It is mathematically and physically impossible for asset values to become too far removed from the underlying economy for too long. Instead, they cycle up and down, anchored to the real economy.
I think it depends on how we define inflation. According to the mainstream definition, the last 40 years were characterised by declining CPI inflation (disinflation). But under the Austrian definition—where inflation is the expansion of the money supply—we experienced persistent inflation throughout the entire period.
Broad money supply grew at roughly 6.2% per year, while CPI increased by only about 3.2% annually. In my view, we were fortunate that consumer prices rose only about half as fast as the money supply.
Part of this gap may reflect changes in the way CPI is calculated, which some critics argue have understated inflation. However, I think other factors were at play: rapid technological progress, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the integration of Eastern Europe into the global economy, China's accession to the WTO, and the expansion of global supply chains. These developments dramatically increased productive capacity and exerted persistent downward pressure on goods prices.
In addition, the velocity of money declined significantly, particularly after the 2008 financial crisis, which further limited the impact of money creation on consumer prices.
As a result, much of the monetary expansion was reflected not in CPI, but in asset prices—stocks, bonds, and real estate. In that sense, Bonner's conclusion may actually reinforce the Austrian view: the inflation was there all along, but it manifested primarily in financial assets rather than in the consumer price index.
For another measurement of inflation, check Shadowstats. John Williams measures CPI the old fashioned way, the way it used to be calculated before it was changed to lower the reported rate. Inflation is running much higher than what is officially acknowledged.
Thank you for mentioning ShadowStats. I deliberately didn't go into the CPI methodology debate because I didn't want my argument to depend on it.
Even if we accept the official CPI, I think the much bigger story was the extraordinary disinflationary impact of technology, the opening of Eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet bloc, and China's entry into the WTO. Those one-off forces helped absorb decades of rapid monetary expansion, but they are unlikely to be repeated.
As for inflation measures, I also think it's worth remembering that whenever a statistic becomes an important policy target, there is a natural incentive to refine its methodology in ways that present a more favourable picture. And while core CPI is useful for economists, most households cannot exclude food and energy from their monthly budgets.
I agree, especially with your point on natural incentives when social welfare benefit increases are tied to the CPI... and for those of us who live in the real world food and energy must be obtained whatever the cost.
It would be interesting to know what the effects of the global events would have been under a sound monetary system, but for now it seems unlikely we will be able to continue to export our inflation. Perhaps Stablecoins will save the day with UST and we can re-shore manufacturing, but the current fiscal insanity doesn't lend much confidence that things are going to end well for the dollar on our present course.
That's an interesting question. I guess that most of those imbalances wouldn't have developed under a classical gold standard. It had a built-in self-correcting mechanism that made persistent budget deficits, excessive credit expansion, and large trade imbalances much harder to sustain.
True. BUT the expansion of global supply chain, to wit GLOBALISM, came at the EXPENSE of American JOBS, COMPANIES AND WHOLE INDUSTRIES and ushered in the MBAs and Accountants and FINANCIAL GERRYMANDERING And changing the MORTGAGE FINANCING RULES AND LETTING COMMERCIAL BANKS AND THEN ANYONE ORIGINATE MORTGAGE LOANS and bundle them and sell them to investors and MANY WERE SAUDIS who told Paulson quietly, PAY US BACK BECAUSE YOUR RATINGS WERE FALSE AND THE MORTGAGES WERE JUNK, and HE DID. BIGGEST BAIL OUT ON RECORD, BIGGER THAN LEHMAN AND THE REST. WE BECAME A NATION OF FINANCIERS.....WALLSTREET SCUM. DESTROYING MIDDLE CLASS AND CHINA ROSE UP and because of THEIR SYSTEM ALSO FINANCED THEIR HUGE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX AND NOW THEY THREATEN THE ENTIRE WORLD.
Now will GDP grow faster than inflation? Bessent thinks so. I am dubious. AI is a false prophet. Except maybe in medicine.
I don't disagree with the problems you describe. My only point is that I see them as consequences rather than root causes.
Once President Nixon closed the gold window in 1971, the principal constraint on money creation and credit expansion disappeared. That made it possible to finance persistent deficits, sustain ever-rising debt, inflate asset prices, and encourage financialization.
To me, 1971 was the pivotal moment. Once the monetary anchor was removed, many of the problems you mention became possible—and perhaps inevitable.
Wouldn't that make the abandonment of sound money the more fundamental turning point?
Well you are new here I believe and late to the show, sorry. But we have ALL said that for a long long time. Yes, Nixon got BAD advice from Burns and took it. Nixon inherited Vietnam War and the debt then. And inflation was a problem and then the Saudis cut us off from oil because of Israel support and on and on. Nixon wanted to fix it, Burns said to pay our debts and Vietnam tab just loosen the belt and get rid of gold which is "OUTDATED and USELESS". WRONG MR BURNS. And so here we are. And yes, CONGRESS uses that as a BLANK CHECK and TREASURY GOES ALONG TO GET ALONG AND ISSUES BONDS and then the FED buys those bonds and also creates money with OTHER tools. I have LONG said returning to GOLD STANDARD STOPS THAT COLD. Trump has murmered about it for a while...he loves GOLD. BUT detractors at the FED and in Congress and WALLSTREET(the real culprits if you ask me) all tell him DONT DO THAT. So we are stuck in the mud.
haha...good one. Well I was born so long ago I forget! In my 70s now. A veteran. And a proud American by CHOICE as I am naturalized. Retired professional. Conservative. But also a Warrior both for Christ and for my country. Freedom is not free. Have a good day.
Both You and Attila have shown how We all have got here. Now My solution is to leave the government out of the economy. Return to true capitalism. What say You two?
Once again Bill starts out with Trump bashing and uses NPR for a source? Bwaaaaaaahaaa. Spit out my coffee on that canard. TRUMP is NOT going to meddle with election results. He is saying the CHINESE AND RUSSIANS did.....NOT ON HIS BEHALF BUT BIDEN AND LIKELY HILLARY AND OBAMA AND BILL CLINTON BEFORE HIM. FOR DECADES. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
We are VULNERABLE. TRUMP IS SPOT ON. And with technology its vexing...we should have MOST secure voting in world. BUT the SCUMOCRATS AND NPR AND CNN WONT LET US USE SIMPLE VOTER ID AND DEMAND PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP because as Trump correctly states THEY WANT TO CHEAT. AND DID.
However on the TRENDS and DOW GOLD RATIO, as Bill points out and the chart CONFIRMS.....we sit patiently and sometimes its very hard as highfliers go higher and higher....but discipline requires it...and wait to pounce. Bill ALSO correct we are not certain HOW we reach that ratio...printing money into sheer madness or lower stock prices or both....my view is both. What triggers selloff? Let me count the ways. Its already started. AI might be a big FAIL. Rumors of it now. THe MARKETS LOVE TRUMP. And so anything in November hinting at getting rid of him will cause a selloff HUGE. BEWARE WHAT YOU WISH FOR PEOPLE.
Will TRUMP use EMERGENCY POWERS? DOUBTFUL. BUT CORRECT TO STATE HE WILL NOT LET CHINA RUSSIA NORTH KOREA OR THE COMMUNIST ANTISEMITE ISLAMIST HOARDS growing alarmingly large in America as we speak, HOODWINK US AGAIN. MAIL IN VOTING SHOULD BE OUTLAWED. PERIOD. PHOTO ID REQUIRED. PERIOD. AND PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP FOR FOREIGN BORN PEOPLE AND ALL NEW REGISTERED VOTERS. NO MORE MAILING BALLOTS TO EVERYONE (I GOT THREE LAST TIME!). I moved recently. I got a notice of the NEW registration, when I got my new drivers license, a picture ID and PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP WITH PASSPORT and then my old jurisdiction also sent me a form to complete, "IS THIS YOU? DID YOU DO THIS? HAVE YOU MOVED? WE WILL REMOVE YOU IF CONFIRMED AND YOU MUST SIGN THIS AND ITS felony to LIE ON VOTER REGISTRATION and DEREGISTRATION."
THE SCUMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO GET RID OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE TOO. BAD BAD BAD IDEA. DEMOCRACY ON THE BRINK AND TRUMP WAS SPOT ON TO WARN US.
SELF SERVING? MAYBE BUT MOSTLY FOR OUR BELOVED NATION.
I would also have federal law: NO DUO CITIZENS. PICK ONE. CHOOSE WISELY. AND NO EXPATS. YOU LEAVE? FINE. TURN IN PASSPORTS AND YOU ARE DONE AND BLOCKED FROM RETURNING. VACATION HOME Exception. NOT A HOME YOU RESIDE IN (OR FOUR LIKE BONNER AND BERNIE) AND PRETEND TO BE AMERICAN.
Here's a simple question: If China is meddling in our elections why did Trump allow Elon Musk to have access to all our federal data? Musk has billions in Chinese investments and tight connections with the Chinese leadership. Plus, he's a known drug user and is of dubious moral character with multiple baby mommas. What would prevent Elon from selling or gifting our data to China for economic reasons?
As Dolly Parton Sang: "Here we go again!" Thanks again for another wasted read. Wake up, eat some cheese and have a glass of wine, then tell us something new. In the real world, somethings become irrelevant over time.
Has Donald Trump's "popularity" ever been above low-40s%? If so, I missed it. It can be argued he's never been "popular". So what? He managed to get elected twice, and some might say, thrice. He's obviously been considered a better alternative, at least 2 out of 3 times and maybe even 3 out of 3 times. The days of 50+% approval are long over. Such is the nature of our situation going forward. Our real problem is loss of consensus, not popularity. Best always. PM
I learned very quickly in the corporate world that you can take the numbers from a study and spin them to whatever narrative you wanted to present. As a twist on Ronald Reagan, Trust No One but Verify.
Bill's remarks about voting booth integrity makes me want to make the process more open and friendly but with a catch. The openness will please the liberals and the "catch" will please the conservatives
Step one is to attract to the polling booth as many people as possible by making the event festive; open to all ages including foreign visitors and children. Provide prizes; have music; allow speechifying by candidates, etc.
Step two: the catch: To make a vote count, voters have have to provide proof they paid tax to the IRS.
The verification will be presented to a vote registrar sitting at a table festooned with a banner declaring No Representation Without Taxation banner.
More: I'm still toying too with whether to give more votes for more tax remittance. For example, should a person who remits one billion dollars to the IRS get a few more votes than a person who remits, say, just $1K?
The guys that might pay billions in taxes do not need more votes. All they have to do is buy a few politicians with their contributions. Someone once said: If voting changed anything, they'd abolish it.
Ah, but you opened a new can of worms when you mention contributions.
I will never forget the first time I handed a couple of thousand cash to a Member of Congress (in the foyer of his office no less).
It went from my hand to his and then adroitly into his vest pocket. Fast, smooth. I was impressed with the speed by which it disappeared. Doubtless it was never reported.
Back to the can of worms: We badly need to cap contributions and to identify those who make them.
Maybe one of the reforms is to make vote-buying legitimate by, for example, allowing the IRS to sell them for, say, 10 million each
How about ending all political "bribes" or as we euphemistically call them contributions? Maybe some type of system in which if you gather a certain number of signatures you receive credits to be used for your campaign.
I agree voting is important. I was merely suggesting how to attract more people to do so.
But to emphasize that citizenship also requires us to help pay for the benefits we receive, our vote won’t count unless we can provide documentation we remitted to the IRS a tax payment
Your "catch" makes far too much sense. I've read that when the country was founded being allowed to vote required owning land (I'm not sure how true that is). Your tax payment requirement has a similar "you have to have skin in the game" element to it.
Mr. Davis -- You've crafted a masterful explanation about the history and inequities of our tax system.
My notion is to simplify it. I genuinely mean there should be no representation without taxation.
Doing to would make clear that our country reveres wealth-making, tax-paying job creators; not healthy wealth-takers who hide in university PhD programs and live off the munificence of others.
What about wealth-making tax-paying job creators who achieved a grand portion of their wealth thanks to government contracts and subsidies? Also, those who made their fortunes thanks to cheap Fed money? A good example is during the Scamdemic the big boys like Walmart, McDonald's, Amazon etc were able to stay open while they shut down Main Street.
Ah there you go. Many a tyrant has failed trying figure out how to control the actions of the many whose self interests they can't predict or possibly understand.
Agreed as to representation. That article is flawed in that the elites own most of the land. Over time we would have fewer & fewer voters. Also, I would rather see the IRS replaced by sales tax so that even the criminals pay tax, but that is also flawed and incomplete. Or maybe, everybody pays the IRS a flat 5% and only one form to file. Corporations 0% since it is just part of the overhead and passed to consumers. Thanks.
I like the notion of everybody pays tax to the IRS, even if it's a token sum.
As I recall -- admittedly by a small percentage -- most pay nothing.
The welfare payments, now known as Earned Income Tax Payment, to people of modest means who submit tax returns could still occur but be re-titled and require a modest remittance to assert citizenship
Bill, in theory I like the idea of using the DOW/Gold ratio, but I certainly would not move everything from gold into stocks when that ratio touches 5. In 1980 it went down to 1.3, which would have represented a loss of over 75% after you made the switch, before stocks headed up again. Since it is unlikely that the D/G ratio will just barely touch 5 before heading north, I would prefer to see where it appears to bottom before beginning to make the move. And of course, I would not do it all at once. I don't mind at all missing the first 10-20% off of the bottom in order to have greater confidence that it really WAS the bottom. A 75% or greater drawdown after making the switch would be very painful, and would likely take years to recover (we're talking a 300% gain to get back to even).
Bill and Dyson and Rule and Rickards and Casey ALL agree....that the BOTTOM may be lower than 5. They have other indicia to determine the bottom...but defining the exact bottom a fools errand. I just know I trust Dyson...smart as a whip. Wicked smart. And he has SKIN IN THE GAME as HIS FAMILY DEPENDS ON HIS INVESTMENTS AND TRADES TO LIVE....he trades for himself. ALL OF IT. So he needs to win. And does. Trust Dyson.
Ian, don't kick us older people. Most, probably all of us, in the BPR camp paid taxes all our lives and continue to as we make withdrawals from out IRA's. Our taxes kept this country going.
There has always been election fraud: Johnson in Texas, Kennedy in Chicago. Today it is more advanced, computerized, no checks, no hanging Chad’s, no definitive Supreme Court ruling.
2020 was stolen, mail in ballots from hell. The Legacy Press, vehemently, disagrees.
There is no paper trail; one keystroke does the trick.
Why Trump would bloviate about elections when we are being destroyed by the Iraq and Ukraine War, is beyond my comprehension.
They codified voter fraud. It's now baked into the system. We have elections decided by the number of ballots and not by the number of legal votes cast.
One of the interesting things about a physical bubble is this. A small pinprick may start it deflating. But if you then pump in more air, the pinprick turns into a tear. And suddenly, the bubble’s no longer there.
It’s too bad that someone has not communicated to Bill that his continued propensity to reference CCN as a news source to be valued by his readers is probably lost on most of his readers. At least half of Bill’s missives are without merit as CNN is routinely referenced as a source to be trusted/valued which makes his readers wonder about many of Bill’s assertions. Very strange.
Looking at the Dow/Gold chart, it looks like when the Dow first dipped below 5 in 1972 roughly, if you had sold Gold and bought the Dow, you would have been under water until 1988. Just an observation, I still like the concept. Maybe Dow still climbed but Gold sank further for awhile.
Well guys, I came in very late today and so I read all inputs to the bottom of the page first. Seems like the crew was set for a debate today. I'll stick with the solid assets thank you. History is on my side.
I think it depends on how we define inflation. According to the mainstream definition, the last 40 years were characterised by declining CPI inflation (disinflation). But under the Austrian definition—where inflation is the expansion of the money supply—we experienced persistent inflation throughout the entire period.
Broad money supply grew at roughly 6.2% per year, while CPI increased by only about 3.2% annually. In my view, we were fortunate that consumer prices rose only about half as fast as the money supply.
Part of this gap may reflect changes in the way CPI is calculated, which some critics argue have understated inflation. However, I think other factors were at play: rapid technological progress, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the integration of Eastern Europe into the global economy, China's accession to the WTO, and the expansion of global supply chains. These developments dramatically increased productive capacity and exerted persistent downward pressure on goods prices.
In addition, the velocity of money declined significantly, particularly after the 2008 financial crisis, which further limited the impact of money creation on consumer prices.
As a result, much of the monetary expansion was reflected not in CPI, but in asset prices—stocks, bonds, and real estate. In that sense, Bonner's conclusion may actually reinforce the Austrian view: the inflation was there all along, but it manifested primarily in financial assets rather than in the consumer price index.
For another measurement of inflation, check Shadowstats. John Williams measures CPI the old fashioned way, the way it used to be calculated before it was changed to lower the reported rate. Inflation is running much higher than what is officially acknowledged.
Thank you for mentioning ShadowStats. I deliberately didn't go into the CPI methodology debate because I didn't want my argument to depend on it.
Even if we accept the official CPI, I think the much bigger story was the extraordinary disinflationary impact of technology, the opening of Eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet bloc, and China's entry into the WTO. Those one-off forces helped absorb decades of rapid monetary expansion, but they are unlikely to be repeated.
As for inflation measures, I also think it's worth remembering that whenever a statistic becomes an important policy target, there is a natural incentive to refine its methodology in ways that present a more favourable picture. And while core CPI is useful for economists, most households cannot exclude food and energy from their monthly budgets.
I agree, especially with your point on natural incentives when social welfare benefit increases are tied to the CPI... and for those of us who live in the real world food and energy must be obtained whatever the cost.
It would be interesting to know what the effects of the global events would have been under a sound monetary system, but for now it seems unlikely we will be able to continue to export our inflation. Perhaps Stablecoins will save the day with UST and we can re-shore manufacturing, but the current fiscal insanity doesn't lend much confidence that things are going to end well for the dollar on our present course.
That's an interesting question. I guess that most of those imbalances wouldn't have developed under a classical gold standard. It had a built-in self-correcting mechanism that made persistent budget deficits, excessive credit expansion, and large trade imbalances much harder to sustain.
True. BUT the expansion of global supply chain, to wit GLOBALISM, came at the EXPENSE of American JOBS, COMPANIES AND WHOLE INDUSTRIES and ushered in the MBAs and Accountants and FINANCIAL GERRYMANDERING And changing the MORTGAGE FINANCING RULES AND LETTING COMMERCIAL BANKS AND THEN ANYONE ORIGINATE MORTGAGE LOANS and bundle them and sell them to investors and MANY WERE SAUDIS who told Paulson quietly, PAY US BACK BECAUSE YOUR RATINGS WERE FALSE AND THE MORTGAGES WERE JUNK, and HE DID. BIGGEST BAIL OUT ON RECORD, BIGGER THAN LEHMAN AND THE REST. WE BECAME A NATION OF FINANCIERS.....WALLSTREET SCUM. DESTROYING MIDDLE CLASS AND CHINA ROSE UP and because of THEIR SYSTEM ALSO FINANCED THEIR HUGE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX AND NOW THEY THREATEN THE ENTIRE WORLD.
Now will GDP grow faster than inflation? Bessent thinks so. I am dubious. AI is a false prophet. Except maybe in medicine.
Sir,
I don't disagree with the problems you describe. My only point is that I see them as consequences rather than root causes.
Once President Nixon closed the gold window in 1971, the principal constraint on money creation and credit expansion disappeared. That made it possible to finance persistent deficits, sustain ever-rising debt, inflate asset prices, and encourage financialization.
To me, 1971 was the pivotal moment. Once the monetary anchor was removed, many of the problems you mention became possible—and perhaps inevitable.
Wouldn't that make the abandonment of sound money the more fundamental turning point?
Well you are new here I believe and late to the show, sorry. But we have ALL said that for a long long time. Yes, Nixon got BAD advice from Burns and took it. Nixon inherited Vietnam War and the debt then. And inflation was a problem and then the Saudis cut us off from oil because of Israel support and on and on. Nixon wanted to fix it, Burns said to pay our debts and Vietnam tab just loosen the belt and get rid of gold which is "OUTDATED and USELESS". WRONG MR BURNS. And so here we are. And yes, CONGRESS uses that as a BLANK CHECK and TREASURY GOES ALONG TO GET ALONG AND ISSUES BONDS and then the FED buys those bonds and also creates money with OTHER tools. I have LONG said returning to GOLD STANDARD STOPS THAT COLD. Trump has murmered about it for a while...he loves GOLD. BUT detractors at the FED and in Congress and WALLSTREET(the real culprits if you ask me) all tell him DONT DO THAT. So we are stuck in the mud.
I was also born after Nixon closed the gold window, so I'm late to the show. 😊
haha...good one. Well I was born so long ago I forget! In my 70s now. A veteran. And a proud American by CHOICE as I am naturalized. Retired professional. Conservative. But also a Warrior both for Christ and for my country. Freedom is not free. Have a good day.
Both You and Attila have shown how We all have got here. Now My solution is to leave the government out of the economy. Return to true capitalism. What say You two?
Once again Bill starts out with Trump bashing and uses NPR for a source? Bwaaaaaaahaaa. Spit out my coffee on that canard. TRUMP is NOT going to meddle with election results. He is saying the CHINESE AND RUSSIANS did.....NOT ON HIS BEHALF BUT BIDEN AND LIKELY HILLARY AND OBAMA AND BILL CLINTON BEFORE HIM. FOR DECADES. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
We are VULNERABLE. TRUMP IS SPOT ON. And with technology its vexing...we should have MOST secure voting in world. BUT the SCUMOCRATS AND NPR AND CNN WONT LET US USE SIMPLE VOTER ID AND DEMAND PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP because as Trump correctly states THEY WANT TO CHEAT. AND DID.
However on the TRENDS and DOW GOLD RATIO, as Bill points out and the chart CONFIRMS.....we sit patiently and sometimes its very hard as highfliers go higher and higher....but discipline requires it...and wait to pounce. Bill ALSO correct we are not certain HOW we reach that ratio...printing money into sheer madness or lower stock prices or both....my view is both. What triggers selloff? Let me count the ways. Its already started. AI might be a big FAIL. Rumors of it now. THe MARKETS LOVE TRUMP. And so anything in November hinting at getting rid of him will cause a selloff HUGE. BEWARE WHAT YOU WISH FOR PEOPLE.
Will TRUMP use EMERGENCY POWERS? DOUBTFUL. BUT CORRECT TO STATE HE WILL NOT LET CHINA RUSSIA NORTH KOREA OR THE COMMUNIST ANTISEMITE ISLAMIST HOARDS growing alarmingly large in America as we speak, HOODWINK US AGAIN. MAIL IN VOTING SHOULD BE OUTLAWED. PERIOD. PHOTO ID REQUIRED. PERIOD. AND PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP FOR FOREIGN BORN PEOPLE AND ALL NEW REGISTERED VOTERS. NO MORE MAILING BALLOTS TO EVERYONE (I GOT THREE LAST TIME!). I moved recently. I got a notice of the NEW registration, when I got my new drivers license, a picture ID and PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP WITH PASSPORT and then my old jurisdiction also sent me a form to complete, "IS THIS YOU? DID YOU DO THIS? HAVE YOU MOVED? WE WILL REMOVE YOU IF CONFIRMED AND YOU MUST SIGN THIS AND ITS felony to LIE ON VOTER REGISTRATION and DEREGISTRATION."
THE SCUMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO GET RID OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE TOO. BAD BAD BAD IDEA. DEMOCRACY ON THE BRINK AND TRUMP WAS SPOT ON TO WARN US.
SELF SERVING? MAYBE BUT MOSTLY FOR OUR BELOVED NATION.
I would also have federal law: NO DUO CITIZENS. PICK ONE. CHOOSE WISELY. AND NO EXPATS. YOU LEAVE? FINE. TURN IN PASSPORTS AND YOU ARE DONE AND BLOCKED FROM RETURNING. VACATION HOME Exception. NOT A HOME YOU RESIDE IN (OR FOUR LIKE BONNER AND BERNIE) AND PRETEND TO BE AMERICAN.
Oh Patrick,,,,,,you may have touched on a nerve!
Jim Marshall
Here's a simple question: If China is meddling in our elections why did Trump allow Elon Musk to have access to all our federal data? Musk has billions in Chinese investments and tight connections with the Chinese leadership. Plus, he's a known drug user and is of dubious moral character with multiple baby mommas. What would prevent Elon from selling or gifting our data to China for economic reasons?
As Dolly Parton Sang: "Here we go again!" Thanks again for another wasted read. Wake up, eat some cheese and have a glass of wine, then tell us something new. In the real world, somethings become irrelevant over time.
Has Donald Trump's "popularity" ever been above low-40s%? If so, I missed it. It can be argued he's never been "popular". So what? He managed to get elected twice, and some might say, thrice. He's obviously been considered a better alternative, at least 2 out of 3 times and maybe even 3 out of 3 times. The days of 50+% approval are long over. Such is the nature of our situation going forward. Our real problem is loss of consensus, not popularity. Best always. PM
Agree And our kids brainwashed in school!
Regrettably so, and when combined with peer pressure, the result is lethal. Best always. PM
Well said Paul.
Jim Marshall
Jim, thanks for the affirmation. As Dennis Prager famously and in my opinion, correctly says, "I prefer clarity to agreement." Best always. PM
I learned very quickly in the corporate world that you can take the numbers from a study and spin them to whatever narrative you wanted to present. As a twist on Ronald Reagan, Trust No One but Verify.
100%...
Jim Marshall
Bill's remarks about voting booth integrity makes me want to make the process more open and friendly but with a catch. The openness will please the liberals and the "catch" will please the conservatives
Step one is to attract to the polling booth as many people as possible by making the event festive; open to all ages including foreign visitors and children. Provide prizes; have music; allow speechifying by candidates, etc.
Step two: the catch: To make a vote count, voters have have to provide proof they paid tax to the IRS.
The verification will be presented to a vote registrar sitting at a table festooned with a banner declaring No Representation Without Taxation banner.
More: I'm still toying too with whether to give more votes for more tax remittance. For example, should a person who remits one billion dollars to the IRS get a few more votes than a person who remits, say, just $1K?
The guys that might pay billions in taxes do not need more votes. All they have to do is buy a few politicians with their contributions. Someone once said: If voting changed anything, they'd abolish it.
Ah, but you opened a new can of worms when you mention contributions.
I will never forget the first time I handed a couple of thousand cash to a Member of Congress (in the foyer of his office no less).
It went from my hand to his and then adroitly into his vest pocket. Fast, smooth. I was impressed with the speed by which it disappeared. Doubtless it was never reported.
Back to the can of worms: We badly need to cap contributions and to identify those who make them.
Maybe one of the reforms is to make vote-buying legitimate by, for example, allowing the IRS to sell them for, say, 10 million each
How about ending all political "bribes" or as we euphemistically call them contributions? Maybe some type of system in which if you gather a certain number of signatures you receive credits to be used for your campaign.
Alas, candidates need money to tell voters why they should represent their interests.
My notion is to cap the money they receive.
Doing so would also serve as a test for which candidate can most effectively use the funds they receive.
How about they also appear at debates with decals from their sponsors on their cloths? Something like the uniforms of NASCAR drivers.
I disagree with your circus... voting is serious business and that's the problem with liberals.
-
They make voting out to be a circus.
Do it while you do your laundry... while shopping with the kids.
Take your time, why 3 weeks not enough?
OK late post marks; who cares?
Ballots and boxes galore!
For liberals the more uneducated low IQ voters that vote, the better!
-
Allow one day ONLY to vote IN PERSON!
No UNSOLICITED ballots!
-
Voting is important, it's worth making the time.
If it's important to the voter, they will make the time.
If it is unimportant, who cares if they vote?
I agree voting is important. I was merely suggesting how to attract more people to do so.
But to emphasize that citizenship also requires us to help pay for the benefits we receive, our vote won’t count unless we can provide documentation we remitted to the IRS a tax payment
Since we are fantasizing, how about taxpayers being able to hold the gov't in check?
Not only would non-taxpayers be unable to vote.
But taxpayers could vote for that which they deem Congress need pay...
Sure, but make it a localized requirement by mandating Congressional candidates must list ten intents to spend taxpayer money.
And, during the campaigning phase, to identify how much they'll agree to pay and why.
The subsequent debates will reveal who is the better steward of the public's purse
Your "catch" makes far too much sense. I've read that when the country was founded being allowed to vote required owning land (I'm not sure how true that is). Your tax payment requirement has a similar "you have to have skin in the game" element to it.
Creative. Consider this: https://www.tbwns.com/2026/07/06/the-bears-lair-how-to-stabilize-the-political-system/
Mr. Davis -- You've crafted a masterful explanation about the history and inequities of our tax system.
My notion is to simplify it. I genuinely mean there should be no representation without taxation.
Doing to would make clear that our country reveres wealth-making, tax-paying job creators; not healthy wealth-takers who hide in university PhD programs and live off the munificence of others.
What about wealth-making tax-paying job creators who achieved a grand portion of their wealth thanks to government contracts and subsidies? Also, those who made their fortunes thanks to cheap Fed money? A good example is during the Scamdemic the big boys like Walmart, McDonald's, Amazon etc were able to stay open while they shut down Main Street.
The only redress that I can think that's fair and practical is to cap campaign contributions from each contributor and for each candidate.
A good start is to eliminate the current system whereby anonymous sources can contribute any sum to any candidate
Ah there you go. Many a tyrant has failed trying figure out how to control the actions of the many whose self interests they can't predict or possibly understand.
Dont forget Ross Perot!
Agreed as to representation. That article is flawed in that the elites own most of the land. Over time we would have fewer & fewer voters. Also, I would rather see the IRS replaced by sales tax so that even the criminals pay tax, but that is also flawed and incomplete. Or maybe, everybody pays the IRS a flat 5% and only one form to file. Corporations 0% since it is just part of the overhead and passed to consumers. Thanks.
5% of what and on what?
Not my Roth IRAs!!!!
Roth IRAs? Correct me if I'm wrong, but prepaying taxes does result zero taxes.
I like the notion of everybody pays tax to the IRS, even if it's a token sum.
As I recall -- admittedly by a small percentage -- most pay nothing.
The welfare payments, now known as Earned Income Tax Payment, to people of modest means who submit tax returns could still occur but be re-titled and require a modest remittance to assert citizenship
I support flat tax
:🤣
Bill, in theory I like the idea of using the DOW/Gold ratio, but I certainly would not move everything from gold into stocks when that ratio touches 5. In 1980 it went down to 1.3, which would have represented a loss of over 75% after you made the switch, before stocks headed up again. Since it is unlikely that the D/G ratio will just barely touch 5 before heading north, I would prefer to see where it appears to bottom before beginning to make the move. And of course, I would not do it all at once. I don't mind at all missing the first 10-20% off of the bottom in order to have greater confidence that it really WAS the bottom. A 75% or greater drawdown after making the switch would be very painful, and would likely take years to recover (we're talking a 300% gain to get back to even).
Bill and Dyson and Rule and Rickards and Casey ALL agree....that the BOTTOM may be lower than 5. They have other indicia to determine the bottom...but defining the exact bottom a fools errand. I just know I trust Dyson...smart as a whip. Wicked smart. And he has SKIN IN THE GAME as HIS FAMILY DEPENDS ON HIS INVESTMENTS AND TRADES TO LIVE....he trades for himself. ALL OF IT. So he needs to win. And does. Trust Dyson.
lol DJT did look rather old and out of his depth around all those young, vibrant WINNING Europeans yesterday!!
Ian, don't kick us older people. Most, probably all of us, in the BPR camp paid taxes all our lives and continue to as we make withdrawals from out IRA's. Our taxes kept this country going.
Jim Marshall
Hi Jim, it was a comment on DJT photobombing the World Cup trophy lifting yesterday.
There has always been election fraud: Johnson in Texas, Kennedy in Chicago. Today it is more advanced, computerized, no checks, no hanging Chad’s, no definitive Supreme Court ruling.
2020 was stolen, mail in ballots from hell. The Legacy Press, vehemently, disagrees.
There is no paper trail; one keystroke does the trick.
Why Trump would bloviate about elections when we are being destroyed by the Iraq and Ukraine War, is beyond my comprehension.
They codified voter fraud. It's now baked into the system. We have elections decided by the number of ballots and not by the number of legal votes cast.
One of the interesting things about a physical bubble is this. A small pinprick may start it deflating. But if you then pump in more air, the pinprick turns into a tear. And suddenly, the bubble’s no longer there.
Bill please ADD a 'thumbs down' button/icon so we can bury these trolls under their own tripe!
It’s too bad that someone has not communicated to Bill that his continued propensity to reference CCN as a news source to be valued by his readers is probably lost on most of his readers. At least half of Bill’s missives are without merit as CNN is routinely referenced as a source to be trusted/valued which makes his readers wonder about many of Bill’s assertions. Very strange.
The quoted CNN report today is a compilation of polls (including Fox) and reports with quoted sources so easy enough to fact-check.
Looking at the Dow/Gold chart, it looks like when the Dow first dipped below 5 in 1972 roughly, if you had sold Gold and bought the Dow, you would have been under water until 1988. Just an observation, I still like the concept. Maybe Dow still climbed but Gold sank further for awhile.
Well guys, I came in very late today and so I read all inputs to the bottom of the page first. Seems like the crew was set for a debate today. I'll stick with the solid assets thank you. History is on my side.
Jim Marshall
Btw, there is nothing Private about “Bonner TDF Research”