Saturday, January 1, 2011

James Rainey and LA Times Were Wrong about Gold and Glenn Beck

In early December 2009, LA Times reporter James Rainey penned a diatribe against Glenn Beck, a pro-gold TV announcer (perhaps the only major television personality to favor gold).  At the time, I wrote a letter to the bankruptcy court overseeing the bankruptcy of the firm that owns the LA Times suggesting that Glenn Beck be appointed the LA Times's  editor ad litem (i.e., for purposes of litigation)  since their investment advice has been consistently wrong and Beck has been right. 

Over the past year gold has gone up 29.7% while the S&P 500 has gone up 13%.  Both are fueled by pro-Wall Street monetary policies.

I am sending Rainey the following e-mail:

Dear Mr. Rainey:

On December 9, 2009 you wrote an article claiming that Mr. Glenn Beck's advocacy of gold as an investment was due to his alleged breach of fiduciary duty, although you failed to outline any fiduciary relationship between Mr. Beck and the metal.  Over the past year, from January 1 2010 to January 1 2011 gold has gone up 29.7% while the S&P 500 has gone up 13%.  You seem to have been wrong.

The matter isn't just that you are a sorry excuse for an investment analyst.  Nor is it just that you are a sorry excuse for a journalist.  Virtually all of the legacy media has that in common with you.  Rather, it is the peculiar stupidity that you demonstrated.  You failed to consider that there might be reasons for a gold bubble that can carry it to $3,000 or more. The dumber students who believed fairy tale Keynesian economics advocated in America's universities seem to have become journalists.  You are a case in point.

Why don't you educate yourself and read some Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard?


Mitchell Langbert

No comments: