold investors are already considering this, as the price has risen in the face of falling stocks and falling yields.