Vermont Senate Votes to Legalize Recreational Marijuana

Vermont Senate Votes to Legalize Recreational Marijuana

01/10/2018Ryan McMaken

The Hill reports today that the Vermont Senate has voted to approve the legalization of recreation marijuana for users over 21 years of age.

With its passage in the Senate, the law proceeds to the governor's desk where he is expected to sign. 

While eight states (AlaskaCaliforniaColoradoMaineMassachusettsNevadaOregon, and Washington) have already legalized recreational marijuana, Vermont will be the first state to legalize via action of the state legislature. All other states that have legalized have done through statewide referenda or voter initiative. 

Since 2012, when Colorado voters approved recreational marijuana, state-level voters have repeatedly shown indifference toward federal drug law — which, of course, is in violation of Article I of the Constitution, and the Tenth Amendment. 

But now, for the first time, a state legislature and governor have joined the movement. This comes, we might note, mere weeks after US Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced he plans to ratchet up the Drug War against marijuana users. 

Apparently, Vermont legislators are happy to disregard him. 

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here.

Poor Logic from Forbes and Paul Tudor Jones

01/03/2018Hunter Lewis

As the Austrian School has pointed out, the ultimate source of human poverty and failure lies in poor logic.

Here is an example from Forbes Magazine and a leading hedge fund investor who is also a major charitable donor genuinely devoted to helping humanity and the planet.

The editor of Forbes, Randall Lane, quotes Paul Tudor Jones, as follows

There is no bigger threat to our democracy than wealth disparity. It is a story normally reserved for monarchies, dictatorships and plutocracies….We got into this pickle because over the past 40 years the corporate focus on profits took on manic proportions relative to other stakeholders such as employees, communities and the planet.

There are several things wrong with this logic. In the first place, a focus on profits is not at odds with a focus on employees, customers, communities, or the planet. Profit, properly defined, is the net present value of all future profits, that is, what you should be able to realize by selling that profit stream today. To maximize profit, therefore, one must take a long term view and seek to provide exemplary service over many, many years to employees, customers, communities, and the planet. What Paul Tudor Jones is describing is not profit maximization, but rather short term profit taking, which will actually reduce the net present value of all future profits. As Henry Hazlitt pointed out in Economics in One Lesson, real capitalism focuses on the long run, not just the short run, and considers all consumers, not just some.

The problem of course is that we have never had the benefit of real capitalism. Thanks to the interventions of government into the economy, and especially into the pricing system, we get crony capitalism instead. This is bound to happen in a monarchy or dictatorship. But, contra Mr. Jones,  it is no less likely to happen in an American style democracy, as American history has shown. So long as government influences, manipulates, or controls prices, powerful special interests will strive to use the power of government to gain monopolies or other advantages. There are, however, certain periods in which government ( and in particular central bank) policy puts crony capitalism on steroids, with a resultant sharp increase in economic inequality,  and that is what we are seeing today.

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here.

What's a Rare Luxury Today will Be Owned by the Average Man Tomorrow

01/02/2018Ryan McMaken

In 2015, the federal government (namely, the FCC) implemented new monopolistic regulations which it called "net neutrality." In 2017, the FCC then repealed some of these regulations. In the weeks and months preceding the repeal, various billionaires and other leftists hysterically predicted that the end of net neutrality would usher in a dystopia in which only the super rich could access the internet. 

What they were really opposing, of course, was a return to the internet's status quo of 2015. And we all know what a living nighmare that was! 

In reality, of course, internet access has grown continually over the past two decades in the absence of net neutrality, and has now become commonplace. Like most technologies, public access to this "luxury" has only grown over time. 

This is how markets work, as Ludwig von Mises pointed out: 

Thirty-five years ago there were no automobiles; twenty years ago the possession of such a vehicle was the sign of a particularly luxurious mode of living; today in the United States even the worker has his Ford. This is the course of economic history. The luxury of today is the necessity of tomorrow. Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone. Luxury consumption provides industry with the stimulus to discover and introduce new, things. It is one of the dynamic factors in our economy. To it we owe the progressive innovations by which the standard of living of all strata of the population has been gradually raised.

In a recent column for Forbes, John Tamny takes note of this reality, examining how the left's alarmism over net neutrality has no basis in the actual experience of the marketplace:

In 2006 Ford Motor Company discontinued its Ford Taurus. At the time Saturday Night Live’s comedy writers described the Taurus (this is a slight paraphrase) as “the car for people who’ve given up." Eventually Ford brought back the automobile associated with average. Interesting there is that a $31,000 2018 Taurus has 4-wheel ABS, dual front side mounted airbags, front and rear head airbags, dusk-sensing headlights, a blind spot warning accident avoidance system, rear parking sensors and a rear-backup camera (to avoid dings), and a heated steering wheel. Electric seats are a given.

Back in 2006, only the higher-end suites at the Four Seasons in Austin, TX (the city's most luxurious hotel) had flat-screen televisions. The regular rooms still had the box-shaped version. But by 2015 flat-screen tvs were standard not just in rooms at the Four Seasons, but also in most any Motel 6.

Air travel? Those rich enough to fly used to travel with flip flops, but only in their bags. They dressed up for what was a rare luxury. Nowadays people walk on to planes in flip flops, shorts, tank tops, and other garments associated with highly casual dress. Flying is what we all do now.

All of this is a reminder of what readers of this column know well: “luxury” is an ephemeral concept. Today’s obscure bauble of the superrich is tomorrow’s common good. In a growing economy prices are falling all the time. They are because investment is the driver of growth, and investment is all about producing more for less.

What's also crucial when it comes to falling prices is the “venture buyer.” And while the truth about “venture buyers” may cause the heads of the overly sensitive to explode, venture buyers are rich. Often wildly rich. So rich that they can spend enormous sums on goods and services that aren’t broadly used, or understood. These buyers are crucial to progress because they can uniquely test the products put on the market by entrepreneurs and businesses. If they prove useful, great. If they’re duds, the rich are out substantial sums. That’s ok. Figure that they’re superrich.

Still, the goods and services deemed worthy by venture buyers act as a signal to the entrepreneurs and businesses, and the signal is clear: the innovators capable of mass-producing what superrich venture buyers uniquely enjoy will similarly become superrich themselves. There. It’s been said. Great wealth, the kind of wealth that causes inequality to soar, is frequently a function of entrepreneurs democratizing access to the goods and services formerly enjoyed by the rich alone.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that access to the internet is going to diminish in the absence of a 2-year-old regulation that has been recently repealed. Experience suggests exactly the opposite.

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here.

Murphy on Bitcoin and the Regression Theorem

01/02/2018Tho Bishop

Based on how frequently the subject came up with friends and families during the holidays, I have a feeling that the topic of cryptocurrencies will not be going away in 2018. 

One question I see frequently raised in online Austrian circles is how Bitcoin and other crypto fit with Mises's regression thereom, and so I wanted to share a great blog post by Bob Murphy in 2014 on this topic to help clarify the subject for any interested readers:

It was necessary for Mises to come up with his regression theorem–which traced the purchasing power of money back to the time at which it was valued as a mere commodity in direct barter–in order to ensure that his application of subjective value theory didn’t set up an infinite regress. Since Mises was ultimately explaining today’s purchasing power of money by reference to observations of its purchasing power yesterday, it seemed that he was merely pushing back the problem one step, but not really explaining the value of money in a logically complete way. Yet Mises pointed out that it was not an infinite regress; once we reached the historical point at which the money good was used in direct exchange, then standard price theory took over and the regress stopped.

So, what relevance does this have to Bitcoin? The short answer: none whatsoever. There is no question that people today have a way of estimating the purchasing power of Bitcoin; they can look up the spot price online. If we object that the current price is largely dependent on yesterday’s price, then we start back with the regress. And where do we stop? In early 2009 when the first Bitcoin transactions were negotiated, including a pizza that sold for 10,000 BTC.

If Austrian economists want to say, “But those people had no basis for saying whether that pizza should have been 100 BTC or 1 million BTC!!” OK fair enough. But they did decide, somehow; those initial transactions provided a frame of reference that guided subsequent transactions involving bitcoins. If you want to argue that this odd origin means that subjective value theory can’t be applied to Bitcoin, OK, then so much the worse for subjective value theory.

People right now are exchanging bitcoins against “real” goods and services, and the sellers intend to use at least some of the acquired bitcoins to obtain other “real” goods and services down the road. There is no question that Bitcoin is currently a medium of exchange, though I would not christen it a money yet.

Some people concede that Bitcoin could exist temporarily, but that it would by its very nature be in a bubble with a fundamental value of zero. OK, but by the same token then, the US dollar has been in the same situation for 43 years, and the only reason this is in peril is that the authorities have been printing more dollars with reckless abandon (something that can’t happen under Bitcoin). So when people say, “Bitcoin will never last as money,” are they conceding that yes it might be the world’s reserve currency for a half century?

In conclusion, Ludwig von Mises’ regression theorem has nothing to say about the empirical question of whether Bitcoin will move beyond a medium of exchange and become a true money. If you think that subjective value theory somehow “proves” that a digital currency can never get off the ground because nobody would have any experience with which to evaluate it, then you are simply wrong; it happened in 2009.


When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here.

Economic Value and the Post Office

12/31/2017Peter G. Klein

Paul Waldman tries to defend the US Postal Services in this Twitter rant, but all he does is show the need for better economics education. He lists a bunch of things the post office does and deems it a "fricking marvel." Well, nobody disputes that the post office does home pickup and delivery, charges prices independent of distance, and provides services in small towns and low-income areas. The economic question is whether the post office should do these things -- or, more precisely, whether the value (to consumers) of the goods and services produced exceeds the opportunity cost of the resources used to produce them. That, as the Austrian economists have emphasized more vigorously than any other thinkers and writers, can only be determined on the market, in a system of private property and free prices.

Waldman has made the common error, which I've written about often in the context of government-funded science and technology, of confusing economic value and technological or engineering value. The former relates to economic well-being, the latter to the technical aspect of doing X, Y, or Z. The fact that something is produced or performed does not tell us whether the production or performance is valuable. When government is paying the bills (not to mention owning the property and, often, outlawing competition), there is no way to know.

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here.

Raico on Churchill

12/28/2017Tho Bishop

Inspired by the recent interest in the film Darkest Hour and Netflix's The Crown, our friend C Jay Engel at Austrolibertarian was inspired to share the late great Ralph Raico's thoughts on Winston Churchill.

From his essay Rethinking Churchill

When, in a very few years, the pundits start to pontificate on the great question: “Who was the Man of the Century?” there is little doubt that they will reach virtually instant consensus. Inevitably, the answer will be: Winston Churchill. Indeed, Professor Harry Jaffa has already informed us that Churchill was not only the Man of the Twentieth Century, but the Man of Many Centuries.

In a way, Churchill as Man of the Century will be appropriate. This has been the century of the State — of the rise and hypertrophic growth of the welfare-warfare state — and Churchill was from first to last a Man of the State, of the welfare state and of the warfare state. War, of course, was his lifelong passion; and, as an admiring historian has written: “Among his other claims to fame, Winston Churchill ranks as one of the founders of the welfare state.” Thus, while Churchill never had a principle he did not in the end betray, this does not mean that there was no slant to his actions, no systematic bias. There was, and that bias was towards lowering the barriers to state power.


Yet, in truth, Churchill never cared a great deal about domestic affairs, even welfarism, except as a means of attaining and keeping office. What he loved was power, and the opportunities power provided to live a life of drama and struggle and endless war.

There is a way of looking at Winston Churchill that is very tempting: that he was a deeply flawed creature, who was summoned at a critical moment to do battle with a uniquely appalling evil, and whose very flaws contributed to a glorious victory — in a way, like Merlin, in C.S. Lewis’s great Christian novel, That Hideous Strength. Such a judgment would, I believe, be superficial. A candid examination of his career, I suggest, yields a different conclusion: that, when all is said and done, Winston Churchill was a Man of Blood and a politico without principle, whose apotheosis serves to corrupt every standard of honesty and morality in politics and history.

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here.

Max Boot Discovers His White Privilege

12/28/2017Ryan McMaken

Back in the wake of 9/11, it was harder to find a more pro-war member of the conservative establishment than Max Boot. Boot has now spent abour two decades advocating for non-stop global war in pursuit of an American empire than he he wholeheartedly endorses. 

Nor am I putting words in his mouth. Boot, after all, wrote an article in 2001 called “The Case for American Empire.” He has been an unabashed proponent of bombing and starving foreigners in pursuit of nation-building and "spreading democracy." He's a vociferous defender of torture. American taxpayers, of course, get to pay for it all, both in terms of tax dollars, and in the ongoing shredding of the Bill of Rights which Boot supports. Most of the interventions Boot supports have done little more than make the world safe of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups that have sprung up in the wake of Boot's favored regime changes. And don't expect a mea culpa on any of that any time soon. 

Those who have paid with their lives, however, have been mostly foreigners, most of them with brown skin. 

But now Max Boot has miraculously discovered his "white privilege" as he reveals in a recent article for Foreign Policy. 

Anyone who knows Boot's history of lusting for the blood of non-white innocents in foreign lands will have a hard time reading his tweet on the matter in a non-sarcastic voice. And yet, he is apparently trying to be serious when he says "my consciousness has been raised":


But why the sudden change of heart?

Well according to hard-left journalist Cailtin Johnstone (who is currently one of the most interesting leftists writing right now), Boot is cozying up the left because he needs the left as an ally against Trump. 

It turns out that in spite of Trump's posturing, people who actually voted for Trump — and possibly Trump himself — are not nearly are pro-war as Boot would like. The answer? Pander to the left. 

Johnstone writes

This spectacularly evil man [i.e., Boot], who wrote an essay titled “The Case for American Empire” just weeks after 9/11 in which he called in plain English for America to “unambiguously to embrace its imperial role,” is now seeing his latest essay shared eagerly by Democrats everywhere enthusiastically exclaiming “Look! See? This conservative gets it!”

I’m seeing some progressives arguing that Boot’s sudden public recognition of his white male privilege is intrinsically worthy of praise and acceptance, and that the proper response is to applaud him for it, not spit in his face. These people are wrong. Max Boot did not have some personal epiphany about race and gender dynamics which he felt like sharing in Foreign Policy magazine (the obvious place everyone goes for publication of their enlightening insights into privilege and inequality); Max Boot is courting Democrats because his war-hungry ideology is being increasingly rejected by Republicans.

If you want to see why neocons are courting Democrats with increasing desperation, check out the response to Boot’s latest essay by Fox’s Tucker Carlson, who has come to align with the popular anti-interventionist sentiments of Trump’s base, or Carlson’s debate with Boot on his show back in July...


Meanwhile what have Democrats been doing? Supporting escalations with Russia based on accusations with no evidence that are reported as fact by the mainstream media in the exact sort of manic, violent, fact-free climate we saw in the lead up to the Iraq invasion (an invasion that Max Boot says nobody needs to repent for). Resistance hero Keith Olbermann says he owes George W Bush and John McCain an apology for the times he disagreed with them, and MSNBC’s Joy Reid openly admitted that she prefers people like Boot as allies instead of actual leftists and progressives...

Reid’s comments are typical of the way the cult of anti-Trumpism has mainstream Democrats swooning over Bush-era neocons like they’re the Kennedys reincarnated instead of a bunch of child-butchering war profiteers. Just check out the top comments under this “Gosh I’m so woke all of a sudden!” tweet by neocon psychopath Bill Kristol:


In reality, nothing Trump has done in his administration so far is anywhere remotely close to as evil as the invasion of Iraq. The fact that hatred of the sitting president has Democrats so desperate they’re not only forgiving the crimes of vestigial Bush neocons but also helping them in their agenda to sabotage any movements toward detente with Russia shows just how brutally efficient the psychological manipulations of the establishment propaganda machine have become.

If Johnstone is right, this is actually good news. Yes, it's true that leftists have a habit of overstating things the right wing does. The left is often claiming that conservatives are about to slash tax rates to near-zero levels, or "de-regulate" the economy, or mandate prayer in schools, and so on. None of these things ever come even close to happening, of course. So, this may be yet another case of a leftist misreading the magnitude of a movement on the right. 

On the other hand, Johnstone is right that its the Hillary Clinton wing of the DC establishment that seems most bent on world war with the Russians who have about 7,000 nuclear warheads. It's the left which has launched the new McCarthyism in which anyone who disagrees with the media narrative on Russia is "Putin's agent." Foreign policy hysteria, is at least as much a thing of the left right now, as of the right. 

So, maybe Johnstone is onto something. She does miss that domestic policy has always taken a backseat to aggressive foreign policy for people like Kristol and Boot. She misses that neo-conservatives have long actually leaned left in their views on social policy. So, the sudden embrace of the "white privilege" narrative by Boot isn't as hard to believe as Johnstone might think. It is hard, however, to read the comments of Boot and Kristol as anything other than pandering in an era when Kristol, et al, fear that maybe, just maybe, Trump won't give them all the wars they want. Trump is obviously good for lots of "tough talk," but then again that was also true for Ronald Reagan who never perpetrated anything like the bloodbaths caused by his successors Bush I and Bush II. Maybe that's what Boot is most afraid of. 

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here.

The Travesty of Political Psychiatry

12/22/2017Yuri N. Maltsev

Psychiatry possesses a built-in capacity for abuse that is much greater than in any other area of medicine. Politicians realized that and abused psychiatry for blaming their opponents as mentally sick, retarded and dangerous. It was happening all around the world but was mostly prominent under authoritarian and totalitarian socialist regimes. Now it became a part of the arsenal of the political Left here which is completely crazed about the counterrevolutionary results of the last presidential elections.

Following the tradition of Hitler, Stalin, Khrushchev, Mao and Brezhnev “27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts” including Noam Chomsky and Gail Sheehy, who are as much of being psychiatrists as I am an Emperor of China, published a political pamphlet “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President (by Bandy X. Lee, Robert Jay Lifton, Gail Sheehy, William J. Doherty, Noam Chomsky, et al).

It is the exactly same type of abuse of psychiatry as was condemned by the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA). The Section 7, of APA’s Principles of Medical Ethics says:

On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement”. Known as the “Goldwater principle” it is fully shared by the American Psychological Association.

In gross violation of APA’s Principles of Medical Ethics Anti-Trump political activists masquerading as “scientists” can just “diagnose” someone based on prepared speeches, tweets and TV appearances. Fanatics of the Left see no end in their crusade to trash, defame and remove President Trump from office. Bandy Lee apparently can evaluate someone she’s never met and conclude that Trump is mentally unstable, with the potential of turning violent, even though he’s never demonstrated any of such symptoms.

Diagnosis “in Absentia”

During the Nazi era and the Soviet rule political enemies were labeled as “mentally ill” and subjected to inhumane “treatments”. In the period from the 1960s up to 1986, abuse of psychiatry for political purposes was reported to be systematic in the Soviet Union, and even internationally renown Nobel laureates like Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov were all declared paranoiacs and schizophrenics. The fame of the chief KGB psychiatrist Andrei Snezhnevsky who gave the diagnosis of sluggish schizophrenia to numerous “enemies of the people” in absentia including Nobel laureates Andrei Sakharov, Joseph Brodsky and concluded that they were worthless. The prevalence of Snezhnevsky’s theories directly led to a broadening of the boundaries of disease such that even the mildest behavioral change could be interpreted as indication of mental disorder1. His numerous followers in the West definitely include Bandy X. Lee, Robert Jay Lifton, Gail Sheehy, William J. Doherty, Noam Chomsky and other 22 American “psychiatrists” who never met or examined Trump but “diagnosed” his disdain of socialism as a mental disease.

The practice of incarceration and torture of political adversaries in psychiatric hospitals in Eastern Europe, PRC, and the USSR damaged the credibility of psychiatry as a science in these states and internationally. I was blessed to know a great psychiatrist Tom Szasz who led a movement against psychiatry as it was and still used by Bandy Lee and her ilk as another form of coercion and violence against us. I recommend his “Idleness and Lawlessness in the Therapeutic State”to everyone to read as it is a classic of our time. Political abuse of psychiatry taking place in the US today should be condemned; otherwise all of us can discover ourselves restrained in psychiatric wards.2

Republished from

  • 1. Bloch, Sidney; Reddaway, Peter (1985). Soviet psychiatric abuse: The shadow over world psychiatryWestview PressISBN 0-8133-0209-9.
  • 2.
When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here.

New Audiobook!

12/20/2017Mises Institute

To understand the modern state, you must understand the Progressive Era. Thanks to the generosity of Mr. Tyler Folger, Murray Rothbard's definitive book on the Progressives is now available as a free audiobook.

The audio files are currently available on Soundcloud and

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here.

Three Cheers for the GOP Tax Plan

12/20/2017Tho Bishop

Last night the Senate passed the Republican proposed tax plan, a major political victory for Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress. 

At the Mises Wire, we have featured numerous articles pointing out many of the fallacies involved with the general debate on the issue of "tax reform." For example, the absurdity of "revenue neutral" reform, the danger of raising rates through eliminating loop hopes, the fallacy of trying to address the deficit through eliminating deductions on state and local taxes, and the general notion that tax breaks can be equated to tax subsidies. While the Republican bill does fall for some of these traps, the result of the bill as a whole is a genuine reduction in the tax burden for the majority of Americans. That is always something worth celebrating.

There are additional benefits to be found within the bill as well.

For example, the elimination of the Obamacare individual mandate is a small, but significant, step to improving the American healthcare system. As I noted in March, when Paul Ryan's attempt at Obamacare reform failed, the rise of direct primary care and other market solutions meant that the best thing the GOP could do is simply provide as much freedom as possible for Americans to opt out of government-managed insurance markets:

Given that this is happening naturally on the market already, the legislative focus for those in Washington concerned about American healthcare should be preventing any future laws and regulations that would destroy this model going forward. Further, rather than trying to completely overhaul Obamacare, simply eliminating the individual mandate tax and allowing Health Savings Accounts to be used for healthcare membership would be subtle ways of empowering the market to revolutionize American medicine. This should be coupled with real tax cuts, not “revenue neutral reform” to help Americans keep their own hard-earned money to help pay for it.

The tax bill is also a significant step forward for American's looking to opt out of government education. A provision, spearheaded by Senator Ted Cruz, expanded 529 education savings accounts so they could be used for K-12 schooling, and not just college tuition. While we have frequently seen Republican education reform packages expand the role of tax-funded charter schools, this measure is the rare victory for true private schools - such as Bob Luddy's Thales Academy - that are able to educate without the strings of the state attached. 

Now of course, for all the good the bill does do, there is one thing that it doesn't do: cut spending.

As we've noted over, and over, and over again, we will never see the true benefits of reducing government revenue if we don't couple it with a reduction in what the government consumes. A growing national deficit will have to be paid one day, one way or another. As American history is filled with reminders on the difficulty politicians face in raising taxes, this means we are likely to see the difference made up either by inflation or another form of default. (This likely outcome is why I plan to invest a portion of my tax savings in alternatives to Federal Reserve Notes.)

There are also a number of giveaways that were rewarded in order make sure the everyone fell in line for the vote. Given the track record of Republican moderates like Susan Collins, just about anything she gained from the deal is a loss for the rest of us. Further, tis the season for a number of terrible bills to be passed through DC in the coming week and a half as Washington continues its century-old tradition of eroding your freedom under the cloak of the holiday season. In the words of Kurt Vonnegut, so it goes. 

So while this tax plan isn't a silver bullet for all that ails the US economy - and is certainly no sign that the swamp is truly being drained - anything that allows Americans to keep more of their pay check, enables more choice in healthcare, and boosts private competition to government schools is a victory worth celebrating. 

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here.

Stringham: Don't Bet on a Strong Dollar

Dr. Edward Stringham was quoted today in US News in an article on investing in a strong dollar next year.

His advice? Friends don't let friends bet on a strong dollar.

[B]etting on the dollar can be risky, as it tends to lose value over the long term rather than gain, says Edward P. Stringham, president of the American Institute for Economic Research.

"While it remains to be seen what will happen to the specific value of the dollar over the next year, the [U.S. Federal Reserve] has a fairly established record of increasing the money supply and decreasing the value of the dollar over the long run," Stringham says. "A dollar was defined as 1/20th of an ounce of gold up until 1934 and now a dollar buys 1/1,200th of an ounce. People with assets or pensions tied up in dollars see their savings or retirement whittled away."

The gradual fall of the dollar means it's hazardous to keep too much in assets like bank savings for the long term. 

Read the full article here.

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here.

Shield icon power-market-v2