Last month I gave a talk at the Kingston-Rhinebeck Tea Party. I pointed out that the GOP's commitment to the Fed has permitted the flourishing of a wide range of special interest groups. In turn, the Fed engenders income inequality, American economic decline, especially in manufacturing, and Wall Street's expansion. Howard S. Katz has been making these points since the 1970s and earlier, and they key off the Austrians Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard. Ron Paul and his son Rand make similar points as well, and they should be viewed as the leaders of the political movement that aims to undo the massive damage that the the parties of the elephant and the donkey have caused (the Democrats are worse than the GOP).
Marketwatch's Paul B. Farrell reports that the cornerstone of the legacy media, the New York Times, has published David Stockman's article making these points with the clarity and specificity of an insider with important historical knowledge. Stockman was President Reagan's budget director who lost a battle against Reagan' supply siders. Stockman argues that the GOP destroyed the American economy in four steps:
1. Richard Nixon's dropping of the gold standard at the behest of Milton Friedman and his defaulting on the American obligation to redeem dollars for gold internationally
2. President Reagan's neo-Keynesian doctrine of supply-side economics
3. The expansion of Wall Street and the recent expansion of the money supply
4. The financing of American credit through foreign debt, resulting in increasing income inequality and the exit of factory jobs.
I have made all these points since 2004. Stockman is specific as to much of the historical detail. The Marketwatch article is well worth reading. Stockman notes:
"the top 1% of Americans -- paid mainly from the Wall Street casino -- received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90% -- mainly dependent on Main Street's shrinking economy -- got only 12%. This growing wealth gap is not the market's fault. It's the decaying fruit of bad economic policy."
That the GOP continues to support the stupid policies of the Rockefeller-Bush Republicans contributes as much to American decline as do Obama's policies. While the Democratic Party is lost, the GOP should serve as the rational alternative. Instead, it has followed the ideology of the Democrats into big government extremism and economic decline. When questioned about the Patriot Act, many Republicans simply spin and lay the blame on President Clinton. The large circulation legacy media contribute to the absence of mass level debate. Stockman's recent article conveniently appears in the Times a year after the massive bailouts and money printing escapades (chiefly under the Democrats, incidentally) that may have put the nation's collapse into third gear.
Those Democrats who wish to make partisan hay out of Stockman's Op Ed might consider that the only people making these arguments for the past 40 years have been Republicans. Which does not mitigate the ill effects of Milton Friedman and his colleagues in academia along with the Rockefeller-Bush Republicans.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Jeff Khuhner: Everybody Knows Obama Doesn't Care for Christians and Jews
Mairi just sent me Steve Malzberg's radio interview with Jeff Kuhner. Apparently, legacy media marionettes like Chris Matthews are now calling for Obama to show the birth certificate. Kuhner and Malzberg say that the governor of Hawaii now is looking for a way to make the certificate public. Kuhner predicts a constitutional crisis if Obama was not born in the US. Malzberg asks the question I asked two years ago: Why is Obama spending so much money to prevent the vault copy's disclosure? In '08 I submitted 5,000 signatures to the FEC requesting that it vet presidential candidates.
My concern then was that the whole thing might be Obama's gambit. What if there is nothing wrong with the certificate and Obama is using this as a ruse to trick his opponent? If it's ok and he then reveals it a few months before the 2012 election it could work in his favor by discrediting his opponents. On the other hand, if it is settled now, it could be interesting. I don't think he should be removed from office if he is not a citizen, but he should be prevented from running again. He has already done maximum damage with the bailouts, the stimulus and the health care act. Kuhner claims that there could be a civil war over this, but I hope that if there is to be a civil war it will be for more important reasons.
How anyone can take a media seriously that does not question why Obama would spend $2 million to keep his vault copy birth certificate private continues to puzzle me.
My concern then was that the whole thing might be Obama's gambit. What if there is nothing wrong with the certificate and Obama is using this as a ruse to trick his opponent? If it's ok and he then reveals it a few months before the 2012 election it could work in his favor by discrediting his opponents. On the other hand, if it is settled now, it could be interesting. I don't think he should be removed from office if he is not a citizen, but he should be prevented from running again. He has already done maximum damage with the bailouts, the stimulus and the health care act. Kuhner claims that there could be a civil war over this, but I hope that if there is to be a civil war it will be for more important reasons.
How anyone can take a media seriously that does not question why Obama would spend $2 million to keep his vault copy birth certificate private continues to puzzle me.
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?
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
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?
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney's On The Markets: A Forecast from The Belly of the Beast
Back during the late 1990s' tech-and-Internet stock bubble my wife noticed that whenever television broadcasters or their Wall Street puppet masters predicted that a stock would go up, it would go down, and vice versa. Therefore, if an announcer said that a stock was going to go up, it might be a useful strategy to sell short. If she had followed that idea over the ensuring few years she would have made a bundle. But in investing timing is everything. (Incidentally, if you followed the advice of people who told you to invest for the long term rather than try to time the market, how have you been doing since 2001, a ten year period?)
That said, to quote a cliche, even a stopped watch is right twice a day. My stock broker recently forwarded Morgan Stanley Smith Barney's (MSSB) "On the Markets", its monthly market commentary. The pamphlet makes a few points. The headline on its cover is "Getting Ready for Higher Inflation" and, seven years after I first became interested in gold they are advocating a 5 percent position in commodities. That suggests that gold is into the supposed third leg of its bull market, the first being the period of limited awareness and the second being the period of smart money awareness. Now, the retail investor is being told to invest in commodities. The last leg is the bubble leg.
Smith Barney recommends emerging markets stocks and consumer staples stocks. They also recommend REITs and TIPS, inflation backed bonds. All of these recommendations key off the Federal Reserve monetary policy. The early November quantitative easing will inject $600 billion into the monetary base, which likely will over time have a bigger effect on the money supply. I have been receiving numerous credit offers in recent weeks, much like the early part of the last decade. That means to me that credit offerings are expanding. The stock market in general also looks good as the quantity of money drives interest rates hence the stock market. Because of the insane credit easing consumer stocks seem like a reasonable idea. I recently purchased the US Philip Morris (MO) and am thinking of the international Philip Morris (PM). Also, a few liquor stocks might be a good idea. As the Democrats and Republicans squeeze the public to subsidize the stock market, there will be plenty of drinking and smoking. MO pays a six percent dividend right now, and my stock broker recommended it as an alternative to cash or bonds.
I don't necessarily like the idea of REITs because of the real estate problems but emerging market stock markets like the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China) seem like a good idea. I disagree with MSSB's recommendation for long term bonds. That is, unless you are planning to trade. Incidentally, the same caveat holds true for stocks and commodities. When inflation starts to counteract the economic value of the freshly printed money (the Fed has more than tripled the money supply since 2008 and the ultimate effects might be greater) the stock market will fall because real interest rates will start to rise. So markets are increasingly treacherous and you need to invest for the short or intermediate term, not for the long term. I don't believe in day trading or anything like that. Rather, invest when something is low or likely to increase and pull out when it is in bubble mode. I don't think we're seeing any bubbles now, although commodities are heating up and I think the stock market will too this year.
Happy New Year.
That said, to quote a cliche, even a stopped watch is right twice a day. My stock broker recently forwarded Morgan Stanley Smith Barney's (MSSB) "On the Markets", its monthly market commentary. The pamphlet makes a few points. The headline on its cover is "Getting Ready for Higher Inflation" and, seven years after I first became interested in gold they are advocating a 5 percent position in commodities. That suggests that gold is into the supposed third leg of its bull market, the first being the period of limited awareness and the second being the period of smart money awareness. Now, the retail investor is being told to invest in commodities. The last leg is the bubble leg.
Smith Barney recommends emerging markets stocks and consumer staples stocks. They also recommend REITs and TIPS, inflation backed bonds. All of these recommendations key off the Federal Reserve monetary policy. The early November quantitative easing will inject $600 billion into the monetary base, which likely will over time have a bigger effect on the money supply. I have been receiving numerous credit offers in recent weeks, much like the early part of the last decade. That means to me that credit offerings are expanding. The stock market in general also looks good as the quantity of money drives interest rates hence the stock market. Because of the insane credit easing consumer stocks seem like a reasonable idea. I recently purchased the US Philip Morris (MO) and am thinking of the international Philip Morris (PM). Also, a few liquor stocks might be a good idea. As the Democrats and Republicans squeeze the public to subsidize the stock market, there will be plenty of drinking and smoking. MO pays a six percent dividend right now, and my stock broker recommended it as an alternative to cash or bonds.
I don't necessarily like the idea of REITs because of the real estate problems but emerging market stock markets like the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China) seem like a good idea. I disagree with MSSB's recommendation for long term bonds. That is, unless you are planning to trade. Incidentally, the same caveat holds true for stocks and commodities. When inflation starts to counteract the economic value of the freshly printed money (the Fed has more than tripled the money supply since 2008 and the ultimate effects might be greater) the stock market will fall because real interest rates will start to rise. So markets are increasingly treacherous and you need to invest for the short or intermediate term, not for the long term. I don't believe in day trading or anything like that. Rather, invest when something is low or likely to increase and pull out when it is in bubble mode. I don't think we're seeing any bubbles now, although commodities are heating up and I think the stock market will too this year.
Happy New Year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
