Deviant Investor: War on Cash Backfires

War on Cash Backfires

Guest Post from Clint Siegner, Money Metals Exchange

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched a surprise attack on cash in late 2016. He gave Indians a few days to convert the two largest denomination bills then circulating to bank deposits, after which point any undeposited notes would become worthless. The move was intensely controversial. Transactions completed using cash represented the vast majority of economic activity in the country.  [Editor: See note below!]

MD: When looking at individual transactions, cash represents the majority of economic activity in any country. When you’re talking about “real” money, “all” transactions are in cash. And all cash transactions are totally anonymous. This is different than saying “money creation” is anonymous. With “real” money, “all” money creation is transparent. This means anyone can see who is creating the money and under what terms and how they are performing on delivering on those terms. And they can see this is real time.

In order to sell the program Modi employed a familiar strategy. He vilified the users of cash as tax cheats and criminals. He promised the measure would punish black marketeers, boost the Indian economy, and increase tax revenues. The latter may be true – forcing transactions onto the grid is good for nosy bureaucrats trying to impose taxes and controls.

But it now appears Modi’s claims about the amount of criminal activity tied to cash and promises of economic growth were nonsense.


The official argument was that cash is an indispensable tool for black marketeers. The reform would catch many of these “criminals” with piles of cash they would be unwilling to declare and deposit. That argument fell apart last week when the Indian central bank reported that 99% of the outlawed bills were converted to deposits. Turns out very few “criminals” were punished.

MD: So, did they reverse the policy?

Meanwhile the Indian economy is paying the price. Growth has slowed significantly and some estimate as many as 5 million jobs have been destroyed by the demonetization of cash. More and more Indians are angry.

MD: Why would that be? What transactions that were being done in large denominations quit being done altogether?

They didn’t enjoy the upside promised by Modi. Instead, they suffered massive economic disruption and loss of privacy. Perhaps India’s experience will provide an object lesson elsewhere in the world where bankers and the political elite are waging a similar war on cash.

Clint Siegner is a Director at Money Metals Exchange, the national precious metals company named 2015 “Dealer of the Year” in the United States by an independent global ratings group. A graduate of Linfield College in Oregon, Siegner puts his experience in business management along with his passion for personal liberty, limited government, and honest money into the development of Money Metals’ brand and reach. This includes writing extensively on the bullion markets and their intersection with policy and world affairs.

Thanks to Clint Siegner, Money Metals Exchange

Note: Voltaire understood the process over two centuries ago. He said, “Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value – zero.” (Voltaire, 1694-1778)

MD: And that is correct. It’s only money when the promised delivery is in process. On delivery, the money is returned and destroyed.  And during the delivery process, the money itself never has intrinsic value. It doesn’t need it … just like 1965 when we proved that coins didn’t need silver content to be useful to traders. So what?

Unbacked debt based fiat currencies (dollars, euros, pounds and most others) that possess no intrinsic value are devalued by central bankers and governments.

MD: This is nonsense. When you know what money is, you know “all” money is “fiat” … and that is no issue at all. Governments counterfeit money. They don’t create it with a trading promise on which they intend to deliver. And counterfeit money is obviously not real money and is not tolerated at all in a proper MOE process.

And with “real” money there is no such thing as a central bank. There is no need for one. And with “real” money, the value of the money itself never changes. That is guaranteed by the process itself … a process that maintains perpetual perfect balance between supply and demand for the money itself.

With “real” money, the ideal unit of measure is the HUL (Hour of Unskilled Labor). This unit (like the ounce … and unlike the ounce of gold) has never changed over all time. It has always traded for the same size hole in the ground.

They do it because it benefits the political and financial elite and appears beneficial in the short-term. History shows the supposed benefits of devaluation are nonsense, but they keep trying…..

MD: And they couldn’t keep trying with a “proper” MOE process and “real” money. The process would exclude them from the playing field with its natural negative feedback system … i.e. mitigating defaults immediately with interest collections of like amount.

Fiat paper money and political power do not mix well. The people — not the political or financial elite — pay the price.

MD: Counterfeiting and political power are a “natural” mix. And it is correct: counterfeiting results in inflation … and that hurts responsible traders. The problem is not in the “fiat”ness of the money … it’s in the counterfeiting by the governments.

It has happened before and will happen again. Gold and silver are good alternatives to devaluations by governments and central bankers.

MD: Gold and silver are only good for a very short time when counterfeiting finally results in a reset. In the normal operation of a “real” MOE process, gold and silver play no role whatever. They are just clumsy inefficient stand-ins for real money. They can’t compete with real money except at reset time … which never occurs with a “proper” MOE process … because counterfeiting is not tolerated by a proper MOE process. With our current process (and all historical MOE processes), counterfeiting is not only tolerated, it is required. Governments need the inflation to sustain themselves and the money changers, that institute those governments for their protection, need the fictional “time value of money” to demand tribute and run their farming operation (i.e. business cycle).

Gary Christenson

The Deviant Investor

MD: Gary Christenson and the Deviant Investor need to “get a clue” … but they won’t because they’re in the gold selling business.


Cafe Hayek: in Complexity & Emergence, Economics, Hayek, Philosophy of Freedom


MD: This article illustrates how poorly the Mises Monks write. It also illustrates how they analyze a problem to death … totally failing to recognize that the problem they are analyzing is totally irrelevant.

Quotation of the Day…

by Don Boudreaux on September 4, 2017

in Complexity & Emergence, Economics, Hayek, Philosophy of Freedom

… is from page 60 of one of F.A. Hayek’s greatest essays, his 1945 lecture “Individualism: True and False,” as this essay is reprinted in Studies on the Abuse & Decline of Reason, Bruce Caldwell, ed. (2010), which is volume 13 of the Collected Works of F.A. Hayek (original emphases):

To the accepted Christian tradition that man must be free to follow his conscience in moral matters if his actions are to be of any merit, the economists added the further argument that he should be free to make full use of his knowledge and skill, that he must be allowed to be guided by his concern for the particular things of which he knows and for which he cares, if he is to make as great a contribution to the common purposes of society as he is capable of making.  

MD: One sentence … 91 words … no concepts … no coherent thesis … and he mixes two fictions … religion and economics. What’s not to love about the Mises Monks. What it does seem to properly say is: A society must be very advanced for an economist to be perceived of value. No society can get large enough for an economist to “really” be of value.

Their main problem was how these limited concerns, which did in fact determine people’s actions, could be made effective inducements to cause them voluntarily to contribute as much as possible to needs which lay outside the range of their vision.  

MD: See what I mean about analyzing a problem to death … a problem that is irrelevant? I guarantee you, in the olden days before anyone could even say “economist” or “christian”, someone struggling with a tree branch too large for them to place would immediately get help from another human standing by. No instruction manual, advanced inbred degree, or analysis required.

What the economists understood for the first time was that the market as it had grown up was an effective way of making man take part in a process more complex and extended than he could comprehend and that it was through the market that he was made to contribute ‘to ends which were no part of his purpose’.

MD: I wonder if the Mises Monks ever stand back and realize: It takes a very very large society indeed to find anything about the Mises Monks to be of redeeming value. If you need sand poured out of a boot, you’re sure not going to go to a Mises Monk … even in an advanced society.

DBx: Here’s Sheldon Richman on “Individualism: True and False.

Cafe Hayek: How much government … how much force.


Quotation of the day …

by Don Boudreaux on September 3, 2017

in Reality Is Not Optional

MD: To the “gold is money” folks, reality sure seems to be optional.

… is from page 719 of the 2007 Liberty Fund edition (Bettina Bien Greaves, ed.) of Ludwig von Mises’s 1949 treatise, Human Action:

MD: Mises Monks quoting from their bible.

The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.  Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.

DBx: You might believe, as Mises himself believed, that a peaceful and prosperous society requires some minimum amount of government.

MD: And you might believe that the camel requires some minimum amount of his head under the tent.

Or you might believe, as most people believe, that a peaceful and prosperous society requires a great deal of government.  Or you might be a comrade who longs for complete and detailed government design of, and control over, all of our economic activities.  Wherever you stand on the spectrum of “minimum, nightwatchman government to Soviet-style state control,” you must never forget that the ultimate distinguishing feature of the state is its ability to issue dictates that are enforced with coercion.  And this reality does not disappear when state decisions are made democratically.

Every state erects statues to its most successful operatives, flies its flags gloriously high in the sky, conducts its business in imposing buildings, adorns its officials with impressive titles and honorifics, and – above all – assures its subjects that it possesses a superhuman capacity to know and to care, and that it uses this capacity always and only in ways that make the state an indispensable boon to everyone over whom it reigns.  Yet behind all this pomp and fine display are iron fists and spiked boots.

MD: … and money that is not real.

Deviant Investor: Gold: New 2017 High

Gold: New 2017 High

Guest Post from Stefan Gleason, Originally Published on
Money Metals Exchange

Gold’s naysayers and doubters came out in full force earlier this summer as sentiment reached its nadir. The mid-year pullback in prices did, too.

There can be no doubt about it now – gold has broken out of its summer doldrums. On Monday, the yellow metal finally broke through the longstanding $1,300/oz resistance zone to make a new high for the year at $1,316.

MD: Can you imagine how boring this would all be if we had “real” money? “There can be no doubt about it now — real money has broken out of it summer doldrums of 1.000 HULs. On Monday, the ideal media finally broke through the longstanding 1.000 HULs resistance zone to make a new high for the year … and the decade … and the century  … at 1.000 HULS.

Assuming the breakout holds, the next upside target is $1,375/oz, the high point for 2016.

MD: “Assuming the breakout holds, the next upside target is 1.000 HULs, the high point for the millennium.

There are plenty of bullish factors behind gold’s recent upside momentum to continue pushing prices higher in the days and weeks ahead. The gold mining stocks are starting to show relative strength again. And the U.S. Dollar Index appears to have begun another new down leg this week, falling Monday to a two-and-a-half-year low.

MD: Now really. How can these twerps think gold is money?

Another bullish factor is geopolitics. Gold gained a few more dollars in early trading Tuesday morning in Asia after North Korea launched a missile over Japan. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said, “Their outrageous act of firing a missile over our country is an unprecedented, serious and grave threat and greatly damages regional peace and security.”

MD: Real money is “never” affected by geopolitics … or any other kind of politics for that matter.

On any ordinary news day, this dangerous provocation from North Korea would be the top story on all the cable news channels. Hawks would be calling on the U.S. to retaliate, and doves would be warning of the potential for millions of deaths in the event war breaks out in the densely populated region.

For now, though, the unprecedented flooding caused by Hurricane Harvey is the Trump administration’s top priority. Early estimates are that the storm has caused $40 billion in damage. Water levels are still rising in Houston, and surrounding areas extending to Louisiana, so the scale of the catastrophic losses stemming from 11 trillion gallons of water will continue to grow in the days ahead.

MD: Real money is never affected by weather calamities … or earth shaking calamities … or run away fires. In fact, that’s when it really shines. Traders will create money (i.e. make trading promises spanning time and space) immediately and begin repairs and rebuilding. They will be unconstrained in creating this money. And they can make promises spanning 5 or 10 years with periodic payments to prove performance and maintain the negative feedback loop. Responsible traders will enjoy zero interest load. And all traders will enjoy zero inflation. Life is good.

Several major oil refineries have been shut down by the storm. However, crude oil production is little affected. Oil inventories are expected to build even as gasoline prices rise (gasoline futures jumped 3% on Monday).

MD: You really have to wonder about this reporting. They reported that the refineries would be shut down for as much as a month. And they reported they’re tapping the strategic oil reserve for crude oil. Now what in the world is that crude oil supposed to do without refineries?

The disaster is bringing Americans from disparate backgrounds and worldviews together, united in a common purpose to help provide relief to those in need. Perhaps Congress will set aside some of its partisan acrimony when it goes back into session next week. Unfortunately for taxpayers, though, outbreaks of bipartisanship are usually associated with emergencies that cause both sides to agree on even more spending.

MD: Somebody (this writer) needs to ask themselves “what is the purpose of congress?”

The political pressure to make sure federal agencies are equipped to handle Harvey relief efforts (which will be ongoing for months) figures to be overwhelming. Conservatives who had aimed to force concessions in an upcoming budget fight may conclude that they now have no leverage to do so.

MD: With real money, the agencies couldn’t do this. They couldn’t create the money to do it because they are deadbeats. They never return the money they create. But with real money the agencies wouldn’t be needed to do this in the first place.

President Donald Trump so far hasn’t backed off his vow to pursue border wall funding even if Congress refuses and a government shutdown occurs. But a government shutdown in the aftermath of a major natural disaster could be a political disaster for whoever gets blamed for it.

MD: The only thing bad about a government shutdown is that we continue to pay the government workers for overtly doing nothing rather than covertly doing nothing. A permanent government shutdown would be oh-so-refreshing.

With so many risks hitting investors this week, it’s no surprise that the gold market is benefiting from safe-haven inflows.

MD: Now reconcile that with your “gold is money” meme!

Silver is benefiting as well. Although the silver market has not yet hit a new high for the year, prices advanced nearly 2.5% Monday to close above the 200-day moving average.

If silver can now start showing leadership, that would be bullish for the entire precious metals complex. The gold:silver ratio currently stands at about 75:1. Gold is still trading at a high price historically relative to silver.

The ratio can move rapidly to the downside when silver prices are surging. That was the case from late 2010 to early 2011, when the ratio dropped from the high 60s to the low 30s. An even bigger move could be in store for those who buy silver now, while the gold:silver ratio is still in the 70s.

MD: I can just picture this writer sitting on the beach and giving us a play by play of the waves coming in. I wonder if he would even move to claiming the waves are money.

Stefan Gleason is President of Money Metals Exchange, the national precious metals company named 2015 “Dealer of the Year” in the United States by an independent global ratings group. A graduate of the University of Florida, Gleason is a seasoned business leader, investor, political strategist, and grassroots activist. Gleason has frequently appeared on national television networks such as CNN, FoxNews, and CNBC, and his writings have appeared in hundreds of publications such as the Wall Street Journal, Detroit News, Washington Times, and National Review.


Thanks to:  Stefan Gleason, Originally Published on Money Metals Exchange


Cafe Hayek: insurance against exploitation,

MD: I wonder if Boudreaux and Buchanan have read the Anti-Federalist Papers.  Let’s see if they have clue.

Quotation of the Day…

by Don Boudreaux on August 28, 2017

in Myths and Fallacies, Virginia Political Economy

… is from pages 171-172 of my late Nobel-laureate colleague Jim Buchanan‘s 1987 paper “Man and the State,” as this paper is reprinted in James M. Buchanan, Federalism, Liberty, and Law (2001), which is volume 18 of the Collected Works of James M. Buchanan:

The monumental folly of the past two centuries has been the presumption that so long as the state operates in accordance with democratic procedures (free and periodic elections; open franchise; open entry for parties, candidates, and interests; majority or plurality voting rules) the individual does, indeed, have quite apart from any viable exit option.  

MD: That is a badly constructed … long sentence. It ends “individual does have”. Does have “what”?  And then adds “quite apart from any viable exit option” has nothing to refer to. If it means the individual has a viable exit option to leave the government, he certainly doesn’t. Neither does a state. The Constitution is obviously flawed with its failure to include a buy/sell clause.

Modern states have been allowed to invade increasing areas of “private space” under the pretense of democratic process.

MD: We here at MD of course know that democracy … and thus the democratic process … has no chance of working with more than 50 people involved. And our USA process has 500,000 people involved at our “most” representative level.

From Anti-Federalist Papers #17: Federalist Power Will Ultimately Subvert State Authority:

DBx: People whose understanding of democracy is no more advanced than what they learned in fifth grade believe that the democratic procedures listed above by Buchanan are both necessary and sufficient to ensure a free, open, vibrant, and prosperous society.  And when such people – people such as Duke historian Nancy MacLean – encounter serious discussions of the need for constraints on majoritarian rule, these people leap to the conclusion that those who counsel such restraints are undemocratic enemies of the People.  Whatever you think of democracy, such leaping is a sign of terrific ignorance of both intellectual and political history.  And yet displays today of such ignorance are unthinkingly celebrated in “Progressive” circles as signs of deep wisdom and moral superiority.

MD: Boy is this the pot calling the kettle black. DBx seems to be clueless about democracy too. Earth to DBx! Democracy can’t work with more than 50 people involved!

For democracy to work, the voters must be intimately familiar with the issues on which they are voting. For democracy to function in a republic, those choosing the representative for the next lower level must personally know the person they choose … and that person must personally know them to represent them (the individual being at the top level and himself dealing himself with all issues under his control … like his own welfare) .

Cafe Hayek: Prosecuting price gougers

MD: Every once in a while, even the Mises Monks get it right.


Mr. Ken Paxton, Attorney General
State of Texas
Austin, TX

Mr. Paxton:

You boasted today on Fox News that your office, in the wake of hurricane Harvey, will prosecute so-called “price gougers” – that is, merchants who charge prices deemed to be too high by Texas politicians.  I urge you to quit your witch hunt.

MD: Hear hear!!

Because each ‘gouging’ price paid for any item is paid voluntarily by a consumer spending his or her own money – and because that consumer cannot conveniently find that item elsewhere at a lower price – the consumer clearly doesn’t deem the price to be too high.  That is, while the consumer would, as always, prefer to pay a lower than a higher price, the consumer prefers to pay the high price and actually get the item than to save money by going without the item.  Formal legalities asides, why should the judgment of politicians about what prices in the aftermath of natural disasters ‘should’ be override the judgments of on-the-spot consumers about the appropriateness of prices?

Government intervention is often justified as a means of correcting “market failure.”

MD: Government itself is a “sanity” failure. No government at any level, even at the bottom (the individual being at the top) should do anything the level above it cannot do itself. Big government is for wide cooperation … not wide control. The individual clearly is able to make their own decision here … and implement it.

But by enforcing prohibitions on “price gouging” your office causes market failure.  Penalizing merchants who raise the prices of goods and services prevents markets from truthfully conveying an unfortunate but undeniable truth – namely, the natural disaster caused available supplies of goods and services to fall significantly relative to the demand for those goods and services.  By forcibly keeping ‘legal’ prices lower than their actual market values, you not only encourage black markets and other corrupt and corrupting processes, you obstruct the information and incentives that are necessary both to encourage consumers to now use those goods and services more sparingly, and to encourage suppliers from around the world to rush to the devastated areas additional supplies of those goods and services.

Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA  22030

MD: Congratulations Cafe Hayek. Even the blind squirrel sometimes finds a nut.

Cafe Hayek: Degrees of Explanation

Quotation of the Day…

by Don Boudreaux on August 25, 2017

in Curious Task, Economics, Hayek, Scientism, Seen and Unseen

Degrees of Explanation

… is from page 201 of the 2014 collection, The Market and Other Orders (Bruce Caldwell, ed.), of some of F.A. Hayek’s essays on spontaneous-ordering forces; specifically, it’s from Hayek’s deep 1995 article “Degrees of Explanation,” which first appeared in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science:

In ordinary usage we are inclined to admit as predictions only statements which narrow down the admitted phenomena fairly closely, and to draw a distinction between ‘positive’ predictions such as “the moon will be full at 5h 22′ 16″ tomorrow”, and merely negative predictions such as “the moon will not be full tomorrow.”  But this is no more than a distinction of degree.  Any statement about what we will find or not find within a stated temporal and spatial interval is a prediction and may be exceedingly useful: the information that I will find no water on a certain journey may indeed be more important than most positive statements about what I will find.  Even statements which specify no single specific property of what we will find but which merely tell us disjunctively that we will find either x or y or z must be admitted as predictions, and may be important predictions.  A statement which excludes only one of all conceivable events from the range of those which may occur is no less a prediction and as such may prove false [and, because it can be proven false, is ‘scientific’].

MD: Ok. We have a pretty straight forward assertion of the obvious. But we don’t know anything yet about what this assertion is supporting. Let’s see if that comes out in DBx treatment. Hint: No it doesn’t

DBx: I have always found “Degrees of Explanation” to be Hayek’s most challenging article, yet one that repays close study handsomely.  No summary statement by me can do this article justice, but it’s one of Hayek’s attempts to explain (!) why the method of the social sciences must differ from the method of the physical sciences (especially from physics) and why social scientists must be more modest in their claims about what they can explain or predict.

MD: The first thing that should be ruled out is that “social” can ever be “science”. We see empirical evidence that it cannot be science on a daily … hourly basis.

Applying the insight in the passage above to economics, we rediscover the most important practical role for the economist – namely, to warn the general public that much of what they suppose government action can achieve is, in fact, not achievable (or, at least, not achievable at the zero, low, or finely targeted costs that the general public supposes).

MD: Wait? The role of the economist is to “warn”? This leaves me wondering what we have to warn us of the nonsense that economists bring to the table? How can you trust a collection of people to warn you about anything, when down to last member of that collection, there is disagreement … major major disagreement? There is no science. There is not even a trace of a scientific method. There is just incestuous circular references in footnotes.

The economist is much like someone who follows a quack doctor around to warn the quack-doctor’s gullible audiences that none of the quack’s miracle cures will work and that many, or even most, of them will actually result in greater illness and injury.

MD: Actually, it’s more about “my quack doctor is better than your quack doctor.” I have yet to engage a single economist who knows what money is. And when presented with the obvious definition and proof, they will not embrace the obvious fact. If they were scientists, they would accept and support the obvious. Or they would easily prove the fallacy. They do neither. They are all going in different directions and cannot agree on anything.

The quack, of course, denies the ‘negativity’ while his gullible audiences, eager to believe in miracle cures, discount the economist as an unimaginative or mercenary naysayer.  And the real world, being far more complex than either the quack or his audiences realize, easily find reasons to reject the economist’s counsel.

MD: Gullible … yeh …. like gold-is-money, even though there is only 1oz per person on Earth and miners are willing to create new ounces for about $2,000 …. and to be money, that $2,000 per person on Earth has to be used for “all” in-process trading promises … plus all savings (i.e. trading processes that will be in process for an indeterminate period of time). And knowing an average person making just $50,000 /year (3/4ths of which is taken from them by governments without their ever seeing it)  … they will go through that $2,000 in less than a month … and never have it again. It will forever after, be held by the money changers to restrict trade over time and space … and it will always be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And when these people (a faction of so called economists) are confronted with the obvious proof that gold has never been money, that it is just a hopeless, inefficient, expensive, insufficiently supplied clumsy stand-in for real money (real money which they use the slur “fiat” to dispel), they resort to religion: gold has been money for 5,000 years.

You gotta love them. They all live in very nice houses and drive very nice cars. Quack quack quack.

Cafe Hayek: the “art of association”

Quotation of the Day…

by Don Boudreaux on August 24, 2017

in Civil Society, Complexity & Emergence, Myths and Fallacies

… is from page 353 of my GMU Econ colleague Chris Coyne’s excellent 2011 paper “Constitutions and crisis” (typo corrected):

The notion of the “art of association” can be traced back to Tocqueville, who noted America’s robust civil society that consists of an array of social associations and networks.  These associations and networks were not the result of government design or legislation, but instead evolved through the ingenuity of self-reliant citizens acting entrepreneurially.

MD: Yeh … like they didn’t have taverns before then? Sheeeesssssh.

 Associations stand between the government and the market.  They allow people to come together and solve common problems without relying on government.  In doing so, they serve as a check on government power because private individuals do not become overly reliant on government to solve the problems they face.  The emergence of a robust civil society is only possible when people’s right to free association is established and protected.  Where this right exists, people can invest in establishing social associations and networks, which can potentially play a crucial role in the wake of crises.

MD: Put more simply, if the solution to any issues is found to be government, well, you’re still looking for a solution.

DBx: Society is not government.  And while reasonable people can and do disagree over the degree to which government is necessary to a thriving society, indisputably false is the notion that society is created by government and is sustained only by the detailed directions – or, more accurately, detailed diktats – of government.

MD: Government is instituted by money changers. Society is just the fodder … the feedstock … the slaves … the putty in the hands of the money changers and government is what they institute to discipline that fodder. Religion is another form of that discipline.

Unfortunately, the creationist-engineering mindset is dominant in the general public and even more so in the ranks of social scientists.

MD: “Social scientist”:  The ultimate oxymoron.

Even among economists, who are the least likely of all social scientists to fall for the social-creationist myth, the social-creationist myth seems to me to be gaining ground.

MD: Since fully 96% of the worlds population is religious, it’s ridiculous to suppose economists only exist among the remaining 4%.

Were it not so laden with danger, it would be amusing to witness the typical professor who so often, with one breath, sneers at those who deny that the orderly complexity of the natural world is the result of unplanned evolution, and, with the next breath, cheers those who deny that the orderly complexity of the social world is the result of unplanned evolution.

MD: Delusion, oxymoron, myths, religion, self deception … you name it … human beings are the epitome of it all.

Deviant Investor: What Could Upset Markets?

What Could Upset Markets?

Guest Post from Clint Siegner, Money Metals Exchange

Investors have been well-trained in complacency. They have spent the past few years watching markets shrug off momentous geopolitical events – each more quickly than the last. Brexit’s impact faded within days. Trump’s election faded within hours.

MD: Notice how this is focused on “markets?” It’s never focused on traders (like you and me) … it’s focused on the gamblers and the gamers. Geopolitical events have almost no impact on real traders (those actually promising things and delivering). They just impact the highly leveraged gamers … who call themselves capitalists.

Stocks traded at all-time highs this summer and volatility made all-time lows. That is the set-up as we head into the fall…

MD: Stocks are about large collectives. If we had a proper MOE process we would still have stocks. A trader like you and me cannot make a promise to create an automobile company and create money to deliver on that promise. However, as all these companies start very small, a proper MOE process does allow the seed to be planted and grow. The gaming of our corrupt (so-called capitalist) system makes it difficult for small companies to compete with corporations.

Almost nobody seems nervous. In this age of central planning and highly artificial markets, it is hard to tell when this period of strange market serenity will end. But vigilant investors should have a few ideas. The next few months are going to challenge the status quo.

MD: The central planning and artificial markets are enabled by our “improper” MOE process. They are enabled by the nonsense they call capitalism. Capitalism is easily defined as “two years with a large dose of elite privilege”.

President Trump Is Under Siege

MD: And should be. He is just one of “them.” He has still not mentioned WTC7. But he is not being called on it. He is “not” under siege in reality.

It has been clear from the beginning of his term that President Donald Trump has very few supporters in Washington DC.

MD: Nonsense. This is all provably theater … like the Harlem Globe Trotters and the Washington Generals.

Democrats and progressives naturally oppose him. Deep staters have been working hard to undermine the administration. And you don’t need enemies when you have “friends” like John McCain, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan in the Republican led Congress.

MD: But one thing you can say about all the combatants you enumerate: NONE have mentioned WTC7.

Turmoil in Trump’s administration escalated last week. The president disbanded two separate business councils following the defection of high profile CEOs who disagreed with Trump’s response to events in Charlottesville, Virginia.

MD: And look at Erdogen in Turkey. This kind of turmoil enables these actors to reinvent themselves on a whole different stage. It’s all false flags. Israel is the master of this deception.

On Friday, Americans learned Steve Bannon, Trump’s Chief Strategist, was kicked out of the White House. That will cost Trump some support from his core constituency, who favored Bannon.

MD: As 15,000 newly minted morons (i.e. those disgusted with what they think are Trump’s opponents) show up to support him in Arizona. It’s “all” theater!

The president is already taking flack from supporters such as Ann Coulter. Bannon’s ouster leaves the President with an inner circle which is completely dominated by Wall Street insiders (with a history of supporting Democrats – such as Gary Cohn, Steve Mnuchin, and Dina Powell) and Pentagon brass.

MD: And Ann Coulter is a religious nutcase … who is occasionally right about things. I will guarantee you … she doesn’t know what money is.

Should a good portion of Trump’s voters stop backing the president, he’ll be in real trouble. And markets will start pricing that in.

MD: Oh really? He’s in there for four years. He can do enormous damage to us and benefit them  (i.e. rearrange things for the occupiers of our country). Look at George W. Bush. A third grader would have made a better top administrator … and he got two terms. What’s surprising is his dad only got one term. They really don’t like the disruption caused when they change their current “Meadowlark Lemon”.

Conflict with North Korea Possible, Even Likely

MD: Right. If that’s what they choose. They got it in Afghanistan, and poppies were their only interest there. If they can take out Qaddafi and Hussein (who they put in), they can take out Kim.

North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un ramped up the rhetoric again late last week in response to planned military drills conducted by South Korea and the U.S. Should the North Koreans test fire another missile, the U.S. may well respond with force.

MD: What’s theater without a crescendo occasionally? You have to create the emotion to hold the audience.

The generals advising the President appear to be succeeding in the effort to persuade him to get more aggressive. Steve Bannon’s departure signals that Trump has heard enough counsel for a less interventionist foreign policy.

The former Chief Strategist was one of few voices for restraint in the White House.

Bannon’s views with regards to North Korea in particular seem to be part of what put him at odds with the president. In an interview with the American Prospect, released just days before his ouster, Bannon said;

“There’s no military solution here; they got us. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about.”

MD: Bannon may not have been on the full inside track yet. We will find that “Kim” is one of “them” too … or can be taken out with ease.

In recent days, fears over a confrontation with North Korea have seeped into the markets. If actual warfare breaks out, investors can expect a much bigger reaction.

MD: There has not been a single war in my lifetime that was a “real” fight among people. They were all just theater with “them” moving “us” (the pawns … the cannon fodder) about the board. In the end, it was “them”, not “us” who won the spoils … regardless of the side you’re looking at. And we’ve been at war with someone my entire 70+ year life … and actually all the way back to Knox who got his standing army within six months of the formation of this ridiculous union.

Republican Leaders Angle for Debt Ceiling Increase

MD: Governments (all of them) are sustained totally by counterfeiting. They make trading promises … and then roll them over when they don’t deliver. That’s default. Not mitigated immediately by interest collections, that’s counterfeiting … that results in inflation.

The money changers collect tribute on that debt (which is just money created by a deadbeat trader … not loans from money changers) … and all that tribute (they call it interest) comes from taxes. They have to keep track of the counterfeiting number so they can tell us what our tribute needs to be. Otherwise, if you’re just counterfeiting, why keep track of how much counterfeiting you’ve done?

The Republican leadership in Washington DC wants to increase the borrowing limit, quietly and without fanfare. However, they may not be able to betray rank and file Republican voters and get away with it this time.

MD: Dreamer. They always get their minimum wage increases. They always get their debt ceiling increases. They always get their wars. They even always get their government shutdowns rolled back and no government worker loses anything … ever … unless they blow the whistle … then they lose everything.

Conservatives in Congress look ready to revolt, leaving leadership in the awkward position of having to seek compromise with Democrats.

MD: Oh please. Someone introduce this moron to Abe Saperstein!

The problem is that Democrats are looking for any chance to thwart Trump and Republicans.

It’s unlikely we’ll see a fight over the debt ceiling which is big enough, and protracted enough, to have significant implications for markets. Past battles over the debt ceiling have been for show. In the end, Congress has never missed an opportunity to hike the borrowing limit – big government Republicans and big government Democrats always find common ground.

MD: The fact that they can just continually increase the debt ceiling is proof, that tactic (which somehow got by “them”) has been neutered. Iterative secession. This thing is broken beyond repair.

However, the polarization in Washington DC is unprecedented. It might even lead to a genuine stalemate this time around.

MD: “Unprecedented” is a grossly overused word. When it comes to Washington DC nothing is unprecedented. Over the nearly 300 years time they’ve been fleecing us, they have tried everything … several times over.

Wildcard: Russia Hacking Story May Implode on Democrats & Fake News Media


Democratic leadership and their friends in media bet the farm on convincing Americans that Trump colluded with Vladamir Putin to subvert last Fall’s presidential election. They have been telling the world that Putin stole damaging, confidential party emails and coordinated with the Trump campaign to release them at the most opportune time – just before the people voted in November.

MD: The theme continues. Does Siegner really believe there are different forces competing here. I’ll cease comments on this fake competition for the rest of the article. Siegner is clueless about the tactic it seems.

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange says he can demonstrate unequivocally that the Russians are not the source of the leaked information. Last week, Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher met with Assange to discuss the matter and agreed to share the details with President Trump.

Investors should get ready for some significant developments to be announced soon.

MD: They’re already ready … those really inside elites  anyway Remember, they’re driving this bus. They’re chomping at the bit for the windfall they are about to create.

It will be bad news for the Democrat Party and its legacy media allies if their Russia narrative falls apart. Particularly if it turns out whistle blowers from inside the Democratic National Committee were the source of the embarrassing leaks. Party leaders do not want Americans to turn their focus to scandals such as the DNC’s effort to undermine Bernie Sanders or CNN feeding debate questions to Hillary Clinton.

If, as some on the right have speculated, the murder of Seth Rich is related to the leaks it could turn the political left upside down. That would shake Wall Street as well as Washington DC.

Clint Siegner is a Director at Money Metals Exchange, the national precious metals company named 2015 “Dealer of the Year” in the United States by an independent global ratings group. A graduate of Linfield College in Oregon, Siegner puts his experience in business management along with his passion for personal liberty, limited government, and honest money into the development of Money Metals’ brand and reach. This includes writing extensively on the bullion markets and their intersection with policy and world affairs.

Cafe Hayek: Varieties of “Anti-Government”

Varieties of “Anti-Government”

by Don Boudreaux on August 22, 2017

in Philosophy of Freedom

Prompted by the recent violence in Charlottesville, in my latest column in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review I highlight some differences that ought to be kept in mind when using, or encountering, the term “anti-government.

MD: Right away it gets scary. He is getting his thinking published. He is part of the “propaganda” arm of government. I think he writes about government’s use of “force”. Propaganda is government’s go-to tool. It only resorts to force when the polls show the effectiveness of the propaganda is not sufficient. By my poll (only 17 out of 298 people I’ve personally polled know anything about WTC7 falling down), the propaganda … and suppression of information … is working just splendidly.

A slice:

A libertarian’s – a Jeffersonian’s – “anti-government” stance reflects mainly a strong presumption against using force to direct peaceful people’s affairs.

MD: Why not leave people to direct their own affairs? Why is a government solution to issues (which always proves to be the least effective choice) always proposed first to the exclusion of all others? In my space it wouldn’t be that way. Iterative secession.

The libertarian objects first and foremost not to particular policies of a large and constitutionally unconstrained government, but to its very existence.

MD: Two issues: What does “constitutionally constrained” mean when that document is blatantly flawed … note it has no buy/sell agreement? What is “government” when it is openly occupied by our enemies … witness the mysterious collapse of WTC7? And an issue probably not covered herein: why is any level of government involved in directing anything that the level above it can deal with … the individual being at the top. Virtually 100% of what every level of government deals with today can be handled at the level just above it.

Even if such a government were today to behave in no ways that the libertarian finds objectionable, he remains opposed to it, understanding that such power is destined to be abused.

MD: So he’s saying libertarians are opposed to the camel getting his head under the tent. I wonder if he gets into why the camels want into the tent in the first place. And whose camel is it?

Of course, the libertarian is indeed “anti” many specific government policies – tariffs, subsidies, minimum wages, occupational licensing, K-12 schools’ funding and operations. This “anti-government” stance reflects no prejudice against an ethnic group, no favoritism for a culture or way of life. It reflects prejudice only against using power to secure special privileges, favoritism only for maximum scope to live, work and play as individuals peacefully choose. It is, in short, a pro-individual-liberty policy.

MD: So if governments didn’t use power to do these things, libertarians would be ok with it? If you’re pro-individual-liberty, why is there any government at all? Why isn’t everyone “pro-individual-liberty”? And why must those of us who are have to be in the same space with those who think there is a place for government. Read the Federalist Papers and at the same time read the Anti-Federalist papers.

The founding children surmised that if the states were left as separate entities their differences would result in fighting and wars. So their solution was to force them into the same space instead of letting them have their separate spaces in which to go about their separate ways. Now really? What kind of thinking is that???

Iterative secession. We took the wrong fork in the road when we formed the union. We must go back and try the other fork. This one has proven itself not to work … and globalization initiatives are proving the problem to be chronic.