The Ron Paul Portfolio

[Garth Zietsman]

I thought this would interest many of you if not strike a chord with you.  For the record I have an almost opposite view to what appears to be Paul's take.  I have always been a bit wary of the 'survivalist' libertarian wing.

As reported by the Wall Street Journal:

Most members of Congress, like many Americans, hold some real estate, a few bonds or bond mutual funds, some individual stocks and a bundle of stock funds. Give or take a few percentage points, a typical Congressional portfolio might have 10% in cash, 10% in bonds or bond funds, 20% in real estate, and 60% in stocks or stock funds.

But Ron Paul’s portfolio isn’t merely different. It’s shockingly different.

Yes, about 21% of Rep. Paul’s holdings are in real estate and roughly 14% in cash. But he owns no bonds or bond funds and has only 0.1% in stock funds. Furthermore, the stock funds that Rep. Paul does own are all “short,” or make bets against, U.S. stocks. One is a “double inverse” fund that, on a daily basis, goes up twice as much as its stock benchmark goes down.

The remainder of Rep. Paul’s portfolio – fully 64% of his assets – is entirely in gold and silver mining stocks....

At our request, William Bernstein, an investment manager at Efficient Portfolio Advisors in Eastford, Conn., reviewed Rep. Paul’s portfolio as set out in the annual disclosure statement. Mr. Bernstein says he has never seen such an extreme bet on economic catastrophe. ”This portfolio is a half-step away from a cellar-full of canned goods and nine-millimeter rounds,” he says.

[gazm...@gmail.com]

The bit about a cellar of canned goods is Bernstein's editorialising. Maybe all Paul is doing is avoiding assets valued in paper money?

Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone

---

From: Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com>

Sender: li...@googlegroups.com

Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2012 20:45:39 +0200

To: LibertarianSA<li...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: li...@googlegroups.com

Subject: [Libsa] The Ron Paul Portfolio

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libsa?hl=en.

[Hügo Krüger]

I seriously think Ron Paul's honesty and integrity does a helluva lot of good for libertarians. Ron Paul has predicted the decline of the US dollar and been warning about it for years now it won't be surprising at all that he has invested in gold or silver.

[Gareth Brickman]

A congressman has a successful portfolio not because of insider trading- naturally he must be vilified by the establishment.

[Garth Zietsman]

I know that many of you like and support Ron Paul and I think I understand your reasons.  I nevertheless don't share your positive view of the man.  While I am aware of his consistent advocacy of small government, support for sound money (gold standard) and stand against drug regulations I also see many problems.  For a start I don't think his views on money are sound (even if they are virtually PC among libertarians).  Then there is his fundamentalist religious and creationist outlook.  These disturb me greatly.  There is also a racist tract that was published under his name.  He has tried to disown this but he hasn't distanced himself from those who wrote it.  Then he is strongly anti-immigration.  While this is not a libertarian issue I don't like his virulent pro life stance because of what I think it says about a woman's right to autonomy.  I could go on. 

[Bob]

Amusing to say the least, one wonders what Bernstein would make of my portfolio. I have no stocks no bonds, as the returns are ludicrously low, compared with what I can generate myself by producing products for others. I hold property only where I have a use for it and yes I think currencies are in trouble and therefore protect myself from their possible loss of value. 

Does that make me a survivalist,  yes and makes us all survivalists, for if your bet is different and you have the opposite view to mine, you will survive and profit and I will loose and you can point a finger at my death saying I told you so.

In reality it's a lot more complicated than this becuase most people have brokers placing their funds, so look to his advisors for their take, the funny thing about us all, is that we tend to place our money with those we intuitively trust, not generally with those who hold the same view as us.

It's only in the long run, that Paul will be proved wrong or right. Bernstein is no better a soothsayer than you or I. Want to place a bet, on who is right or wrong? I know a good bookie who would gladly do the deal :-) 

To me it's a futile exercise to try get insights into an individual by analyzing their investments, rather ask the person outright what his or her view are? My investments are only a tiny piece of how I view the world over the next forty years. 

Sent from my iPhone

or

[Garth Zietsman]

I didn't see anything about his portfolio being successful.

[Hügo Krüger]

That is not a fair comparison though, he he isn't a religious fundamentalist and always defended the separation of church and state for a republican he even defended the right of atheists and homosexuals do practice whatever they want. The racist remarks are so false it isn't even funny, the media had to dig 20 years back into the past to get something to bash him with. Sure he might be pro life, but he even defended the right of the states to decide as he acknowledges that there are situations where abortion can take place. If anything he always distanced his personal views his libertarian ideology.

[Hügo Krüger]

In any case, I'm still of the opinion that a move towards a minarchist state would have to come through government and through a politician with good principles. Ron Paul is very much like Bary Goldwater and I would choose their society over the current status qua any day.

[Gareth Brickman]

Do you actually think the point of that article was to give an honest accounting of his portfolio...?

--

[Hügo Krüger]

No, the media has always tried to find ways to discredit him.

[gazm...@gmail.com]

Jim Peron would echo what you say here.

Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone

---

From: Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com>

Sender: li...@googlegroups.com

Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2012 21:21:35 +0200

To: <li...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: li...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [Libsa] The Ron Paul Portfolio

[Chris]

Ron Paul portfolio and performance. He is Outperforming most hedge funds. Idiotic Bernstein should put that in a pipe and smoke it. 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/290202-ron-paul-s-long-term-holdings-outperform-the-market-and-most-pros

Sent from my iPad

[Garth Zietsman]

No and did you really think that I did?

  The point was just to show how different Paul's attitude was from other Congressmen.  Compared to everyone else he is clearly a radical pessimist about the prospects of the current system.  The journalist has a clearly biased view on the sanity of Paul's outlook but, as Bob said, at the end of the day either Paul or everyone else will be proven right.

[gazm...@gmail.com]

I'm glad to hear you say this. Jim Peron says Paul is anti-gay and racist. The implication is that he would impose his views should he come to power. I am pleased you think Paul would restrict his administrative role to the more general matters of currency and public debt and the like.

Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone

---

From: Hügo Krüger <hugo.k...@gmail.com>

Sender: li...@googlegroups.com

Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2012 21:25:17 +0200

To: <li...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: li...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [Libsa] The Ron Paul Portfolio

[Gareth Brickman]

 I don't think there's anything particularly radical or pessimistic or apocalyptic about structuring a portfolio based on the expectation that the dollar will be severely debased.

[Garth Zietsman]

Don't put too much weight on portfolio performance - good or bad.  Portfolio performance is pretty much a matter of chance.  

Other, non-catastrophist ideologies e.g Krugman's, also expected gold to soar, but for very different reasons to those of Paul.  The recent relative fortunes of gold and the US dollar aren't what they were so I'm not sure how such a heavy bet on gold is going to hold up - assuming he sticks to it.

Anyway the point is Paul's very different view of liberal democracies.  He sees evil pervading them and expects some sort of catastrophe to follow.  Considering the historic record of these systems that is a rather strong (some would say - extremist) stance to take. Maybe it is going too far to say that Paul is one step away from holding up in the bush and bearing arms against the state but his outlook does bear strong resemblances with that of those who already are.

[Garth Zietsman]

Fair point.  For what its worth I disagree with his expectation and what I think may be his reasons for holding such an expectation.

So far the gold has risen against the dollar (but has started moving the other way recently) but a basket of other currencies has not.  If anything the dollar is being seen as a safe haven.  

If Paul thinks the dollar will be debased (either through weakening against other currencies or via high inflation) because of the 'stimulus' measures or the federal debt - popular current conservative and libertarian theories - then I think he is mistaken.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

Interesting, thnx.  

As an optimist (on most things), I'm intrigued by catastrophists.  For starters, they never seem to give up regardless of almost every index of well-being improving in almost every year, including years for which they predicted catastrophe.

I assume things will go horridly wrong again one day, and assume it will be no better predicted than random.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libsa?hl=en.

--
Leon Louw

work:  +27-11-884-0270

mobile:  +27-84-618-0348

www.freemarketfoundation.com

[Jaco Strauss]

For sure Gareth. They should rather go and investigate the Pelosi et al (http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/pelosi-stock-insider-60minutes/2011/11/13/id/417848, http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-14/politics/30396527_1_options-index-fund-hank-paulson, http://www.businessinsider.com/congressional-insider-trading-revealed-on-60-minutes-2011-11)

 

And how did Bernstein do this year Garth? Googling him and his portfolio I only find references to his criticism of Paul's portfolio with none about his own success / failure!?

 

Paul portfolio simply points to a man with his feet on the ground

 

2012/1/1 Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com>

[Jaco Strauss]

Garth you are completely off key. "Compared to everyone else" he is also a lone voice of reason in congress and not on the take ith insider trading etc. I cannot believe that you are criticizing his sound investment portfolio! I suspect your criticism is more a result of your own fundamentalist beliefs than his! 

 

2012/1/1 Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com>

[Jaco Strauss]

Surely Libertarians' support the right of people to be religious if they want to be and that it would be a right they themselves could also exercise?! It is not as if he is in favour of a theocracy where everybody would have to be religious. Yet it sounds as if you are in favour of a state where nobody should be?

 

I also agree with Paul's pro life view and even though I accept that it is a minority view on this list I find it more defensible than the opposite view where human life could be destroyed willy nilly simply because of a woman's so-called right to act as judge jury and executioner.

 

But what is clear is that - just like Bernstein - your criticism of Paul's portfolio is based purely on your dislike of his views on things like religion and the right to life rather than his sound investment practices.

2012/1/1 Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com>

[Garth Zietsman]

I don't see this as a contest between Bernstein and Paul, or at least that is not my focus.  Its easy to criticize from the sidelines and journalists are hardly unbiased - particularly about conservative economics.

I wouldn't say Paul's portfolio points to man with his feet on the ground at all.  It certainly says he is a man who puts his money where his mouth is i.e. you can trust what he says. The point of contention is what he says or believes.

Ideologues worry me - even if I share their ideology.  Their extreme principled stance often doesn't spare human suffering for an abstract or idealistic cause and they are very bad at changing their mind when they are wrong.

[Jaco Strauss]

"Double inverse" whhoaaaa. The man is a wussy, I made quite a bit of money oer the last few months "seven times inverse" LOL

 

I recently even shorted gold stocks successfully. I have since covered and started to fade in long positions in gold and happen to be short term bullish in a few other stocks too. But intermediate and longer term I am still bearish, so my longer position is similar to Paul's.

 

 

2012/1/1 Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com>

[Jaco Strauss]

Technical analysis has pointed to a rising dollar and a declining Euro before the headlines picked up on it after the fact. The dollar had been at extremely oversold levels and the Euro very overbought.

 

In addition, the problems in Euroland made it a no-brainer that the dollar would rise and with it stocks would decline. For people who saw it coming, benefiting during the declines had been like taking candy from a baby. Paul's comes across as one of those realists...

2012/1/1 Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com>

[Jaco Strauss]

Portfolio performanceis only a "matter of chance" for managers who rely purely on fundamental analysis. They also normally see the future as a linear extrapolation of the past and are very good at following trends and predicting in hindsight.

 

But fund managers who could remain "agnostic" and rely purely on technical analysis show results that suggest better returns than would have been achievedbased upon random chance... 

2012/1/1 Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com>

[Garth Zietsman]

I am not criticizing his investment portfolio.  It is consistent with his beliefs and shows much more integrity than that of many other Congressmen. 

Insofar as it is 'sound', or successful, I believe that is accidental - like any other sound portfolio, or unsound portfolio for that matter.

What I am criticizing is the economic and political beliefs his portfolio reflects. I think his economics is not correct and does not necessary follow from libertarian principles and I think he is unduly pessimistic about government and the Fed.

A lone voice he is - but whether he is a voice of reason is another thing altogether.  

My criticism certainly does reflect my own beliefs - which I've tried to disclose.  Clearly I trust my beliefs more than I do Paul's.  If my beliefs are fundamentalist then I don't understand the term.  All I can say is that I am less ideologically pure than almost anyone I know who takes an interest in politics or economics.

[Jaco Strauss]

In blue

 

Jaco

2012/1/1 Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com>

I am not criticizing his investment portfolio.  It is consistent with his beliefs and shows much more integrity than that of many other Congressmen. 

Insofar as it is 'sound', or successful, I believe that is accidental - like any other sound portfolio, or unsound portfolio for that matter.

Well I don't believe it to be accidental. But tnen again I don't care for the veiws of the talking heads on Bloomberg an CNBC. When most of those clowns get it right, it is accidental in my view.

 

What I am criticizing is the economic and political beliefs his portfolio reflects. I think his economics is not correct and does not necessary follow from libertarian principles and I think he is unduly pessimistic about government and the Fed.

How can any liberartian not be "unduly pessismistic" about the Fed? So you would have been happy if he drank some more red party cooldrink and literally buy the bull that Bernanke will solve all the world's problems. If he shared a portfoio similar to those of the crony capitalist looters on the one hand or the hopelessly clueless on the other, you would have liked him more?!

 

A lone voice he is - but whether he is a voice of reason is another thing altogether.  

My criticism certainly does reflect my own beliefs - which I've tried to disclose.  Clearly I trust my beliefs more than I do Paul's.  If my beliefs are fundamentalist then I don't understand the term.  All I can say is that I am less ideologically pure than almost anyone I know who takes an interest in politics or economics.

You referred to "his fundamentalist religious and creationist outlook. " So his strong view is "fundamentalist", while yours is not?

 

 

[Garth Zietsman]

I am a statistician so I know something about chance and technical models.  I have also been making a project out of studying predictive and expert performance and the reasons for human errors.  

Technical analysis has been shown to be virtually purely random over and over again.  It has no more success than astrology.  Fundamental analysts - like Buffet - were thought to be different but studies show that performance differences between them are also just random.  The correlation between the performance of analysts (within and across schools or methods) from one year to the next is ZERO.  Performance now tells you absolutely nothing about performance in the next moment.  Long term success is merely a lucky string of heads in coin tossing - and with so many 'coin tossers' out there you will find many with a long term record of 'success'.  

Stock analysts are one of only two groups of experts that fail to do better than chance or the layman (the other is psychologists) - although no group of experts is very accurate.

[Bob]

Garth 

You make a good point on the inflexibility of the man and his what you believe is a fanatical position, but I am at a loss how his portfolio points to fanaticism. It only reflects on his financial view over the medium term. 

Sent from my iPhone

[Garth Zietsman]

Well I don't believe it to be accidental. But tnen again I don't care for the veiws of the talking heads on Bloomberg an CNBC. When most of those clowns get it right, it is accidental in my view.

I've said all I need to on this elsewhere.  I have no reason to believe that his portfolio somehow reflects a superior knowledge of the future of the market. 

 

How can any liberartian not be "unduly pessismistic" about the Fed? So you would have been happy if he drank some more red party cooldrink and literally buy the bull that Bernanke will solve all the world's problems. If he shared a portfoio similar to those of the crony capitalist looters on the one hand or the hopelessly clueless on the other, you would have liked him more?!

I see no reason why a libertarian has to believe that the Fed WILL cause harm.  It clearly hasn't destroyed American capitalism so far.  One could believe the Fed is irrelevant.  I suppose if you believe that the Fed has destroyed the world over and over again since its existence - in the face of evidence that the economy has done quite well - then you will expect it to destroy the world again.  I guess you are one of the majority of libertarians that believes a fiat currency MUST be bad because government runs it.

I would indeed be happy if he got beyond gold standard crap and I would be happy if libertarians would think beyond "Inflation Bad" and would learn that economics - especially Macro - is much more complex than they think.  But that's your choice.  

 

You referred to "his fundamentalist religious and creationist outlook. " So his strong view is "fundamentalist", while yours is not?

I don't think the term Fundamentalist has anything to do with the strength of a view but rather its idealistic quality.  Fundamentalism is generally rigid and tends to hark back to the founders. It relies on faith and a certain closed system that makes it immune to challenges.  Apart from his religion and anti-evolution I think that the economics Paul subscribes to also fits the description of a closed a priori system, with strong idealistic components.  Still all I meant by Paul being a fundamentalist is that he subscribes to a form of Christianity that is generally called fundamentalist (by those who practice it themselves).

I have argued for an empirical evidence based approach, and deliberate exposure to the thinking of your opposition, many times on this forum.  I have also said ideologies per se limit thinking.  If I'm fundamentalist then I don't know what the term means.  I suggest you ask some people on the forum who know me well whether I am.  Leon or Frances certainly, Garry, Ron or Trevor maybe.

[Hügo Krüger]

I think you people are just being pedantic, I've never really concerned myself so much as to what people's social or religious views are. Ron Paul bases his fundamental philosophy far more on liberty than on religion, in fact he even justifies his views on liberty by nitpicking certain religious terms and certain parts of the Bible (I'm of the opinion that he does this more to please the republican establishment then anything else.  His views doesn't rely on faith in Christianity, his faith in Christianity relies on his faith in liberty.

Now sure as for the fed, I support his view on that fed on the basis that a system like the fed requires a selected few individuals to be good. Any system that is dependent on a few elites is bound to fail if they get it wrong. I would rather base my criticism on it from a decentralization of power point of view then the fed not doing its job properly.

--

[Garth Zietsman]

Yes his portfolio reflects his financial view over the medium term but it is striking how pessimistic that view is and how big the bet is.  Combine that with what we know about the man's consistency, integrity and his persistently stated economic and political views.  His pessimistic portfolio reflects these faithfully. He is 'fanatical' in the degree to which he expects the Fed and government to utterly destroy the economy, or at least the value of the dollar in the medium term. 

Its actually interesting that the corrupt politicians making use of the advantage of insider knowledge aren't betting against the dollar.  The market isn't either - medium to long term interest rates and inflation expectations are very low.

[Hügo Krüger]

That might be a fanatical stance to assume that the fed is ruining the economy at the moment, however given the amount of money burrowed and the amount put into the bailouts, the decline of the US middle-class he has a good 'fed scare' campaign going. My end goal personally would be to see as much decentralization as possible, whether it is done in a fanatical or moderate approach doesn't really concern me that much, the ends justify the means in this regard.

As for his portfolio, I think there is so much uncertainty with the market at the moment in America that even the 'insiders' and 'experts' don't know what to do. Most of the people are probably just sticking to what used to work for them, which is why it seems very pessimistic.

The other reason why I'm so much of a Paulite is that he attracts a lot of young, that creates a big room for a future libertarian influence ,even though I bet most of the people are just supporting him because he is pushing the right buttons (student loans etc)..Having this 'icon' of liberty with high integrity sets the bar quite high.

[Bob]

Garth,

 We can say you have strong views perhaps. I take no position on the list below, but would enjoy you expanding on these and explain how you see them. Perhaps some of us can move our positions.

From what I have gathered from you thus far

Inflation is good as long as wages keep up.

Gold standard is crap and fiat currencies are workable.

Fed can do good

Macro economics is complex?

Government size?

Redistribution?

Religion?

You have come across strongly that we have missed the plot, and there is a note of frustration that we are a bunch of narrow minded people, I hear you and am keen to listen. 

Bob

Sent from my iPhone

--

[jacos...@gmail.com]

Trading is difficult and like over 90% of traders I also lost money initially. At was only after very many hours and a lot of losses that I seemed to have mastered the discipline needed to trade profitably.

So if it is all random luck how is it that I have managed to have had only one negative trade since August? Over that period I have traded some stocks (kumba, impala, steinhoff, naspers, etc) up and down making money on the long and short sides.

And all my decisions have been bases purely on technical analysis.

If it is all random I have to be - statistically speaking - an extremely lucky fellow!

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

---

From: Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com>

Sender: li...@googlegroups.com

Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2012 23:20:26 +0200

To: <li...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: li...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [Libsa] The Ron Paul Portfolio

--

[Sasha Hitchner]

It's 2012 - indulge me ...

TBN has been earnestly advising the Christian community to buy gold for as long as I can remember, which is not all that long these days, but at least since 2000.

I have no feelings for any of the candidates; none struck me as having any ... heroic abilities. I think Obama will win another term. The 'devil you know' and all that. Not that it matters..... as the turtle said in Neverending Story.

 

I think those who collct gold, not only want to survive what's coming, and believe gold will save them, but they also know it's coming, as opposed to being prepared in case it comes. 

 

I haven't kept up with David Icke of late, too busy studying Hebrew, but I am sure he has something to say about the collapse of money and bloodlines. The collapse of money should give all libertarians another chance at putting free trade back in business, but I dare say if that happens, free trade will be the last thing on the agenda.  We might literally have to put our skin ahead of any other issue because the new power will be food and water - cannibalism for the rest. There will be no charity - if you give a finger, they will want your whole arm. Maybe both arms.

 

American politics remind me some of  "The Bold and the Beautiful" espisodes. Tensions and menace played beautifully over weeks and weeks, but if you miss the episodes while it plays out, you can catch up quite quickly with who is doing who and what the fall out is.  I miss years of the soapy and am often shocked that they are still using the same original script. The first actors have grown older, but to quote Dylan Moran, "The same shit is still going to be there!"

 

Anyway, 2012 or not, I have a surprisingly good feeling about the year.  This is not usual. I am a doom and gloom new year person, which is why I hate all the celebration and cheers to the new years and all that.  But not this year.  This year I did my share of cheer-zing and, I think, I do, that this year is going to be one I shall enjoy and prosper in.  I am opening a little second hand book store to preserve the treasures that might soon become rare in homes for those who still love holding and smelling the art of story telling.   There is no smell to the iPad - it smacks of a hand held television set.  In the future Mummy will say, put down that tablet, darling, and eat your tablets.  "dust with milk" as Dylan Moran might say, only there will be no milk, just a white tablet.   If we should live that long.

 

At the one dinner I attended in Cape Town a gentleman suggested that the poor accept poverty.  Perhaps they do, but since no one in government(s) has taken the trouble to make them more comfortable, I expect that to change.

I don't think it is so much that the poor accept poverty, but they accept they do not have the means to change it, therefore why get excited about it.  That's the part that will change. They will begin to get excited about it.  Besides, amongst the poor there is wealth, wholeness and goodness. There is a kind of order.  There is love and honour, and all that, too.  The poor exist because they know how to share and to support one another.  They have compassion and kindness.  This is not to suggest that murder and mayhem is not there also, because it is.  It is only less sophisticated.

 

Those with money have convinced the poor, by osmosis, that it, money, is the root of all evil.  Subconsciously, I think, they do not strive for wealth because deep down inside historical memories of those with money comprise of men and women with sharp tongues and meanness.   Pink Floyd has a song, don't know which one, with words: ".....keep people as pets" which resonated with me when I heard it recently.  We have treated most of this nation as either a good dog or a bad dog.  Without money we will all be dogs - it will be something to see - what kind of dog will I be?

 

I don't stock up on food, or know how to plant things, nor do I have too much saved.  Something turbulent is going to happen this year, or begin to happen this year, but for once I concern myself with my own stuff.  I shall not care.  I can't care.  I am unable.  There is nothing to be done - all efforts to save the poor have done nothing to save the poor.   I have felt them to be like a black hole - sucking in everything that comes close enough.  I'm staying away from black holes from now on.  Capitalism must accept some of the responsibility. 

 

We created big factories, employed labour, kept them fed and housed, gave them enough money to bring up kids, own a small house, and go on holiday once a year - or redecorate the house. We gave them a false sense of earning (a living), but what it really was, was slavery. Dependency upon a master.  And then when something else came along, we shut the factories down and the labourer was free to get lost.  If capitalists wanted labourers to become free men, it would have done more to free them, but it did not.   Capitalism wanted/ wants a number of bodies to do the work they didnt/ dont want to do. Not a care in the world for those bodies when they moved their money to other places. 

 

So ... we got the dole ... because society cares, on a subliminal level, a bit, which was much like giving a man the means to raise his kids and go on holiday once a year only this time he was "paid" by the state (tax payers) and that was fine for a while.  Tax payers felt good and the dole collector felt good.   "It's not my fault I haven't got a job."    But it dawns upon us all at some stage, that hand outs, no matter how nobly intended, are as unable to provide us with lasting joy, just as having millions does not guarantee lasting joy. 

 

There is something more that we need.   We don't know what it is, but we sense that it exists.   Then the tax payers get iffy about the dole and big money moves again and tax payers pay less and the "slave" is back on the street.   He has forgotten how he got there.  He is still under the illusion that he is a free man and that something is wrong, but what?  So he lashes out at the leader, burns tyres in the street, throws stones at the police and and and ....

 

I have been watching a series. Sons of Anarchy.  They have problems, talk about it briefly,  take a decision and vote on it. Then they act. They stand together and act as one.  Quickly.  They are all connected.  They are "family."   They live by a code.  "The penalties of sin are death."  And there is only one sin.  The lack of honour.   They demand it.  You have to earn your right to wear the patch. 

 

I was a secretary for years. I have never once been in a meeting that came close to those of the Sons of Anarchy.  The more sophisticated we become the less we know how to act - the more we fear taking decisions, being responsible, and instead blame someone else: systems, leaders, governments and so on rather than act, quickly.

 

So, I admire your efforts, but I suggest you all buy Harley's, get a patch and take out the opposition or negotiate a truce or sacrifice a trade for the good of the pack.  Individuality can survive in the pack.  One cannot survive as an individual without "family".  Fodder for cannons and and and.

 

 

Anyway ...  onward Libertarians!  May 2012 inspire you to greater heights.  Thus ends the middle of the night chatter.

 

On 1 January 2012 20:45, Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com> wrote:

I thought this would interest many of you if not strike a chord with you.  For the record I have an almost opposite view to what appears to be Paul's take.  I have always been a bit wary of the 'survivalist' libertarian wing.

As reported by the Wall Street Journal:

Most members of Congress, like many Americans, hold some real estate, a few bonds or bond mutual funds, some individual stocks and a bundle of stock funds. Give or take a few percentage points, a typical Congressional portfolio might have 10% in cash, 10% in bonds or bond funds, 20% in real estate, and 60% in stocks or stock funds.

But Ron Paul’s portfolio isn’t merely different. It’s shockingly different.

Yes, about 21% of Rep. Paul’s holdings are in real estate and roughly 14% in cash. But he owns no bonds or bond funds and has only 0.1% in stock funds. Furthermore, the stock funds that Rep. Paul does own are all “short,” or make bets against, U.S. stocks. One is a “double inverse” fund that, on a daily basis, goes up twice as much as its stock benchmark goes down.

The remainder of Rep. Paul’s portfolio – fully 64% of his assets – is entirely in gold and silver mining stocks....

At our request, William Bernstein, an investment manager at Efficient Portfolio Advisors in Eastford, Conn., reviewed Rep. Paul’s portfolio as set out in the annual disclosure statement. Mr. Bernstein says he has never seen such an extreme bet on economic catastrophe. ”This portfolio is a half-step away from a cellar-full of canned goods and nine-millimeter rounds,” he says.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libsa?hl=en.

--

Sasha Hitchner
0832734980

[Garth Zietsman]

From what I have gathered from you thus far

Inflation is good as long as wages keep up.

Moderate inflation can, under certain circumstances, be good (3-6% perhaps).  One of the circumstances is where wages have gotten too high to justify employment and it would be too inconvenient to adjust all contracts piecemeal in order to drop them again.  Another circumstance is where a country has a very high debt burden - although whether you see that as good or bad depends on your moral theory about creditors versus debtors.  My view is that the balance of interests is not fixed and that you need to consider both. In general though I don't think inflation is good - stable currency values are best.  

 

Gold standard is crap and fiat currencies are workable.

Yes - very much.  The gold standard doesn't even guarantee there won't be hyper inflation and has caused deflation before.  Fiat currencies it least give you the flexibility to keep an economy healthy - though at the risk of political temptation to fiddle.  Notice that healthy economies that are tied into the Euro e.g Finland aren't doing as well as similar economies that aren't e.g. Sweden.  Its very useful to have debt in your own currency.  Japan has awesome debt but isn't collapsing.  The UK had very high debt levels after the war but recovered nicely.  Recovery from the Great Depression was tightly correlated to when the country went off the gold standard.

 

Fed can do good

The Fed can do good and it can do bad but mostly its neutral.  There is a public choice risk i.e. where politicians fiddle for their own personal ends, but safeguards e.g. Fed independence, do mitigate that threat somewhat.  On balance though I think the extra flexibility of a human managed money is an advantage.

 

Macro economics is complex?

All branches of economics are much more complex than I used to think when all I knew was what I read from libertarian sources.  Because it is a closed system macroeconomics is has features that micro doesn't e.g. producers and consumers are the same.

 

Government size?

I think less is better but empirically it seems that countries that do very well have quite large government.  When I did a factor analysis of the economic freedom of the world variables larger government came out as a pro economic freedom measure, largely through the link with providing adequate rule of law which is expensive.  The world has been getting much better in spite of the existence of large government.  Freedom for many people has advanced considerably.  So while I'm not in favor of large government I don't think its worth agonizing over.  

 

Redistribution?

I don't like the notion of redistribution on the whole.  I think those who produce should be able to keep all their wealth.  On the other hand if a portion of income and wealth is due to either luck or conditions government created, then some degree of redistribution could be defended.  Even so there is the problem of perverse incentives if you do.  

There is also the problem of the development of very unequal political power if wealth becomes very unequal but whether that actually occurs is controversial.  

I really don't like forms of redistribution like BEE and affirmative action that violate property rights and freedom of association and trade.

The Smart Vote is decidedly against redistribution by the way.

 

Religion?

Religion is a very poor form of thinking and a very bad source of morality in my view.  I would resist any attempt to ban it but I get nervous when the frankly religious get a lot of power. My worldview is secular enlightenment liberal (classical) humanism.  I find it very difficult to understand how anyone who advocates individual autonomy, liberty and living for one's own purposes would be anything other than a humanist.  Saying we exist for God's purposes and that we should strive to obey Him is to me an anathema. 

You have come across strongly that we have missed the plot, and there is a note of frustration that we are a bunch of narrow minded people, I hear you and am keen to listen.

I am just frustrated that certain values, like being for liberty, seem to morph into doctrinaire theories about how the world actually works e.g. that government can't ever be productive, that global warming is impossible, etc.  (I am a global warming skeptic of sorts and I do think much government is unproductive.)  It's as though if one is libertarian or Marxist then one is a moral degenerate unless one also believes that 2+2=3 or 4 or 5. 

I also get frustrated when these compulsory theories lead to compulsory values that I don't think are necessarily libertarian e.g. that inflation is all and unemployment nothing.

Neat and tidy ideologies that seem to have an answer to everything are very seductive - and I've been seduced a few times - but the truth is that reality and morality are both very messy and is doesn't line up with ought at all.

I suppose I'm just feeling defensive.  

Regards

Garth

[Bob]

Shoo Sasha !  Give me time to digest 

Sent from my iPhone

[Stephen vJ (Gmail)]

Thanks Garth. I particularly like this bit; "I also get frustrated when these compulsory theories lead to compulsory values that I don't think are necessarily libertarian e.g.". We might disagree on what those theories are, but the fact that they are automatically assumed bothers me too.

 

Here are some things which many Libertarians seem to take for granted as existing in the minds of other Libertarians and which I am vehemently against (or for, if I am "supposed" to be against):

 

·         Support for the DA. I actually saw this allegation on a "Libertarian" website recently and it really pissed me off. I do NOT support the DA and the assumption that I do offends me ! Remember, those are the buggers who brought back prohibition.

 

·         Support for Ron Paul. Remember, he is a politician. Nuf said.

 

·         Adoration of Ayn Rand. Just refer back to the previous threat on her.

 

·         Support for a gold standard. Gold is NOT "real money" any more than silver or cows are. Have you ever tried to buy a lollipop with gold ? It is entirely unpractical for small denominations, which is why proper currencies also have denominations in silver, copper, paper, shells or rounded rocks with holes poked in the middle. And that's just one reason.

 

·         Support for property rights. Most of us appreciate that taking from others by stealth or force is morally wrong... so do we need to declare it a "right" and have the big bully defend it on our behalf against those who don't by means of looted resources ? I don't think so.

 

·         Support of individualism and selfishness. People do things out of self-interest, sure... but they also act socially out of self-interest and have even developed speech for that purpose. Collective co-operation is great, as long as it is not forced down on people. So call me a voluntarian-collectivist, but there are many things we simply cannot do individually.

 

·         Redistribution is always bad. No, it is not - only when people are forced to share with others is it bad. If Bill wants to hand his millions to hungry kids in Africa and Asia, good for him. Redistributing wealth would reduce the need felt by some to occupy stuff and that must be a good thing. Forcing it, however, will take all the goodness out of it.

 

·         The Fed is the root of all evil. Although it is to blame for much evil, there are many other areas in which we could rather focus our energy. The secrecy bill, nationalization, price controls in petrol, licencing in radio frequency spectrum, public monopoly of education, etc., etc... I don't get why the Fed gets Libertarians foaming at the mouth so quickly.

 

There are many more, but these are the ones that bug me the most... and I have to go now before my lunch gets cold.

 

S.

 

From: li...@googlegroups.com [mailto:li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Garth Zietsman
Sent: 02 January 2012 11:42
To: li...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Libsa] The Ron Paul Portfolio

 

 

From what I have gathered from you thus far

--

[Bob]

Very interesting, all of your points spark some emotion, but the underlying one is give me more. Trevor once asked me why I made a distinction between Libertarianism and libertarianism. One is the capital letter religion of liberty and the other is the search for truth, where all persons can be free, and build a great society with tolerance and acceptance. 

Would like to engage more on your arguments, unfortunately can only be much later, much to do and as the  March hare said " I am late,  I am late, for  a very important date!"

Sent from my iPhone

--

[Jaco Strauss]

Its actually interesting that the corrupt politicians making use of the advantage of insider knowledge aren't betting against the dollar.  

-- Garth

Well the "insider knowledge" these guys trade on has more to do with policy decisions affecting companies. For example buying pharmaceutical stocks while chairing a committee deciding on policy matters that would directly benefit pharmaceutical companies. That type of thing.

Where the dollar will head is less obvious, but investing in the US stock market is actually an indirect bet against the dollar due to the current inverse relationship between the two.

[Garth Zietsman]

Point taken.  I remember seeing something about congressional portfolios routinely outperforming the market years ago.  Whoever publicized that speculated on insider trading then.  Interesting to see it come out in the open.

--

[Erik Peers]

Why would you want to keep up with David Icke? The man is an idiot.

[Jaco Strauss]

In Green

Jaco

2012/1/1 Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com>

Well I don't believe it to be accidental. But tnen again I don't care for the veiws of the talking heads on Bloomberg an CNBC. When most of those clowns get it right, it is accidental in my view.

I've said all I need to on this elsewhere.  I have no reason to believe that his portfolio somehow reflects a superior knowledge of the future of the market. 

 

Time will tell, but my bet is on him rather than Bernstein and so far he seems to have the upper hand.

 

How can any liberartian not be "unduly pessismistic" about the Fed? So you would have been happy if he drank some more red party cooldrink and literally buy the bull that Bernanke will solve all the world's problems. If he shared a portfoio similar to those of the crony capitalist looters on the one hand or the hopelessly clueless on the other, you would have liked him more?!

I see no reason why a libertarian has to believe that the Fed WILL cause harm.  It clearly hasn't destroyed American capitalism so far.  

 

What do you see as "American Capitalism"? The Crony Capitalism where no down side risk exists for the politically connected? Where the bankers bet the farm and when they get it right, they walk away with billions; get it wrong and the taxpayer gets the bill?

 

I support a free market and whichever way you choose to define US "Capitalism" the US Market is definitely not Free. You not only have government interference in the economy on a grand scale, but also the cheap money it supplied for so long had been the major cause of the devastating bubbles in the first place. Then there is the growing deficit spending, the growing unfunded future welfare liabilities,etc, etc.

 

One could believe the Fed is irrelevant.  I suppose if you believe that the Fed has destroyed the world over and over again since its existence - in the face of evidence that the economy has done quite well - then you will expect it to destroy the world again.  I guess you are one of the majority of libertarians that believes a fiat currency MUST be bad because government runs it.

I would indeed be happy if he got beyond gold standard crap and I would be happy if libertarians would think beyond "Inflation Bad" and would learn that economics - especially Macro - is much more complex than they think.  But that's your choice.  

 

It would be interesting to see what the Fed does next as it is clearly out of bullets. It had QE I to stimulate the economy and although the markets rallied, employment did not improve and eventually stocks came under pressure again. With QE I a dismal failure, what did the Fed try next? QE II of course. Just use a bigger hammer. What followed is well known, employment again didn't improve and markets again rallied only until the stimulus ran out before dropping back again.

 

Then we had Operation Twist and the markets rallied for something like a day. Now everybody is expecting QE III. Macro economics can be as complex as you like, but the simple fact remains: QE III will ultimately be a failure too... You want to bet otherwise?

 

 

You referred to "his fundamentalist religious and creationist outlook. " So his strong view is "fundamentalist", while yours is not?

I don't think the term Fundamentalist has anything to do with the strength of a view but rather its idealistic quality.  Fundamentalism is generally rigid and tends to hark back to the founders. It relies on faith and a certain closed system that makes it immune to challenges.  Apart from his religion and anti-evolution I think that the economics Paul subscribes to also fits the description of a closed a priori system, with strong idealistic components.  Still all I meant by Paul being a fundamentalist is that he subscribes to a form of Christianity that is generally called fundamentalist (by those who practice it themselves).

I have argued for an empirical evidence based approach, and deliberate exposure to the thinking of your opposition, many times on this forum.  I have also said ideologies per se limit thinking.  If I'm fundamentalist then I don't know what the term means.  I suggest you ask some people on the forum who know me well whether I am.  Leon or Frances certainly, Garry, Ron or Trevor maybe.

 

I used "Fundamentalism" in the dictionary sense of a "strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles". (dictionary.com). It therefore seems to have been justified in this context.

[Jaco Strauss]

It seems to be completely legal for them to do this currently. But people like Peter Schweizer is turning up the heat. See

http://peterschweizer.com/wordpress/

 

2012/1/2 Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com>

[Trevor Watkins]

Libertarianism, for me and I believe for Leon, is simply defined by the consent axiom.  Take no action without the consent of those whom your action affects. This is explained in more detail at libsa.wordpress.com. 

This is libertarianism with a big "L" and a little "l".  Some economic policies, some people, some books are more consistent with liberty than others. We should encourage such policies and people, rather than criticise their minor blemishes, such as in the case of Ron Paul. 

One of the greatest threats to the libertarian philosophy are attempts to define it ever more narrowly, to create ever purer definitions of "real" liberty, to exclude ever greater numbers of the "infidels". 

Trevor Watkins

[Garth Zietsman]

I've said all I need to on this elsewhere.  I have no reason to believe that his portfolio somehow reflects a superior knowledge of the future of the market. 

 

Time will tell, but my bet is on him rather than Bernstein and so far he seems to have the upper hand.

Yes indeed.  Time will tell.  How much time do you think is reasonable?  I'm guessing the measures of interest would be the gold price in US dollars, the trade weighted exchange rate, the core inflation rate and the 2, 5 and 10 year interest rates.  Perhaps over the next year or two - considering that the US economy is beginning to wake up?

 

What do you see as "American Capitalism"? The Crony Capitalism where no down side risk exists for the politically connected? Where the bankers bet the farm and when they get it right, they walk away with billions; get it wrong and the taxpayer gets the bill?

I'm thinking of the US economy as you find it.  Yes there are a few problems - including some Crony Capitalism - but I think the extent of that is vastly exaggerated. The thing is the US economy has been hovering around an annual growth rate of about 2.5% in real terms since the civil war.  Welfare triples very 45 years or doubles every 28.  The autonomy of slaves, women, gays, children, the basic working man and even animals has increased radically and the advances haven't slowed down since government got big.  

Steven Pinker's book Better Angels of our Nature makes a great case for the civilizing effect of liberal democratic government (Hobbes' Laviathan effect).  We may mutter about the corruption, theft and inefficiency of government - and we have good reason to think many of its functions (insofar as they are legitimate) could be done better by private enterprise - but the state of affairs before its advent wasn't good at all.

 

I support a free market and whichever way you choose to define US "Capitalism" the US Market is definitely not Free. You not only have government interference in the economy on a grand scale, but also the cheap money it supplied for so long had been the major cause of the devastating bubbles in the first place. Then there is the growing deficit spending, the growing unfunded future welfare liabilities,etc, etc.

I disagree.  Every economy is free or unfree to some degree.  Maybe compared to some ideal abstract Platonic perfect 'form' the US economy is debased and unfree, but compared to real world economies the US economy is among the world's most free. That's not to say it couldn't and shouldn't be a great deal freer.  Gosh there are crazy zoning regulations; insane licencing of taxis, hairdressers, and even witches; dental hygienists can't ply their trade independently of dentists; parking subsidies and regulations make traffic very inefficient and waste good land, the free market in labor and housing is restricted via immigration restrictions; IPR around high tech like phones restricts the rate of innovation massively, etc, etc.  

 

It would be interesting to see what the Fed does next as it is clearly out of bullets. It had QE I to stimulate the economy and although the markets rallied, employment did not improve and eventually stocks came under pressure again. With QE I a dismal failure, what did the Fed try next? QE II of course. Just use a bigger hammer. What followed is well known, employment again didn't improve and markets again rallied only until the stimulus ran out before dropping back again.

 

Then we had Operation Twist and the markets rallied for something like a day. Now everybody is expecting QE III. Macro economics can be as complex as you like, but the simple fact remains: QE III will ultimately be a failure too... You want to bet otherwise?

Keynesians predicted that the stimulus wouldn't work from the start.  One problem with the stimulus is that it was theoretically and predictably very inadequate - it should have been about $2 trillion. Another problem is that the incentives to spend it aren't there so it should have been accompanied by fiscal measures which guarantee spending - ideally infrastructure development, since infrastructure is run down, money is cheap and the construction industry has lots of idle labor.  

For some reason the Fed (and the ECB) seems unduly focused on inflation - although they admit it is low and looks like staying low for many years - and not willing to live up to their other mandate, unemployment - which they admit is unacceptably high.

The Fed has not run out of bullets.  Bernanke has repeatedly stressed that they have plenty of options left.  The problem seems to be one or two Fed governors vetoing any effective measures.

 

I used "Fundamentalism" in the dictionary sense of a "strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles". (dictionary.com). It therefore seems to have been justified in this context.

That definition seems to miss some of the generally accepted meaning.  For example this from Wikipedia.

Fundamentalism is strict adherence to specific theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology.^[1]  The term "fundamentalism" has its roots in the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897) which defined those tenets it considered fundamentalto Christian belief. The term was popularized by the "The Fundamentals", a collection of twelve books on five subjects published in 1910 and funded by the brothers Milton and Lyman Stewart.

The "five fundamentals":^[7]

• The inspiration of the Bible and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
• The virgin birth of Christ.
• The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.
• The bodily resurrection of Christ.
• The historical reality of Christ's miracles.

By the late 1910s, theological conservatives rallying around the Five Fundamentals came to be known as "fundamentalists." In practice, the first point regarding the Bible was the focus of most of the controversy.

So fundamentalism doesn't seem to be about ANY set of basic ideas but rather a specific type of basic idea.

Anyway it doesn't really matter.  I now know what you mean and you know what I mean.

[Jaco Strauss]

In Blue

Jaco

 

2012/1/2 Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com>

I've said all I need to on this elsewhere.  I have no reason to believe that his portfolio somehow reflects a superior knowledge of the future of the market. 

 

Time will tell, but my bet is on him rather than Bernstein and so far he seems to have the upper hand.

Yes indeed.  Time will tell.  How much time do you think is reasonable?  I'm guessing the measures of interest would be the gold price in US dollars, the trade weighted exchange rate, the core inflation rate and the 2, 5 and 10 year interest rates.  Perhaps over the next year or two - considering that the US economy is beginning to wake up?

 

I'm bearish on stocks over the next 3-5 years or so, or at least until the 2009 lows are tested. I'm bullish on gold over that period and gold had shown double digit growth every year for the last 11 years while the NYSE went nowhere over the same period. I can see no reason why that trend should not continue over the next few years...

 

What do you see as "American Capitalism"? The Crony Capitalism where no down side risk exists for the politically connected? Where the bankers bet the farm and when they get it right, they walk away with billions; get it wrong and the taxpayer gets the bill?

I'm thinking of the US economy as you find it.  Yes there are a few problems - including some Crony Capitalism - but I think the extent of that is vastly exaggerated. The thing is the US economy has been hovering around an annual growth rate of about 2.5% in real terms since the civil war.  Welfare triples very 45 years or doubles every 28.  The autonomy of slaves, women, gays, children, the basic working man and even animals has increased radically and the advances haven't slowed down since government got big.  

Steven Pinker's book Better Angels of our Nature makes a great case for the civilizing effect of liberal democratic government (Hobbes' Laviathan effect).  We may mutter about the corruption, theft and inefficiency of government - and we have good reason to think many of its functions (insofar as they are legitimate) could be done better by private enterprise - but the state of affairs before its advent wasn't good at all.

 

 Governments might have scrapped slavery eventually, but they had also been the ones engaging whole-heartedly in it in the first place. Same with women and other rights, they were the ones doing the discrimination in the first place. You sound like someone rewarding a wife beater every time he stops beating up his wife!

 

I support a free market and whichever way you choose to define US "Capitalism" the US Market is definitely not Free. You not only have government interference in the economy on a grand scale, but also the cheap money it supplied for so long had been the major cause of the devastating bubbles in the first place. Then there is the growing deficit spending, the growing unfunded future welfare liabilities,etc, etc.

I disagree.  Every economy is free or unfree to some degree.  Maybe compared to some ideal abstract Platonic perfect 'form' the US economy is debased and unfree, but compared to real world economies the US economy is among the world's most free. That's not to say it couldn't and shouldn't be a great deal freer.  Gosh there are crazy zoning regulations; insane licencing of taxis, hairdressers, and even witches; dental hygienists can't ply their trade independently of dentists; parking subsidies and regulations make traffic very inefficient and waste good land, the free market in labor and housing is restricted via immigration restrictions; IPR around high tech like phones restricts the rate of innovation massively, etc, etc.  

 

You say you disagree but then list a lot of stuff in support of my argument...

 

It would be interesting to see what the Fed does next as it is clearly out of bullets. It had QE I to stimulate the economy and although the markets rallied, employment did not improve and eventually stocks came under pressure again. With QE I a dismal failure, what did the Fed try next? QE II of course. Just use a bigger hammer. What followed is well known, employment again didn't improve and markets again rallied only until the stimulus ran out before dropping back again.

 

Then we had Operation Twist and the markets rallied for something like a day. Now everybody is expecting QE III. Macro economics can be as complex as you like, but the simple fact remains: QE III will ultimately be a failure too... You want to bet otherwise?

Keynesians predicted that the stimulus wouldn't work from the start.  One problem with the stimulus is that it was theoretically and predictably very inadequate - it should have been about $2 trillion. Another problem is that the incentives to spend it aren't there so it should have been accompanied by fiscal measures which guarantee spending - ideally infrastructure development, since infrastructure is run down, money is cheap and the construction industry has lots of idle labor.  

For some reason the Fed (and the ECB) seems unduly focused on inflation - although they admit it is low and looks like staying low for many years - and not willing to live up to their other mandate, unemployment - which they admit is unacceptably high.

The Fed has not run out of bullets.  Bernanke has repeatedly stressed that they have plenty of options left.  The problem seems to be one or two Fed governors vetoing any effective measures.

$2 trillion you say. So you are also of the school that believe that if the hammer cannot fix the PC we simply need a bigger one? The fact that Bernanke "repeatedly" claims to have more bullets is neither here not there. If he had any he would have used it by now. We'll see what he does when the markets really start tanking again...

 

I used "Fundamentalism" in the dictionary sense of a "strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles". (dictionary.com). It therefore seems to have been justified in this context.

That definition seems to miss some of the generally accepted meaning.  For example this from Wikipedia.

Fundamentalism is strict adherence to specific theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology.^[1]  The term "fundamentalism" has its roots in the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897) which defined those tenets it considered fundamentalto Christian belief. The term was popularized by the "The Fundamentals", a collection of twelve books on five subjects published in 1910 and funded by the brothers Milton and Lyman Stewart.

The "five fundamentals":^[7]

• The inspiration of the Bible and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
• The virgin birth of Christ.
• The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.
• The bodily resurrection of Christ.
• The historical reality of Christ's miracles.

By the late 1910s, theological conservatives rallying around the Five Fundamentals came to be known as "fundamentalists." In practice, the first point regarding the Bible was the focus of most of the controversy.

So fundamentalism doesn't seem to be about ANY set of basic ideas but rather a specific type of basic idea.

Anyway it doesn't really matter.  I now know what you mean and you know what I mean.

Fair enough

 

 

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

Somewhere in this long thread there's something about Keynesians and "stimulus".  Far from the so-called crisis being a threat to capitalism it may turn out to be the final death of Keynesianism.  We're witnessing an obscene orgy of Keynesianism (robbing Peter to pay Paul, deducting tax, and calling it "stimulus").  What should now be plain to all is that governments can spend only less than what they take, which (a) constitutes a net loss and (b) reduces efficiency.

On Ron Paul, I think there's something extremely profound/historic that few people are not registering.  I concluded long ago that espousing liberty is an aberration, that libertarianism is a weird mutation, and that almost all people are for whatever expedient erosion of liberty advances their preferences.  Happily, Paul is proving me wrong.  That he's getting so many people to value liberty as an end in itself is truly phenomenal.  It may be of immense long-term significance.

 

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libsa?hl=en.

--
Leon Louw

work:  +27-11-884-0270

mobile:  +27-84-618-0348

www.freemarketfoundation.com

[Bob]

Thanks Trevor, 

We are saying the same thing. Great mythology from all around the world actually says the same, if you will consider the quotes below. These quotes are all from religions. The point I was trying to make, was from these beginnings sprang religions, with sets of rules and dogma's this is the issue i think Garth was making that we must be careful not to create a belief system. Ie believing inflation is bad is a prerequisite to being a Libertarian

Christianity

Whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them

Judaism 

What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man. This is the entire law, all the rest is commentary.

Islam 

No one of you is a believer until he loves for his neighbor what he loves for himself

Buddhism

Hurt not others with that with that which pains yourself.

Hinduism 

This is the aim of duty; do naught unto  others what you would not have them do unto yourself.

Zoroastrianism 

What ever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others.

Confucianism

What you do not want done to yourself, do not unto others.

Many more of course, but not wanting to bore you will add only one.

Market rule

Treat the customer the way you would want to be treated.

Now we can get into semantics, about whose wording is better but this is why I have always stressed that we be careful to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. At the core religions that developed without the advantage of communication across vast distances all support the sanctity of the individual and believed in tolerance, acceptance and mutual respect. 

Yes they attracted a bunch of people who then decided we needed rules and a system that could differentiate the "believers" from the rest. This is where the danger lies. Dogmatism.

My final point is therefore that if someone is a Buddhist or a Christian, or any religion for that matter should not be a concern, as their value system is already tuned to liberterian principles. The ones that concern me are the dogmatists and here Garth I think agrees with me that dogmatism in any Church of thought, be it religious or a specialization ie the church of astronomy, where again you have those who create a belief system, where new ideas are discouraged, becuse they don't fit the religious orders belief system, and fanatics are born.

Sent from my iPhone

[Hügo Krüger]

"My final point is therefore that if someone is a Buddhist or a Christian, or any religion for that matter should not be a concern, as their value system is already tuned to liberterian principles. The ones that concern me are the dogmatists and here Garth I think agrees with me that dogmatism in any Church of thought, be it religious or a specialization ie the church of astronomy, where again you have those who create a belief system, where new ideas are discouraged, becuse they don't fit the religious orders belief system, and fanatics are born"

That is not true, you're just picking certain phrases in their belief system and attributing that to libertarianism. I can justify most belief systems using the bible alone. People often do this, they only read a certain part of their holy book and say the rest no longer applies because it was used in an older culture etc. In reality they aren't realising that the moral behaviour of human beings have changed over time and therefore some aspects are now redundant.

[Garth Zietsman]

I'm bearish on stocks over the next 3-5 years or so, or at least until the 2009 lows are tested. I'm bullish on gold over that period and gold had shown double digit growth every year for the last 11 years while the NYSE went nowhere over the same period. I can see no reason why that trend should not continue over the next few years...

I am bearish on gold at the moment.  I think the reasons for its run are over. 

 

 Governments might have scrapped slavery eventually, but they had also been the ones engaging whole-heartedly in it in the first place. Same with women and other rights, they were the ones doing the discrimination in the first place. You sound like someone rewarding a wife beater every time he stops beating up his wife!

Er no.  Slavery and treating woman as property was pretty much part of every pre-state society. 

  

You say you disagree but then list a lot of stuff in support of my argument...

I don't think so.  I see the US economy as substantially free with room for improvement.  My impression of your view is that you see it as an almost as a more subtle version of Zimbabwe. 

$2 trillion you say. So you are also of the school that believe that if the hammer cannot fix the PC we simply need a bigger one? The fact that Bernanke "repeatedly" claims to have more bullets is neither here not there. If he had any he would have used it by now. We'll see what he does when the markets really start tanking again...

I don't buy the 'hammer fixing the PC' analogy.  Bernanke is not the only decision maker on the Fed.  There is no reason why everyone would use what they could on the Fed.  Some on the Fed (and they are known) don't want to use the tools for ideological reasons. There is a similar factional impasse in the Fed that we see in Congress.

The only reason for the markets to tank now is a failure of European banks and not anything the Fed has done.

[Garth Zietsman]

Unhappily we disagree in our assessment of what's happening.

[Bob]

There was a book called Thinking Allowed, which I must have read about twenty years ago,  where several people postulated different theories, one that I can clearly remember was a need to create a new unifying mythology. Ie to take the mythology of all different continents and create a universal mythology based on the core values of all religions mythologies Which amusingly enough, given the call by each religion that they were the only solution, are so similar that you would swear there had been a committee deciding them. All the more surprising of course is that this occurred in total isolation from each other.

Sent from my iPhone

[jacos...@gmail.com]

But just as dogma led to problems with religion, so we need to guard against dogma leading to an attack on fellow libertarians for not being Libertarian enough (according to some).

And especially as the criticism is not wrt anything threatening freedom, but rather his private beliefs and investment choices. That smells a little Inquisition-like to me....

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

---

From: Bob <b...@rolanddg.co.za>

Sender: li...@googlegroups.com

Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 19:34:55 +0200

To: li...@googlegroups.com<li...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: li...@googlegroups.com

[Bob]

Wow, you have missed my point completely. Starting from a basic premise religions developed. Beware therefore the risk of developing your own dogma and exclude "non believers" from your group. This you have just done! 

Sent from my iPhone

[Bob]

You said it better than I did, thanks, I perhaps labored the point. 

Sent from my iPhone

[Bob]

Hi Garth,

I have addressed the religion issue on a separate thread. For the rest you do like empirical data, so busy collecting same, you do come across as a strong supporter of government, and somewhat of a Keynesian in your thinking, I respect that but will have to prepare for battle, with numbers and data, give me a some time to gather the figures.

In short I am against inflation & monetary management. I am for the gold standard and for private clearing houses.  All this becuase of the need to keep politicians honest. Employment is important, but not at the expense of savers. In the long run no savers no jobs. now Keynes might of not been interested in the long run but most economists are.

I do agree with Leon  that Keynesdom is coming to a rather ugly end, this being predicted by Hayek, Hazlitt and Misses. Now I know you dont like me quoting from these rusty figureheads but many of their forecasts are now starting to occur. 

Will be back with your numbers!

Sent from my iPhone

[Garth Zietsman]

Hi Bob

 

I have addressed the religion issue on a separate thread. For the rest you do like empirical data, so busy collecting same, you do come across as a strong supporter of government, and somewhat of a Keynesian in your thinking, I respect that but will have to prepare for battle, with numbers and data, give me a some time to gather the figures.

Oh dear not the impression I wished to make.  I am not so much a supporter of government as not worried about government per se.  Some governments - like our own - worry me a great deal.  I see some place for Keynesianism during recessions but not as a routine way of managing the business cycle. 

In short I am against inflation & monetary management. I am for the gold standard and for private clearing houses.  All this becuase of the need to keep politicians honest.

Politicians need to be kept honest but I think there are better ways to do that.

 

Employment is important, but not at the expense of savers. In the long run no savers no jobs. now Keynes might of not been interested in the long run but most economists are.

I don't think savers need to be compromised by efforts to boost aggregate demand or by moderate inflation.  

I do agree with Leon  that Keynesdom is coming to a rather ugly end, this being predicted by Hayek, Hazlitt and Misses. Now I know you dont like me quoting from these rusty figureheads but many of their forecasts are now starting to occur. 

I like those theorists.  I'm not sure what forecasts you have in mind but bear in mind that Keynesians right now think that the current situation offers a direct test of their predictions and that of their opposition, and they think the evidence is decisively in their favor.  They think their time as come.

Quite frankly I don't think the Austrians or Keynesians have got it all right but I really don't think Keynesianism is in any trouble.

As I understand it the Austrians theorists expect high inflation and soaring interest rates whereas the Keynesians don't.  Keynesians expect tight monetary policy and austerity to be contractionary while the opposition expects austerity to be expansionary via confidence this 'responsibility' creates in the markets.  Both camps expect a high gold price so that's not a good test.  So far the Keynesians are winning but the other side says disaster is just around the corner.  Time will tell.              

Will be back with your numbers!

I look forward to it. 

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

Note, Garth, that your argument that some inflation can be good is 100% Keynesian.  And 100% wrong.

Keynes espoused inflation, unlike you, not because he regarded it as inherently virtuous, but because downward flexibility of wages had been banned.     It was a way of reducing wages by stealth.

Austrians, Monetarists, etc pointed out, even if it were a palliative for bad law, its distortionary effects more than offset hoped-for benefits.

As for debt reduction, what you recommend is theft and/or fraud.

"In general", indeed always, inflation is theft and fraud.

I hope you'll back-off espousing these.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

Below ...

On 3 January 2012 00:27, Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Bob

 

I have addressed the religion issue on a separate thread. For the rest you do like empirical data, so busy collecting same, you do come across as a strong supporter of government, and somewhat of a Keynesian in your thinking, I respect that but will have to prepare for battle, with numbers and data, give me a some time to gather the figures.

Oh dear not the impression I wished to make.  I am not so much a supporter of government as not worried about government per se.  Some governments - like our own - worry me a great deal.  I see some place for Keynesianism during recessions but not as a routine way of managing the business cycle. 

Which governments don't worry you?

What's the mechanism by which Keynesianism can resolve recessions?

Where in Keynes do you find it?  (My recollection is that Keynes' General Theory recommended inflation to reduce wages [by stealth], not to cure recessions.)

 

In short I am against inflation & monetary management. I am for the gold standard and for private clearing houses.  All this becuase of the need to keep politicians honest.

Politicians need to be kept honest but I think there are better ways to do that.

!? 

 

Employment is important, but not at the expense of savers. In the long run no savers no jobs. now Keynes might of not been interested in the long run but most economists are.

I don't think savers need to be compromised by efforts to boost aggregate demand or by moderate inflation.  

I do agree with Leon  that Keynesdom is coming to a rather ugly end, this being predicted by Hayek, Hazlitt and Misses. Now I know you dont like me quoting from these rusty figureheads but many of their forecasts are now starting to occur. 

I like those theorists.  I'm not sure what forecasts you have in mind but bear in mind that Keynesians right now think that the current situation offers a direct test of their predictions and that of their opposition, and they think the evidence is decisively in their favor.  They think their time as come.

The evidence? 

Quite frankly I don't think the Austrians or Keynesians have got it all right but I really don't think Keynesianism is in any trouble.

Despite its spectacular failure? 

As I understand it the Austrians theorists expect high inflation and soaring interest rates whereas the Keynesians don't.  

Which Austrians?  Over what period?

 

Keynesians expect tight monetary policy and austerity to be contractionary

?

 

while the opposition expects austerity to be expansionary via confidence this 'responsibility' creates in the markets.  Both camps expect a high gold price so that's not a good test.  So far the Keynesians are winning

How so?

 

but the other side says disaster is just around the corner.  

Sources?

 

Time will tell.              

Will be back with your numbers!

I look forward to it. 

Me too 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libsa?hl=en.

--

[Julian le Roux]

Garth said:

I know that many of you like and support Ron Paul and I think I understand your reasons.  I nevertheless don't share your positive view of the man.  While I am aware of his consistent advocacy of small government, support for sound money (gold standard) and stand against drug regulations I also see many problems.  For a start I don't think his views on money are sound (even if they are virtually PC among libertarians).  Then there is his fundamentalist religious and creationist outlook.  These disturb me greatly.  There is also a racist tract that was published under his name.  He has tried to disown this but he hasn't distanced himself from those who wrote it.  Then he is strongly anti-immigration.  While this is not a libertarian issue I don't like his virulent pro life stance because of what I think it says about a woman's right to autonomy.  I could go on. 

Really Garth, I'm disappointed by this paragraph.  It could have come directly out of a biased opinion piece written by an ignorant progressive MSM journalist.  The way that Ron Paul has been treated by the establishment media recently, especially regarding the 'racist newsletters', has been very instructive to watch.  It has cemented my view that the media is generally inconsistent, lazy (they don't do basic research), authoritarian (in the sense that they suck up to those in power), and above all extremely biased.

I've skimmed through a few of these newsletters, and yes, they contain sentences which are crude, homophobic and over-the-top.  The rest of the newsletters may very well yield plenty of right-wing religious BS, and some more sections which are genuinely bigoted.  However, the vast majority of the sentences that are commonly cited as racist or homophobic are not, when taken in context, racist / homophobic by any worthwhile definition.  They're just politically incorrect and brutally honest.  Anyway, Ron Paul didn't TRY to disown those sentences and the views they expressed, he DID disown them (many, many times).  Furthermore, he's exhibited anti-racism in everything else he has said and done over 30+ years. Who is he supposed to distance himself from?  He says that he doesn't know exactly who wrote the offending material.  Even if he does know, how would throwing them under the bus and outing them help anyone?

On this subject, I think these links are worth reading:
http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/the-ron-paul-newsletters/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2008/01/ron-paul-affair-and-libertarian-culture.html
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/12/20/we-shall-overcome/
http://takimag.com/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_trying_to_smear_ron_paul/
http://formerbeltwaywonk.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/the-orange-line-anatomy-of-a-smear-campaign/
http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/26/why-i-dont-think-the-ron-paul-newsletter

Here's a partial list of the sentences that are considered offensive:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmWzr4_cemD5dE1nLWJfcFlMUGlHdVl0dVQyMVg4dmc
(from http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/dec/30/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-newsletters-contained-only-eight-or-/)

Your accusation of religious fundamentalism and Creationism isn't fair.  Whatever his religious beliefs, it's clear that he won't impose them on others.  That's vastly preferable to a statist atheist, and can hardly be considered fundamentalist, at least in the generally-accepted use of the term.  His religiosity is unimportant to me, because it doesn't make him deviate from his libertarian principles and actions.  I'm not convinced Ron Paul is properly Creationist (listen to this to make up your own mind according to your definition of Creationism), but it doesn't matter. Like Paul, I support private education over a centralized syllabus, even if it means some poor suckers are taught ridiculous Creation Science or Intelligent Design.

Ron Paul can hardly be described as anti-immigration either (I for one agree with all his suggestions made here)

Ron Paul doesn't take a 'virulent' pro life stance.  That could imply he wants to ban abortion throughout the US.  He's simply saying that the States, not the Federal Government, should decide their abortion policy.  As a strong supporter of abortion, I totally agree (including that Roe vs. Wade should be repealed) for the following reasons:

1) Roe vs. Wade represents centralization of power and Federal overreach
2) Roe vs. Wade looks like judicial activism that twists the Constitution to obtain a desired outcome, which is wrong in principle
3) I'm a huge supporter of competitive governance and allowing many different political experiments
4) Letting voters choose dumb policies like abortion control, and then suffering the consequences (more unwanted welfare-dependent children, higher crime etc.), is the only way they'll learn any better
5) The different outcomes due to different policies from 50 'laboratories of democracy' provide valuable research to prove that abortion is good policy
6) Women in States where abortion is banned can simply visit an abortion-friendly State to have the procedure done.

As an aside, I'm not convinced by the autonomy / right to choose / privacy argument for abortion.  I support abortion simply because a fetus isn't a sentient, self-aware, conscious agent.

[Trevor Watkins]

if someone came to you and said they were reducing the value of your savings by 10 percent, would you consent to this? inflation can never be moral to libertarians.

Trevor Watkins

[Garth Zietsman]

Keynes espoused inflation, unlike you, not because he regarded it as inherently virtuous, but because downward flexibility of wages had been banned.     It was a way of reducing wages by stealth.

I never said I regard inflation as inherently virtuous.  I said it was bad but under certain circumstances - like sticky wages - one could make an argument for it. 

Austrians, Monetarists, etc pointed out, even if it were a palliative for bad law, its distortionary effects more than offset hoped-for benefits.

Any other way of reducing sticky wages will be worse.  I'm not convinced that the distortionary effects are so bad. 

As for debt reduction, what you recommend is theft and/or fraud.

Yes I'm aware of that. 

"In general", indeed always, inflation is theft and fraud.

No it isn't always. If it turns out to be expansionary enough (which depends on particular circumstances) the growth will leave people better off.

[Garth Zietsman]

Which governments don't worry you?

Western liberal democracies on the whole but what I mean particularly is that government size per se doesn't worry me because it doesn't appear to be obviously bad for economic growth or indeed liberty (at least as measure by EFW or individual autonomy of many previously oppressed groups.)  There are other things that are more important e.g. free trade etc. 

What's the mechanism by which Keynesianism can resolve recessions?

By lower sticky wages by stealth and therefore increase employment and the utilization of underused resources and by increasing aggregate demand. 

Where in Keynes do you find it?  (My recollection is that Keynes' General Theory recommended inflation to reduce wages [by stealth], not to cure recessions.)

My sources have been economics blogs.  On the issue of Keynes - or rather Keynesians - the main source is Paul Krugman.

Politicians need to be kept honest but I think there are better ways to do that.

!?

Separation of powers and the like.  I mean that Freedman (he used to be our guy) monetary policy tools are very useful and I don't think it productive to scrap them to keep politicians honest.

 

I like those theorists.  I'm not sure what forecasts you have in mind but bear in mind that Keynesians right now think that the current situation offers a direct test of their predictions and that of their opposition, and they think the evidence is decisively in their favor.  They think their time as come.

The evidence?

In contrast to the Chicago school who expect massive inflation and soaring interest rates from the massive increase in money supply Keynesians predict the opposite under the current circumstances (which they call a liquidity trap).  So far the evidence is clearly on the side of the Keynesians - very low inflation and interest rates so long as unemployment remains high.

 

Quite frankly I don't think the Austrians or Keynesians have got it all right but I really don't think Keynesianism is in any trouble.

Despite its spectacular failure?

What failure!!??  If you are talking about the 'stimulus' you are very wrong.  Meagre though it was it did mitigate the effects of the crash so long as it lasted and in any case that was more Freedmanite than Keynesian.  Keynesians argue a fiscal program that guaranteed spending - and that never happened in the US - but did in Sweden for example and worked a treat.

 

As I understand it the Austrians theorists expect high inflation and soaring interest rates whereas the Keynesians don't.  

Which Austrians?  Over what period?

I'm thinking of Ron Paul and wherever he gets his economics from and also Conservative Think tanks.  These may not be Austrians but they are certainly anti-Keynesian.  Anyway I have read articles from Mises.org (I'm assuming they qualify as Austrian) saying that the large increase in money supply will be inflationary and that the unemployment problem is not lack of aggregate demand but something structural.  The period in question has been since 2008.

 

Keynesians expect tight monetary policy and austerity to be contractionary

?

Read Satan - oops Krugman - for an explanation and the references to the evidence.  I don't understand what you don't get here.  

 

while the opposition expects austerity to be expansionary via confidence this 'responsibility' creates in the markets.  Both camps expect a high gold price so that's not a good test.  So far the Keynesians are winning

How so?

I've explained above why they think they are winning - inflation and interest rates are low not high.  So called responsible debt reduction measures e.g. austerity, are expected to inspire confidence which in turn will rev up business and therefore be expansionary.  So far the published evidence is that the expected confidence doesn't materialize - austerity is always contractionary.  Other studies are showing that fiscal measures are expansionary.  

 

but the other side says disaster is just around the corner.  

Sources?

As I said above - Ron Paul and the economists he appeals to. The Wall Street Journal is full of it.

[Garth Zietsman]

Garth said:

I know that many of you like and support Ron Paul and I think I understand your reasons.  I nevertheless don't share your positive view of the man.  While I am aware of his consistent advocacy of small government, support for sound money (gold standard) and stand against drug regulations I also see many problems.  For a start I don't think his views on money are sound (even if they are virtually PC among libertarians).  Then there is his fundamentalist religious and creationist outlook.  These disturb me greatly.  There is also a racist tract that was published under his name.  He has tried to disown this but he hasn't distanced himself from those who wrote it.  Then he is strongly anti-immigration.  While this is not a libertarian issue I don't like his virulent pro life stance because of what I think it says about a woman's right to autonomy.  I could go on. 

Really Garth, I'm disappointed by this paragraph.  It could have come directly out of a biased opinion piece written by an ignorant progressive MSM journalist.  The way that Ron Paul has been treated by the establishment media recently, especially regarding the 'racist newsletters', has been very instructive to watch.  It has cemented my view that the media is generally inconsistent, lazy (they don't do basic research), authoritarian (in the sense that they suck up to those in power), and above all extremely biased.

I've skimmed through a few of these newsletters, and yes, they contain sentences which are crude, homophobic and over-the-top.  The rest of the newsletters may very well yield plenty of right-wing religious BS, and some more sections which are genuinely bigoted.  However, the vast majority of the sentences that are commonly cited as racist or homophobic are not, when taken in context, racist / homophobic by any worthwhile definition.  They're just politically incorrect and brutally honest.  Anyway, Ron Paul didn't TRY to disown those sentences and the views they expressed, he DID disown them (many, many times).  Furthermore, he's exhibited anti-racism in everything else he has said and done over 30+ years. Who is he supposed to distance himself from?  He says that he doesn't know exactly who wrote the offending material.  Even if he does know, how would throwing them under the bus and outing them help anyone?

Julian I know he disowned the statements but he hasn't disowned the people who wrote it. I would have expected him to do that clearly.

The media does have a strong liberal/socialist bias so I agree they don't treat people like Paul fairly.  Nonetheless he has publicly said he doesn't believe in evolution (and I believe some other pro fundamentalist Christian views), he is a strong advocate for immigration restriction and, correct me if I'm wrong, he is opposed to stem cell research (although that may be just the Federal funding part).

Your accusation of religious fundamentalism and Creationism isn't fair.  Whatever his religious beliefs, it's clear that he won't impose them on others.  That's vastly preferable to a statist atheist, and can hardly be considered fundamentalist, at least in the generally-accepted use of the term.  His religiosity is unimportant to me, because it doesn't make him deviate from his libertarian principles and actions.  I'm not convinced Ron Paul is properly Creationist (listen to this to make up your own mind according to your definition of Creationism), but it doesn't matter. Like Paul, I support private education over a centralized syllabus, even if it means some poor suckers are taught ridiculous Creation Science or Intelligent Design.

Point taken but his religiosity still matters to me. 

Ron Paul can hardly be described as anti-immigration either (I for one agree with all his suggestions made here)

I can't open the link for some reason but I am going on direct quotes of his statements on the matter.  He is strongly opposed to illegal immigration (fair enough) but is opposed to making the illegals legal or making immigration open. 

Ron Paul doesn't take a 'virulent' pro life stance.  That could imply he wants to ban abortion throughout the US.  He's simply saying that the States, not the Federal Government, should decide their abortion policy.  As a strong supporter of abortion, I totally agree (including that Roe vs. Wade should be repealed) for the following reasons:

1) Roe vs. Wade represents centralization of power and Federal overreach
2) Roe vs. Wade looks like judicial activism that twists the Constitution to obtain a desired outcome, which is wrong in principle
3) I'm a huge supporter of competitive governance and allowing many different political experiments
4) Letting voters choose dumb policies like abortion control, and then suffering the consequences (more unwanted welfare-dependent children, higher crime etc.), is the only way they'll learn any better
5) The different outcomes due to different policies from 50 'laboratories of democracy' provide valuable research to prove that abortion is good policy
6) Women in States where abortion is banned can simply visit an abortion-friendly State to have the procedure done.

I strongly agree with your decentralized 50 experiment approach.  Insofar as he only recommends abortion being as state rather than a federal issue I support what he says.  However I heard him saying that abortion is the MOST important issue in the US and that sounds kind of virulent to me.  I am a little wary that were he to gain power he wouldn't refrain from putting pressure on states to ban abortion.

As an aside, I'm not convinced by the autonomy / right to choose / privacy argument for abortion.  I support abortion simply because a fetus isn't a sentient, self-aware, conscious agent.

Well that's an interesting argument for the future.  I think the autonomy argument is relevant but would support abortion on your grounds even if it wasn't. 

[Garth Zietsman]

I'm going to assume that if savers didn't have their savings devalued or if in the long run the loss were more than compensated for you wouldn't say inflation is always immoral for a libertarian.  I can however imagine that for some libertarians it would still be immoral.

Let me emphasize something.  I think inflation is immoral. On the other hand I think there are other moral demands that sometimes clash with that ethic and that sometimes the other moral demand can be of overriding importance.  Unemployment of people who did nothing wrong simply because some financial glitch made everyone want to hold money at the same time is such an issue.

Furthermore you are looking at it far too simplistically.  If (and I stress the IF because this would only work in very specific circumstances) inflation results in higher growth than there would have been, the savers themselves could be better off than they would have been.  In any case positive real interest rates see to it that savers don't lose the value of their savings.  Encouraging savers invest rather than keep money under the mattress is a good idea.

[Julian le Roux]

Hey Garth, thanks for your reply on those concerns I raised.  I intrigued that you expect him to publicly identify and disown the authors - I didn't think that would be necessary - but it's something we can pick up at next dinner.  Anyway, Paul says he's for making legal immigration easier (the link was http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/) but yes he's against amnesty, which I am too.  Thanks for alerting me to his 'Abortion Most NB Issue' comments - that is disappointing, even if he was addressing pro-lifers.

--

[Garth Zietsman]

Thanks for correcting my ignorance on some of Paul's positions.  I'm afraid I'm guilty of pretty much switching off once I heard his disbelief in evolution.  I am trying to remain open to guys who disagree with me but maybe I should be careful not to become closed off to the guys that are mostly on my side.

[Bob]

Have 3 copies of his book "liberty defined"  and 5 copies of his book " The case for Gold"  in the library if anyone wants to borrow same let me know. 

Sent from my iPhone

[Jaco Strauss]

Yes and today is a good day to be talking about Gold with gold stocks up by around 3% on the day. So much for the assertion that Technical Analysis gives one no edge. If any positive outcome is simply the result of "luck", I have to echo Gary Player and say that the more I apply TA, the luckier I seem get.

 

Remember I also recently successfully went short the market in gold stocks during the recent drop in the gold price where I positioned for it before it started. So - even though I am an Intermediate Term and Long Term gold bull - I play it over the Short Term the way the charts tell me to and that seems to be getting bullish again too. (Btw I'm not talking Astrological Charts here, although you seem to regard them on par :)

2012/1/3 Bob <b...@rolanddg.co.za>

--
Jaco Strauss
BI Data Analyst
PBT Group

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

The only basis for not regarding the Ron Paul phenomenon as one of the most momentous libertarian developments -- almost on a par with contributions like Jefferson, Rand, Mises, Hayek, Heinline and the anti-Corn law League -- seems to me to be being anti-liberty (or not strongly pro-liberty).

I know Garth has been (or seems to have been) increasingly ambiguous/compromising, and that's fine, very few people are for liberty.  Garth makes it clear that he's utilitarian (or something similar), which means a belief (which almost all people have) that liberty not an value per se, but only one of many means to subjectively preferred ends -- expediency over liberty.

Of course if you dig around with enough malice and resolve you'll find that RP isn't a purist.  Nor is Garth; they have at least this in common.

RP is the most consistent advocate of liberty, and the most significant libertarian phenomenon, in world politics of whom I'm aware during the past century.  There have been less prominent libertarian politicians in Italy (Antonio Martino), Denmark, Netherlands, France and the Czech Republic (Václav Klaus).  Only the last of these compares with RP.

What interests me more about detractors than he content of their detraction is why the desire to detract. 

Pray tell, Garth, why the desire to deprecate the great?

Maybe I do you an injustice, but that's not how I see it.  I do not expect you to espouse liberty per se, so I see no harm in saying you do not seem to me to be a keen libertarian.  I think of you as a fellow-traveller, like, for example, Andre Heydenrich, who quite likes liberty, but not as much as other stuff.  That alone does not explain why you seem to delight in disparaging Paul.  None of the people I mention above were, after all, pure libertarians either.  Would you disparage them likewise?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libsa?hl=en.

--

[Bob]

Leon, 

I think you you might be a little hard here. Garth is  acutely aware of false profits of liberty, so give him his due in the careful analysis and warning us of all that the emperors feet might be made of clay. 

Sent from my iPhone

[Jaco Strauss]

Perhaps Bob, but then Garth should preferably provide examples of Paul being anti liberty rather than regurgitate a critique of the man's rather sound investment strategies. Look back to where this thread started....

2012/1/3 Bob <b...@rolanddg.co.za>

[Bob]

Point taken best I butt out, I am but a newbie here and my spoon is rather large, and my foot even larger,'and neither fit in my mouth any more :-)

Sent from my iPhones Ifh 

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

You're right, was feeling exasperated by so much muddled thinking in LibSA threads.  

I'm still intrigued by the psychology of deprecation.  Why is there such ubiquitous detraction, as if pulling A down elevates B.

I am of the view that Ron Paul is the best thing that has happened for liberty in a very long time.  He is an extraordinary ambassador for freedom-loving humans.   

One of the things it's doing is exposing Keynesian madness (affection for which in LibSA also exasperates me).

I could have a feast of nit-picking and delving into his indiscretions, as I could do with Rand, Mises, Sowell and Friedman, but I don't. My preference is to celebrate them, and draw their virtues to the attention of as many people as I can.

I may also be harsh about what I experience as Garth (and, for what it's worth, Trevor) raising some anti-libertarian red herrings.  I see nothing wrong with this.  On the contrary, I understand the purpose of LibSA to be to debate such issues, and to express divergent views.  And share insights.  

Suggesting that someones view on something seems to me to be unlibertarian is, to me, merely observational, as it would be to say Malema's view of mining is unlibertarian.  And he wouldn't agree.  I do see that it might be experienced as harsh if, say, a self-proclaimed Christian were told that their view of gay marriage is unchristian.  

I think Garth has explained explicitly that he not necessarily or always libertarian, that he is anti-libertarian on some issues.  He is more than capable, of course, of speaking for himself.  And I hope he does not experience my analysis of his views as hostile or adversarial.

The last thing I want to do is discourage non-purists.  Their participation enriches LibSA.  It would be very boring were we all to confirm our agreement with each other on everything.

[Stephen vJ (Gmail)]

When Libertarians start to use Mises's name as if it is spelt "Messiah" or throw stones at anyone daring to criticise the omniscient Ayn Rand or when they run after Ron Paul as if he were St. Paul, then maybe it becomes time to do a reality check and to remind fellow Libertarians that these are / were flawed human beings, not deities.

 

To non-Libertarians, I advertise and promote Ayn Rand and Mises and Hayek and Friedman and Hazzlitt... but some folks start leaning towards religiously following these people. I don't think that is healthy and then a critical debate must surely have a place.

 

S.

 

From: li...@googlegroups.com [mailto:li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Leon Louw (gmail)
Sent: 04 January 2012 00:42
To: li...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Libsa] The Ron Paul Portfolio

 

You're right, was feeling exasperated by so much muddled thinking in LibSA threads.  

[Bob]

Could not agree with you more, it is critical for us to engage with dissenters and fence sitters, they keep us all honest. The role of the Jester holding up the mirror  to us and furthermore showing both faces of the problem, is critical if we are to remain honest.

Sent from my iPhone

[Chris Becker]

More on RP's portfolio from Bob Wenzel, published yesterday:

Ron Paul's Investment Success Is Driving WSJ Crazy

WSJ just can't deal with the fact that Ron Paul, by buying gold and silver stocks and thus betting against the Fed, has most likely the best performing portfolio of any congressmen ever.

They are out with, amazingly, another hit piece on his successful portfolio. At one point, they suggest they don't know it is a huge success:

Many of Rep. Paul’s supporters protested, in their comments, that his portfolio has already been vindicated by its performance.

It isn’t that simple.

Congressional financial-disclosure forms report holdings only in wide dollar ranges (for example, $15,001 to $50,000). If Rep. Paul owned gold bullion, estimating his investment performance would be fairly easy. But he doesn’t; he owns gold-mining stocks instead. And since the size of each stock holding is disclosed only within a broad band of valuation, there’s no way an outside observer can derive a long-term rate of return for Rep. Paul’s portfolio (or for any other member of Congress, for that matter).

Puhleez. If anything, Ron Paul's gold stocks likely out performed gold. 

When I met up with Dr. Paul last May, I was simply stunned by his knowledge about the stocks he owned. I know a lot of gold stock investors, who simply load up on gold stocks, not knowing much about what is going on at the companies.Not Dr. Paul. He understood the philosophies of the management of the companies whose stocks he owned and why the companies employed the strategies they did. 

Warren Buffett always talks about concentrating investments in areas you understand, rather than diversification. WSJ never calls Buffett's philosophy weird. Yet, when WSJ discusses, Dr. Paul's investment concentration, they headline the story: How Weird Is Ron Paul’s Portfolio? 

WSJ begrudgingly did have to admit that the strategy is a success:

There isn’t much doubt that Rep. Paul’s portfolio has outperformed the U.S. stock market as a whole. Ten years ago, the NYSE Arca Gold BUGS Index, a basket of stocks in mining companies, was at $65; this week, it’s at $522. That’s roughly a 23% average annual return; over the past decade, by contrast, the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index, counting dividends, has returned some 2.9% annually.

Yet, they go on to say:

Rep. Paul’s supporters admire him for the consistency of his political views. But if the future happens to unfold in ways he doesn’t expect, then his hot investment portfolio is likely to go cold in a hurry.

Huh! Ron Paul is the number one expert in Congress on how central banks destroy the value of the currency they control. The Federal Reserve is no different. As WSJ writes about the future possibly being different, Ben Bernanke is assuring that Ron Paul's portfolio will have huge gains into the future. The Fed is printing BIG. Over the last six months the money supply (M2) has increased at an annual rate of 14%.  Yet, nowhere in the WSJ piece is their mention of the Fed's responsibility for the success of Congressman Paul's portfolio or any explanation of how gold goes up as the Fed destroys the value of the dollar. Some analysis.

Posted by Robert Wenzel at 11:35 AM 4 comments

On 1 January 2012 20:45, Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com> wrote:

I thought this would interest many of you if not strike a chord with you.  For the record I have an almost opposite view to what appears to be Paul's take.  I have always been a bit wary of the 'survivalist' libertarian wing.

As reported by the Wall Street Journal:

Most members of Congress, like many Americans, hold some real estate, a few bonds or bond mutual funds, some individual stocks and a bundle of stock funds. Give or take a few percentage points, a typical Congressional portfolio might have 10% in cash, 10% in bonds or bond funds, 20% in real estate, and 60% in stocks or stock funds.

But Ron Paul’s portfolio isn’t merely different. It’s shockingly different.

Yes, about 21% of Rep. Paul’s holdings are in real estate and roughly 14% in cash. But he owns no bonds or bond funds and has only 0.1% in stock funds. Furthermore, the stock funds that Rep. Paul does own are all “short,” or make bets against, U.S. stocks. One is a “double inverse” fund that, on a daily basis, goes up twice as much as its stock benchmark goes down.

The remainder of Rep. Paul’s portfolio – fully 64% of his assets – is entirely in gold and silver mining stocks....

At our request, William Bernstein, an investment manager at Efficient Portfolio Advisors in Eastford, Conn., reviewed Rep. Paul’s portfolio as set out in the annual disclosure statement. Mr. Bernstein says he has never seen such an extreme bet on economic catastrophe. ”This portfolio is a half-step away from a cellar-full of canned goods and nine-millimeter rounds,” he says.

[Julian le Roux]

Thanks for this Chris - BTW I was browsing your tweets just now, and noticed that you also pointed out that Raimondo piece defending Ron Paul...great minds, great minds...

[Jaco Strauss]

Well by the time the talking heads get exited by gold it would be time to sell. Reading this article it seems to confirm that some upward potential still exists...

Thanks for the interesting article

 

J

 

2012/1/6 Chris Becker <chris...@gmail.com>

[Erik Peers]

Surely by the time the talking heads get exited by gold, it will be an even better investment?

[Jaco Strauss]

Ironically not, as you need a counter party to your trade. You know what happens when everybody sits on the same side in a boat? A little bit like what happened in March 2009. A full 70% percent of investors/traders had been bearish at the time, so nobody was left to sell anymore. And when the sellers have done all their selling and only a few reluctant buyers remain the result is redictable.

 

The result of course was the start of a 2 year rally....

2012/1/6 Erik Peers <erik...@gmail.com>

[Erik Peers]

But I do think that by the time the talking heads get excited by gold, that it would be time to sell.

--

[David Joffe]

On 4 Jan 2012 at 16:14, Stephen vJ (Gmail) wrote:

Send reply to: li...@googlegroups.com
From: "Stephen vJ \(Gmail\)" <sjaar...@gmail.com>
To: <li...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [Libsa] The Ron Paul Portfolio
Date sent: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 16:14:47 +0200
Organization: Personal - Gmail

>
> When Libertarians start to use Mises's name as if it is spelt
> "Messiah" or throw stones at anyone daring to criticise the omniscient
> Ayn Rand or when they run after Ron Paul as if he were St. Paul, then
> maybe it becomes time to do a reality check and to remind fellow
> Libertarians that these are / were flawed human beings, not deities.
> To non-Libertarians, I advertise and promote Ayn Rand and Mises and
> Hayek and Friedman and Hazzlitt... but some folks start leaning
> towards religiously following these people.

True, but I've noticed quite a few libertarians also seem to lean
basically religiously *against* some of these people too (possibly
partly as a reaction thereto, but I also suspect some libertarians
just tend to be 'anti-mainstream' so when a figure becomes 'too
mainstream', relatively, they probably feel they should dissociate,
lest they be tainted with the stench of something 'popular' that in
their worldview 'lesser' people 'fall for' who presumably 'can't see
the flaws they can'). Personally I think some of the psychological
motivation of anti-Randism (and anti-Ron-Paulism) is a form of
elitism amongst libertarians (hey, it's human nature) (Rand is
hardly 'omniscient' - in fact I've gotten quite the opposite
impression, that you're practically 'required' to disavow Rand
amongst the more politically mature libertarians) .. one should
stick to 'objectively' pointing out specific flaws (which are of
course there, to be sure), but pragmatically retain perspective ...
e.g. to have someone so strongly libertarian, so relatively popular
in a US presidential race is actually quite remarkable (especially
as compared to the other candidates) ... to be 'against' him (and
'for' one of the other candidates) would seem rather silly to me ...
a bit like having a supermodel jump into bed with you and then
kicking her out her out because she's brunette and well, you prefer
blondes. Hello. It isn't a perfect world. It's one thing to say 'I
don't like Ron Paul's policy X', or 'his thinking on the gold
standard is wrong because', but it's a somewhat different thing to
say 'I am *against* Ron Paul because X', and I'm also a bit
surprised at how some of the folks here have fallen for some of the
blatant anti-Paul propaganda that is out there, but I suppose when
you're so surrounded by so much propaganda it's hard not to have
some of it sink in.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

You're right, and maybe wrong.  

I doubt that any of us agrees with every word written by any of our luminaries.  The closest we get to that is born-again Objectivists for whom Rand is the Pope-ess and Objectivism blind-faith fundamentalism.  Paradoxically, born-again Objectivists lack objectitivism. 

My experience of libertarians worldwide is that they are more independently minded and disagree with their gurus than adherents to other paradigms.  If libertarians have a characteristic flaw it isn't blind faith, but ill-considered detraction.

So, I don't know to which libertarians you refer, Stephen.  earlier in this thread I criticised the inclination of libertarians who delight, or so it seems, in kindred-spirit detraction and character assassination per se.  It strikes me as self-deprecating point-scoring.

What I try to do before regarding one of our luminaries as being wrong is:

1. Assume they know what they're talking about, and that they are unlikely to be wrong.
2. Ensure that I have a thorough appreciation of their views and evidence, so that I don't commit the common error of positing and demolishing straw-men.
3. Ensure that my alternative view is at least as informed and plausible.

Hayek said of tradition that it's fine to change it, but we must be mindful of the fact that we tamper with it at our peril.  In other words, presume validity, and accept a heavy burden of proof before rejection.  So it is with core ideas of Mises, Hayek, Rand, Bastiat, Sowell or Paul.  What we find instead is uninformed pronouncements that <luminary> was wrong about such-and-such.

For what it's worth, I disagree with most libertarian luminaries about something.  I flatter myself that I have in each case applied 1-3 above.

[Stephen vJ (Gmail)]

So we agree then, because I said we should not have a blind faith in some people or ideas and you said we should not engage in reasonless or self-serving character assassination. I warned against the one extreme and you against the other. In the Aristotelian middle is an objective appreciation for what great minds have produced, but without blindness to its flaws or attacks based on improperly founded criticisms. Neither desire for deification nor vilification, only for truth.

[Bob Glenister]

Hi David

I think you might be referring to me. There is third person that on
reflection comes to me and that is the disturber.

(I have been accused of verbosity, so I will try keep this short,
difficult given the weight of the subject.)

So we are four the believer, the dissenter, the fence sitter and finally
the disturber.

I have an immense insatiable desire for knowledge. In the Chinese
Horoscope I am a dog and all my Asian friends joke with me that I fit
the profile 100%.

"You run around sniffing at the ground,dig up some old dirty bone,
and bring it inside with a big smile on your face, and shout look what I
have found!!!! , while the rest of us shout, get that smelly thing out
of here!!!!" I literally walk around in perpetual confusion, with very
few things cast in stone and I over the years have discovered those that
cast things in stone tend to be the most vulnerable to error.

This desire for truth get me into all sorts of trouble, like now ;-) Now
being a runaway at an early age, one of the reasons for breaking free
being the dogmatic attitude of teachers who would not listen to theories
that I had discovered on my own sniffing adventures, that my education
took a very informal route.

What today is classified by the name unschooling. On this journey, and
fortunately for me I ended up travelling far and wide and still do, I
discovered an amazing correlation between beautiful people, these that
naturally tolerated others differences and not grouping together with
similarities and judging and discriminating, and I can actually draw
you a world map of the most tolerant to the least tolerant. The results
would surprise most of you, as religion does play a role and positively
not negatively and a correlation between political power of the religion
and freedom of expression are directly linked.

Secondly I discovered that these peoples belief systems were
amazingly similar although they called it by a different name. Now some,
but by far the lower in numbers would push exclusivity, this will be
contrary to perhaps your view, but you are fed by a media that
unfortunately focusses on the abhorrent, unusual, and the negative, not
the positive, which gives some of you unfortunately a very blinkered
view of the world. "if there is no blood it does not lead" a classic
editors warcry.

It is amazing for me that 4% of the population, the bad, the ugly, the
bullies, etc lead the world by the nose as the media feeds on their
habits in turn feeding it to us in bites. I took a decision a long
time ago to not watch TV or read newspapers if I can avoid it, for two
reasons, one to avoid blinkering, and two to protect myself from my own
anger at the destruction of liberties around the world. We all know what
happened the last time I read the news and I lost my cool. :-)

This of course led to me trying to unravel the dogmatism from the core
values, and I again discovered that at the core all things were very
similar and that layers and layers of discrimination had been built over
time. Idols, gods and prophets had been created and a lot of symbolism
in some religions.

Power was the next issue for me, and here I have yet to unravel the rise
and fall of power and the need for people to follow, but it is a
natural phenomena that occurs since early man and the again my findings
were contrary to popular findings, in so far as that religions were
turned to at moments of greatest oppression. Even when the church in
Italy became omnipotent, other competitive ideas sprang up and became
competitive religions. Now was this simply that the model of religions
was a necessary competitor to an aggressive monopolistic religion?

So man has a natural desire to create a body of thought around some
basic premise, the intentions are good to begin with but overtime the
body that results becomes overrun with rules and regulations and
symbolism to reinforce the power of some who milk the benefits of those
who contribute , the mass of believers actually could not give a dam and
stay true to the basic premise and shake their heads at the behaviour of
the Church elders. The Church elders realising they are loosing power
hand out alms to those who will accept them, thus reinforcing their
transient power. Does this ring any bells?

Now I see this repeated not only in politics and religion , but in
Science as well. On this forum there is a binary position on the
creationists versus the darwinians, but there is third school of thought
that suffered a media attack in the fifties and that is that of the
catastrophists. Most of you wont have heard of them, because the attack
by the Scientific community was so vehement that Publishers were
boycotted and thus began a suppression of an idea. Even to this day
when the catastrophists predictions prove to be valid there is no
acknowledgement. I smiled in amusement when the first Venus probe went
up in smoke ( 1 billion dollars or two) because the uniformists refused
to listen to the calculation of the catastrophists that predicted the
temperature of Venus to be very hot, where they claimed it was cold.

The last message from the probe before it was vaporised was the
castrophists got it wrong, it was 10 degrees hotter than they
calculated, some 1400 degrees I believe. The strange thing for me was
that the catasrophists also postulated evolution, but over a shorter
time frame, and by only changing one constant in the uniformists
calculations. Unfortunately the castrophists time frame would mean that
some of the creationists claims could be justified, this was just not
going to fly at a time when creationist bashing was at its high point,
the catastrophists timing sucked. :-)

Now who is right the uniformists, the creationists, the catastrophists,
personally I think all of them have value and the truth lies somewhere
between them all, I am not convinced by anyone of them.

I walk around in perpetual confusion, knowing that truth is as illusive
as the infamous Unicorn. I do believe we need to respect peoples belief
systems, whatever they are, and what I have discovered in my meandering
on this beautiful planet, is that people are fundamentally good and
don't require looking after and have amazing respect for each other and
yes we can get out our books from Mill etc and argue this point till the
cows come home, its just my observation.

Yes they get sold on a basic premise, and then soon the manipulators
and opportunists move in and create a mountain of dogma, some buy it but
most don't. Anyone that comes my way, and proposes a method to really
free people up to be the wonderful person they can be, is a friend. I
accept that friend, imperfections and all. So yes I have a deep respect
for Misses, Hayek, Jefferson, Darwin, Velikovsky, Rand, Mill, Twain,
Louw and many many more, all have added value to making men free and
brought me a little closer to understanding the missteps we as mankind
have taken and made my understanding more complete, no where have I been
convinced that a persons belief in a basic religious premise of live
and let live (which is the premise of most religions ) does not fit that
goal, so I tolerate most religions, for me its not a prerequisite, that
to believe in liberty you need to throw out your religion, only to
recognise the manipulation that you might unwittingly be exposed to and
the manipulation of others that you might be enacting. The dogma that
goes with a lot of religions I do have a problem with, but as I have
said, in my experience, most people actually don't buy it and if they
do most can be convinced to see the error of their secularism without
giving up their basic beliefs.

The problem does not come from the basic belief system, it comes from
the need for control, and the need to be controlled. How this happens is
still a large grey cloud. My research is helplessly incomplete, flawed
with ambiquety and falsehoods. many of the improvements coming from the
interaction with yourselves.

I have a long road to go before I get I have any certainty, I am still
learning and if my crassness, aggressiveness have forced you to hold
your tongue, or offended I apologise. I realise some of the people I
have bantered with feel somewhat bullied, and I have tried to correct my
position to encourage dissent for my benefit and hopefully for the
benefit of others
Bob

=======
Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
(Email Guard: 7.0.0.18, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.19000)
http://www.pctools.com/
=======

[Garth Zietsman]

Let me see if I can concede some things and clarify some misapprehensions.

Firstly my value system.  I am called a utilitarian but I think it would be far more accurate to say I am a deontologist or natural rights skeptic.  I don't believe the natural rights/deontologist position can be anchored in anything that commands agreement.  Consequentialism seems to me a reasonable alternative - although I have misgivings about it too.

I do value liberty per se and I value it a lot.  However it appears to me that for many to be a libertarian it has to be your ONLY value, or a value you hold so dearly that you won't trade any of it for anything else - ever.  It seems to me that's what you are implying when you call me a fellow traveler rather than a libertarian Leon.  I don't think that's a reasonable position.  Some other supposedly hard core libertarians have been expedient with liberty in favor of other values where I wasn't.  For example Jim Harris defended the Patriot Act and WoT on the grounds that one needed doing what it takes to assure safety.  I was virulently against the Patriot Act and WoT on the grounds that the alleged safety didn't justify the loss of liberty. So although I see virtue in being expedient it's not as though I would exchange liberty lightly or that I would ever be willing to sacrifice all liberty for anything.

My focus is on a broader conception of freedom than liberty.  I understand to mean no interference by government or my neighbor.  I understand freedom to mean something like number of actualizable choices.  I could even be for something even broader called human thriving.  I fervently believe that a great deal of liberty is a necessary core in both freedom and human thriving - if not a way of thriving in its own right.  I think there are situations in which a great deal of freedom can be enabled through a small sacrifice in liberty.  The expediency is worth it in that case.  Furthermore I think that national level governments have advanced even the narrow liberty from what went before i.e. above tribalism and feudalism.  I think governments generally go much further than necessary but nevertheless the result was a real increase in liberty.  The fact that they do go further than necessary means that we should fight on for even greater liberty.  In short I think government is decidedly better than what went before in terms of liberty (and many other things) but that things could still be much better i.e. much smaller, more accountable government with less discretion and some controls.

I have softened my view of Ron Paul.  My initial reaction was colored by his rejection of evolution, strong support for pro life, his resistance to legalizing illegal immigrants and his support for an economic analysis that I think is wrong and potentially harmful.  I am also wary of extreme consistency because all these factors usually coincide in people of a hyper-Conservative or even authoritarian bent.  Conservatives for example are very fond of using the language of free markets but their behavior shows they are anything but free market supporters, let alone for liberty.  However upon listening to Paul and doing a bit of reading I found myself going "Oh Yeah!" or  "Right on!" quite often.

On the issue of economics I still disagree with him (and it seems you and pretty much everyone else on the forum - though I think Brain Cantor might agree with me).  You say that Keynesianism is crazy and about to implode.  By that I take it you mean that it doesn't work i.e. it either doesn't save employment or boost production and income in the short term, or that it does so at the cost of even greater trouble later.  I take it to mean you believe Shumputer's view that recessions are natural ways of working out structural problems and that any attempt to intervene or mitigate the effects makes the problem worse. I take it to mean that you believe - with Paul - that high inflation, high interest rates and a dollar collapse is nigh.  

I am aware that quite apart from these technical issues there are moral complaints about Keynesianism.  From the technical point of view however it is by no means clear to me that Keynesianism doesn't work or that it will simply make the problem worse.  My reading suggests that it would in fact work quite well without making the underlying problem worse.  Whether it is moral to go that route, or in fact moral not to go that route, is another question - one which I don't have any easy answers to.  BTW I find what seems to be an exclusive focus on savers by libertarians, in their argument against inflation say, to be morally narrow and shortsighted - even from a pure liberty perspective.  

I don't wish to disparage Paul's support for liberty at all.  I think its great.  What I am taking aim at are his monetary views, which seem both mistaken to me and not necessarily a required libertarian ethical position.  Ron Paul thinks that the Fed is causing real harm to the value of the dollar and that austerity will result in faster growth. I just don't.

I guess what I'm saying is that I think some of the technical stuff one is pressured to believe or eschew as evidence that one is for liberty is quite a bit short on supporting or falsifying evidence respectively. As an analogy I think someone can quite consistently reach the conclusion that human caused global warming is both real and serious and still be for liberty.  How the world works doesn't have to be how I want it to work. Nonetheless I assert that I am every bit as much for liberty as most of the people on this forum.

I'm sure I haven't answered everything or made everyone (anyone?) happier but I remain open to the debate.

Regards

Garth

[Gareth Brickman]

In this video Ron Paul presents, in 2002, some predictions of what he thinks will happen in world events over the following 5 to 10 years. Startling how prescient many are!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifJG_oFFDK0&feature=player_embedded 

--

[Garth Zietsman]

Pretty good. I'm so in agreement with him about foreign policy, civil liberties, smaller government and greater state autonomy.

He was wrong about interest rates and the dollar though.  Interest rates went up moderately until 2006 and then went to the historic lows we see currently.  The dollar has maintained its value against other currencies.  Gold did climb, and had been climbing since 2000 - but then Krugman predicted that too but for very different reasons and with a different prognosis.  Gold has shown a downward trajectory since Sept.  So far no sign whatsoever of predicted 'doom' from the Fed increase in money supply since 2008.

[jacos...@gmail.com]

Gold is not necessarily in a downward trajectory. To me it looks more like a healthy correction that night be over. It is starting to reverse and I'm very happy to be on board of that train.

Major trends don't reverse willy nilly and after an 11 year bull market it might be premature to call it over while it is still trading above its 200 day moving average.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

---

From: Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com>

Sender: li...@googlegroups.com

Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 00:51:05 +0200

To: <li...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: li...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [Libsa] The Ron Paul Portfolio

[Garth Zietsman]

We shall see.  I have started watching it with interest.  I figure it will be close to $1400 in 6 months.

[Jaco Strauss]

Of course anything is possible, but I would be extremely surprised if gold traded for 1,400 in 6 months time as I simply can't see it either technically or fundamentally reversing its primary trend. It is not that I cannot see $1,400 as a possibility, but then I believe it is more likely we see it sooner rather than later.

 

Either way, I would rather be prepared to wager that we would be north of $1,600 six months from now. What do you say, a crate of beer for the one that is  closest to his prediction on the 4th of July?

 

J

2012/1/7 Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libsa?hl=en.

[Garth Zietsman]

Sure.  You're on.

Garth

[jacos...@gmail.com]

Any other takers?

Even if not interested in a bet, it would still be interesting to see where others stand in this regard...

J

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

---

From: Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com>

Sender: li...@googlegroups.com

Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 01:49:03 +0200

To: <li...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: li...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [Libsa] The Ron Paul Portfolio

[Colin Phillips]

My 4th of July prediction is that gold is closer to $1700 than to $1600.

I have a story I tell myself to justify this:

It seems to me that the trend since end 2008 has been about $100 rise per 6 months, with the notable exception being August 2011, where there was a sudden spike.  People heard so many horror stories about Europe that there was a proper panic, a bit of a rush to gold, but, a month later, when the zombie apocalypse had failed to occur, the fog lifted, and people couldn't resist cashing this huge rise in.  Gold's been correcting for this since August, and now it's hanging about $1600, which is where the trend would have predicted, had the panic not occurred.  I think things in goldpriceland are about to get back to "normal", so my guess is we're back to an approximate $100 rise per 6 months, which puts us around $1700 (ish).

I'm confident in this not because of fundamentals, but because, If I'm able to do this kind of non-technical technical "analysis", so is every other nutjob and wacko out there, and so my story is simple enough to become self-fulfilling, in my opinion.

.c.

[Stephen vJ (Gmail)]

You might recall that when gold hit $1800/oz, I said: "You would not buy anything else when its price is at a record high. Why do that with gold ?"

 

Some people laughed and said that I was losing out on an indefinite rise in the price of gold. If I had listened to them, I would have lost a good 15% to 20% by now.

 

I don't think gold will go up by much and will probably come down somewhat, unless something extraordinary and unforeseen happens i.e. the overthrow of a dictator in an oil-rich country.

 

I'm not putting any money or assets on it, but I'll go with gold hovering around $1400/oz by 04/06.

 

S.

[Chris Becker]

> He was wrong about interest rates and the dollar though.  Interest rates
> went up moderately until 2006 and then went to the historic lows we see
> currently.  The dollar has maintained its value against other currencies.

But the currencies that the dollar has maintained its value against
have also been debased, many even more aggressively than the dollar.
Don't set such low standards for your benchmarks.

Here is the dollar's performance against real goods.

The US CPI is up 27% from 2002 to present, including the "deflation"
of 2009/10. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/CPIAUCSL.txt

Gold is up over 400%.

Oil is up 460%.

The CRB continuous commodity index is up 204%.

US house prices are up 22%. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/USSTHPI.txt

As far as interest rates go, US interest rates have been in a
downtrend for three decades. In other words, Treasury bonds have been
in a bull market for three decades. Picking the top isn't easy.
However, as with the Nasdaq bubble, and the housing bubble, the US
Treasury bubble will burst. Give it time.

>  Gold did climb, and had been climbing since 2000 - but then Krugman
> predicted that too but for very different reasons and with a different
> prognosis.

Please send me a link showing Paul Krugman predicting higher gold
prices back in 2002.

> So far no sign whatsoever of predicted 'doom' from the Fed increase in money supply
> since 2008.

Ah, but you're ignoring the 'doom' caused in late 2008 that was a
direct result of previous money printing programmes by the Fed. From
2002 to Aug 2008 the Fed boosted money supply by 44%. When they slowed
the rate of money growth from July to August 2008, the economy
collapsed.

Following the bust the Fed caused in 2008, the Fed postponed the
'doom' for a while longer, by accelerating money growth again. Since
the start of 2009, the Fed has boosted money supply by another 17%.
The rate of increase of money and credit has accelerated, which is why
the 'doom' has turned to 'boom' again.

Once money growth is slowed again for whatever reason, we don't have a
'doom' on our hands, but a 'DOOM.' The next bust will be bigger than
the last one, and may very well coincide with a collapse of the
Treasury bond market.

On Jan 7, 12:51 am, Garth Zietsman <garth.ziets...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Pretty good. I'm so in agreement with him about foreign policy, civil
> liberties, smaller government and greater state autonomy.
>
> He was wrong about interest rates and the dollar though.  Interest rates
> went up moderately until 2006 and then went to the historic lows we see
> currently.  The dollar has maintained its value against other currencies.
>  Gold did climb, and had been climbing since 2000 - but then Krugman
> predicted that too but for very different reasons and with a different
> prognosis.  Gold has shown a downward trajectory since Sept.  So far no
> sign whatsoever of predicted 'doom' from the Fed increase in money supply
> since 2008.
>
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Gareth Brickman

> <garethovers...@gmail.com>wrote: