Description

Negative real interest rates have become the new normal, a sign of how far the Federal Reserve has strayed from any rational policy, not to mention the inflation of another financial bubble. US President Donald Trump, to his credit, has expressed his concern over the “false economy,” and he even considered gold-bug John Allison, former CEO of BB&T and former president of the Cato Institute, for a position with the Fed.

Another cause for optimism has been his recruitment of Judy Shelton of the Atlas Network as an economic adviser. Shelton, a longtime monetary economist and sound-money advocate, gave a presentation and participated in a panel at the recent New Orleans Investment Conference, where we sat down to review how Trump could actually nudge the United States toward her constitutional legacy of sound money.

In terms of the candidate for chairman, Shelton foresees only three options: (1) continuation with Janet Yellen, (2) rearrangement with Jerome Powell (already on the board), or (3) limited change with John Taylor of Stanford University.

See More See Less

Subscribe

Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

Brien Lundin is president and CEO of Jefferson Financial, which publishes Gold Newsletter and hosts the New Orleans Investment Conference. He has four decades of experience in investment markets.
Fergus Hodgson is the chief executive of Antigua International, a consulting firm that connects the Americas, and he is the roving editor of Gold Newsletter. Originally from New Zealand, he has been a nomad for the past eight years, and his personal blog is the Stateless Man.

discussions

  • It appears to me that one of the biggest drawbacks to the current model of cryptocurrencies is the lack of reversibility in transactions. Historically, third parties such as banks have enabled transactions to be reversed, such as refunds or guaranteeing purchases. I think that if cryptocurrencies want to avoid third parties as much as possible, they should adopt a method for reversing transactions for the purpose of dispute resolution. Thoughts?

    Jump to Discussion Post 2 replies
  • Hello, I’ve become quite keen on Jeffrey Rogers Hummel views on inflation. https://fee.org/articles/governments-diminishing-benefits-from-inflation/ That governments don’t get as much cash money as they used to from Seigniorage(money printing)…becuase of some details of the modern banking system. Hummels view is that the US Gov is more likely to actually default on it’s bonds than print it’s way out of it’s financial problems as so many of us libertairans often predict. Any way…. how are people actually calculating the revenue states are getting from seigniorage? There is constant mention to specific statistics in his works on what revenue governments make from printing money…but how are economists attempting to calculate this so exactly? “Almost none of the developed countries could boast seigniorage amounting to more than 1 percent of GDP, despite the fact that the study incorporated the inflationary years of the 1970s. Joseph H. Haslag’s smaller sample of 67 countries over a longer period, 1965 to 1994, finds that seigniorage averaged about 2 percent of total output for the entire sample, ranging from as low as 0.25 percent to as high as 9.98 percent (for Ghana).” However, I’m not smart enough to figure out how this is being calculated? When I Google — I see Seignoarge defined as the cost to money vs what the money is worth. (if it costs 1cent to print a dollar bill than Seigorage is 99cents). Pennies have negative seigniorage — cost the Gov more to mint than 1 cent.) But for the point Hummel is making it seems like a more sophisticated calculation? How did people figure out that for example in WW2 seignorage was 6%? Perhaps this is rather obvious? Thanks! –Luke

    Jump to Discussion Post 2 replies
  • Hi everyone, We could all use a good laugh these days, so just thought I’d pass along one of our new animated videos. For Liberty, The Wry Guys

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • When J. K. Rowling mentioned a petition to ban Donald Trump from the UK, the audience at the PEN Literary Gala applauded. But unlike much of the left, she knows that taking away freedom of speech threatens everyone, including her, and she rebuked the people who clapped. “Just a moment: Now, I find almost everything that Mr. Trump says objectionable. I consider him offensive and bigoted. But he has my full support to come to my country and be offensive and bigoted there. His freedom to speak protects my freedom to call him a bigot.” The people who applauded were doubtless the same ones who objected to PEN’s free speech award to Charlie Hebdo. While they’re not likely to be convinced by any argument, she may have gotten others to think about the danger in today’s spreading hostility to free speech. That’s what counts.

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • It took me a while to understand that Trumpism isn’t really about the issues. Not even the issues of anti-immigration and protectionism. It’s about the Chosen One, the Great Leader, the Messiah. When people think things have gone badly wrong, they often turn to someone who will set them right by taking command. The outrageous things he does have only increased his popularity. He boasts, “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.” When this mentality takes hold, there is no right or wrong for the Leader. When he does outrageous things, that merely proves nothing will stand in the way of his will. Caesar, Napoleon, Lenin, Hitler, Castro, Khomeini: They’ve all known the trick of harnessing the tribalist mindset. The specifics they offered didn’t matter so much as the promise that nothing would stand in their way. They can’t do anything horrible enough to turn people against them, except for failing. Telling Trumpists that he’ll do horrible things or that his policies will hurt everyone is beside the point. They expect him to “make America great again” by sheer force of authority.

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply