I was interested in comparing the price of the ETF vs. the basket of metals a share represents, so I made a calculator for doing so. I haven’t found a way to pull live prices for the metals, so you have to enter those manually (try Kitco Metals. But I was able to pull the live price for GLTR. Let’s see how this works.

Here’s what it looks like:

And here’s a link to the spreadsheet (Excel format) so you can download it yourself. I was hoping I could embed it so you could put in your own numbers, but I guess not.

GLTR Calculator

Others have complained about Johnson’s support for interventionist foreign policy including sending and maintaining US troops overseas, which is far from the LP position. See for example Libertarian Peacenik.

According to Johnson’s April filing with the FEC, his campaign is $150K in debt. That’s a substantial sum for a campaign that raised $62K in April and spent $63K. Libertarians usually believe in fiscal responsibility, and Johnson is not demonstrating that.

But a bigger concern is the Johnson campaign’s selective use of the money it does spend. It was previously reported by others that fundraiser Jonathan Bydlak has sued the Johnson campaign. Turns out that the campaign is paying some consultants on a consistent basis, but for some reason refuses to pay Bydlak.

There are motions pending in a federal court in Virginia and those should be heard later this month. Below is a pdf of Bydlak’s motion for an injunction to keep Johnson from spending the money coming in on the consultants now in favor.

Bydlak Motion

Here are some key quotes:

“GJ2012′s precarious financial position, combined with the preferential and obscure manner in which GJ2012 has been applying its campaign funds, also provide strong evidence that the controlling members of GJ2012–Nielsen, Goodwin, and Kim Blanton–are abusing their powers as GJ2012 officers to benefit some of GJ2012 creditors (i.e., their own companies), at the expense of the rest–including Mr. Bydlak.”

“[T]hey have every incentive to ensure that their own companies are the first in line whenever it is time to cash a paycheck. Consistent with this motive, the Defendants appear to have been engaged in a course of conduct designed to minimize their own exposure while leaving the rest of GJ2012′s creditors, including fundraisers like Mr. Bydlak, to fend for themselves. This inequity is exacerbated by the fact that defendants Nielsen and Goodwin expressly promised Mr. Bydlak in April that his payment processing would receive priority, and that a portion of the contributions would be specifically set aside to make sure that he is paid on time.”

Is this what the LP really wants heading up its campaign in 2012?

We certainly have the largest economy in the world, and the largest military. But that doesn’t seem to be what politicians mean when they say it (if they mean anything at all). Reagan seemed to be talking about our principles:

Oh, there have been revolutions before and since ours. But those revolutions simply exchanged one set of rules for another. Ours was a revolution that changed the very concept of government.

Let the Fourth of July always be a reminder that here in this land, for the first time, it was decided that man is born with certain God-given rights; that government is only a convenience created and managed by the people, with no powers of its own except those voluntarily granted to it by the people.

We sometimes forget that great truth, and we never should.

Today’s America does not follow that point about government powers being limited to those granted by the people. It may sound nice but government at all levels is growing out of control, and most of us feel we have little or no say.

One might also wonder how much those who say this know about other countries. From a brief review of Reagan’s life, he never lived in any other country. I lived in Japan for a year. I thought then and still do that it’s a great place. Japan and many other countries are better than us in a variety of ways, including mass transit and conservation measures.

The Japanese manage to maintain a large per capita GDP while using far less energy, for example.

The Japanese and French have spectacular train systems. I’ve ridden both the TGV (Train à Grande Vitesse, literally “train of great speed”) and the 新幹線 (Shinkansen aka the bullet train). They’re awesome, and unlike Chinese high speed trains or American low speed trains, they don’t seem to crash. Japanese people also live a lot longer than we do. I suspect that’s from a healthier diet and a lot of walking. They are usually a step ahead of us on having the latest technology for consumers, and South Korea is also ahead of us these days. Japan also feels extremely safe everywhere, which is one of our greatest failings. There’s nothing in Japan resembling Watts, the South Bronx, or Opa Locka. On the downside most Japanese homes are smaller than my garage, and most of the cars they drive remind me of roller skates.

I’ve also traveled a fair amount. I still remember, imprinted on my brain, when I was visiting a friend in Belgium back in 1989. He introduced me to one of his friends whose first words were: You’re from America? That must be great!

I got that kind of reaction from people in Japan also. So at least some people in other countries think we’re great. But of course, most of those people had never been to the US, so they didn’t really know what life is like here. Maybe they think we all live in Disney World.

In researching for this blog post I came across some other opinions about being the greatest country. For example Slate’s Joseph Stiglitz argued for the tiny island of Mauritius. Considering the small size of the country and their low GDP per capita, I think we can write them off. Michael Kinsley argued in Politico that we’re not the greatest country, but he didn’t really offer an alternative. Perhaps he meant that there is no greatest country, but he didn’t quite say that either.

I became motivated to write this post after reading a recent article in the Wall Street Journal: Canada Beats America, which argued that Canada is doing better on taxes, spending and energy. Canada’s national debt is much lower than ours as a percentage of GDP, and they appear to be going in the right direction (toward a balanced budget). If it wasn’t so cold, I’d give Canada a shot at the greatest country. Similar arguments could be made for Australia.

Some might argue for China because of its large population and strong economic growth in recent decades. Maybe that will continue but my gut tells me their political and economic system is headed for major problems.

Down the road we might see real progress in Brazil or another Latin American country. We’ll see. The truth is there are many great places in the world. I’m partial to the French countryside (but not Paris), Japan, and have a strange fascination with Costa Rica and Panama. A close friend spent a few years in Germany and he really liked it. But for me, the US is still #1. However, our fiscal and monetary policies are disturbing and we are at great risk of an economic collapse. That would have ripple effects across the world, and might make Australia look even better.

What do you think is the greatest country in the world? Why? Please post comments.

Today’s Wall Street Journal has an article about an NHTSA project to put alcohol detectors in cars, After the party, a car that takes away your keys.

The article has this juicy tidbit:

“Enthusiasm for the potential of alcohol-detection technology is reflected in a proposed federal transportation bill. In it is a measure that would give the NHTSA’s alcohol-detector program $24 million over two years—a sum that could allow the agency by 2013 to equip a fleet of 100 or more cars with prototypes of two types of alcohol detectors. One would measure the alcohol in the driver’s breath. The other would use touch technology to take a reading from the driver’s skin, likely the fingertip used to activate a starter button.”

$24 million to equip 100 cars? That’s $240,000 per car! And this is the proposal. As if government ever delivers anything on budget. For more on this waste of taxpayer money, see the DADSS website. If you read carefully, you’ll realize they’re nowhere close to putting this stuff in the field. See this February 12 DADSS pdf release, for example.

In general, religious leaders seem to support big government. I see this in our current and previous synagogues, where rabbis support President Obama’s expansion of government involvement in health care.

Underlying this is a sound religious attitude supporting charity. Most religions advocate helping the poor. But does religious doctrine really advocate that this be done through government?

Religions advocate helping the poor through charity. Typically members of the religion give money to their church, temple, mosque, or related institutions. The religious institutions then provide hospitals, schools, shelters, food, etc. to those in need. “Historically, hospitals were often founded and funded by religious orders or charitable individuals and leaders.” (Wikipedia on Hospitals)

Government, by contrast, takes money from people through involuntary taxes. And in general government does not deliver help through religious institutions.

The unpleasant truth? Big government is bad for religion and religious institutions.

There is substantial evidence that government involvement in charity crowds out private giving. In other words, when government does more, people give less to charity.

Also, when government takes on these roles, it diminishes the importance of religion. Government in effect takes the place of religion, or even becomes the religion. The leaders can become so powerful that they develop a cult of personality. North Korea is a present day example. Past examples include Mao in China, Stalin in Russia, and Hitler in Nazi Germany. Marx famously referred to religion as the opiate of the masses.

There are stark differences between religions and government in how they help people. Religions tend to operate on a very local level. The work is mostly done by volunteers or workers willing to work for less money because of their affinity with the religious mission. Fraud is rare because things happen on a local level and the volunteers and workers share a common interest in helping those in need. And through providing services to the needy, religions are able to spread their religious message and values.

Government inherently tends toward centralization. Decisions are made at the national level rather than locally. Volunteers are rare in government “charity”, replaced by highly paid bureaucrats. Government employees are typically concerned with moving up the ladder, increasing their power and pay, and especially their pensions and other benefits. And of course, government in the US is prohibited from spreading any kind of religious message or values.

What a surprise then, that atheism is more common in Europe than in the US. Europe has had bigger government for longer, and is often touted by big government liberals as a shining example of government run health care. As long as you ignore the looming Greek healthcare catastrophe.

Most government insiders view religion with contempt, most famously shown by then-candidate Obama’s reference to people clinging to guns or religion (in the audio below around 40 seconds in):

While I am a registered Republican, this is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue. George W. Bush dramatically increased government involvement in schools with No Child Left Behind and in health care with Medicare Part D.

Typically support for big government comes mainly from Democrats and liberals. But insiders of both parties expand government because it increases their power.

It always amazes me that liberals don’t see why big government is particularly bad from their perspective – because liberals aren’t always in charge. If you’re a liberal, do you really want someone like Rick Santorum in charge of a powerful federal government? President Obama has been accused of abusing the power of the executive branch. Do you really like the precedent this sets for the next time the GOP wins the White House?

When does big government become dangerous to the people? What are the warning signs?

The Obama administration is developing a plan to fly combat drones over US territory. Hmm …

While much of the responses I received were genuine, there were also some that were suspicious. They used the same language and nasty attacks. And this leads to one of the things that’s wonderful about the web. You can be a troll if you like but trolls leave tracks. This blog uses WordPress, and its comment feature indicates the IP address used by the commenter and time of posting to the comment narrator (me).

Here are some comments from purportedly different people using the same IP address:

HP — pederson.howard@yahoo.com — 69.64.222.154 — Submitted on 2011/12/28 at 8:08am
Shouldnt use your column to settle scores. Sounds like Mr. Stone is in your wheelhouse BIGTIME!

Smoke — Rogermanis@hotmail.com — 69.64.222.154 — Submitted on 2011/12/28 at 7:42am
Warren—this is just sour grapes. If the NY Libertarians had nominated Kristin Davis insrtead of you thay would have won 50,000 votes and wouldn’t have to petition their way onto the ballot. You are the one who hurt the party.

Joe paine — Joepaine1@hotmail.com — 69.64.222.154 — Submitted on 2011/12/28 at 7:39am
Warren– You make a living getting drunk drivers who kill people behind the wheel for a living off. Who are you to criticize anyone?

Not only are they from the same IP address (in bold), but they were also posted within about 30 minutes from each other. Here’s another couple:

Susan Greenberg — susangreenberg88273@aol.com — 99.58.192.216 — Submitted on 2011/12/27 at 4:15pm
I read what you wrote defending older men have sex with teen age girls. It was perverted. I would not want my daughters anywhere near you. I’m glad you moved to Florida. The children of the Albany area are safer because of it.

Seth Greenberg — dvader2283@aol.com — 99.58.192.216 — Submitted on 2011/12/27 at 4:10pm
Warren – didn’t you publically call your opponent Kristin Davis a whore ? Didn’t you refuse to share the NYLP voting delegate lists and convention rules with any other candidate before the NY convention? Who is guilty of dirty tricks? Look in the mirror.

Again with the same IP address. And the comments were posted 5 minutes apart. There were also two other comments posted within 12 minutes after the last one, using different IP addresses but similar language and form of attack (references to my work as a defense lawyer, or to Kristin Davis, who is not even mentioned in the blog post).

One other piece of evidence is the purported e-mail addresses. I searched for them on the web and can’t find a single one of them. Here’s a Google search for Pederson’s:

If these were real people using their real e-mail addresses, you would think at least one of them would show up on a Google search. But they’re not real people. It’s all probably one or two cowardly people using fake names to attack others while remaining hidden.

Here’s two more:

DontMissYou — loyalopposition@gmail.com — 67.241.174.81 — Submitted on 2011/12/27 at 3:45pm
Gee if the NY Libertarians had had a fair and open convention to nominate a candidate for Governor perhaps Roger Stone wouldn’t have killed your chances to get 50,000 votes and put the Libertarians on the map. Instead you used gestapo tactics and refused to share delegate lists with the other candidates. You reap what you sow. Even in South Florida.

PeteSzabo — newyorklives@gmail.com — 67.241.174.81 — Submitted on 2011/12/27 at 3:43pm
I read what you wrote defending older men having sex with teen age girls. It was perverted. I would not want my daughters anywhere near you. I’m glad you moved to Florida. The children of the Albany area are safer because of it.

These two were posted from the same IP address, two minutes apart. And notice how the second one is exactly the same, word for word, as the “Susan Greenberg” comment. And another comment (not posted) used the same language as “DontMissYou”.

The image below shows some of what I see in the WordPress comment moderation screen. Please note there were two more that I could not fit onto the screen. Click on the picture to see it in a larger size:

For an excellent discussion of tracking trolls, see Chantal Stained Glass.

Short story, from her perspective: Her job did not include health insurance. She was diagnosed with tumors in her uterus. Then she couldn’t get insurance coverage for this pre-existing condition. So she favors Obamacare. For a fuller version of her side, see her blog post: I am Obamacare.

One key detail she does not mention: While her job did not include health insurance, she chose not to pay for health insurance out of her own pocket.

Now she complains that she can’t get insurance for this pre-existing condition. But this is a misunderstanding of what the word insurance means.

Please consider this analogy:

Her job didn’t include car insurance, and she did not buy any on her own. She got in an accident and the car was damaged. She went to a car insurance company, and they refused to pay for the pre-existing damage to her car. And this was a nice insurance company, so they didn’t laugh at her.

The more reasonable version of pre-existing conditions is where you have a condition that makes you more likely to suffer certain diseases, but you have no symptoms or evidence of such disease yet. That creates an adverse selection problem – the people who are likely to get sick are more likely to buy insurance, and they cost more to insure so that drives the price of insurance up. Then the people who are less likely to get sick are less likely to buy insurance. Removing them from the risk pool increases the total risk, further driving prices up. This is an area where some economists argue, somewhat credibly, for government intervention to address this form of market failure.

But the current discussion about Obamacare and pre-existing conditions is not about adverse selection or “insurance”, as the photo above shows. Insurance is about covering for the risk that something might happen, not about covering for something that did happen.

This part of Obamacare is about bailing out people who chose not to pay for health insurance. And the blame does not fall only on President Obama and the Democrats. Most Republican insiders are just as bad. Government bails out people who did not buy adequate insurance for floods. It has bailed out banks, car companies, and so on.

One of the main reasons I support Ron Paul is that he clearly does have principles (following the Constitution, and supporting liberty), and I generally share those principles.

Mitt Romney does have principles but not in the same way. Looking especially at his political career, Romney focuses on representative democracy and sound management.

The representative democracy principle is the source of his flip-flopping on issues. Seeing himself as Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney was pro-choice because his constituents were pro-choice. Once he started running for the Republican nomination for President, his constituency became pro-life and so did Romney. The same analysis explains his changing positions on universal health insurance, gun rights/control, climate change, and so on.

If Romney becomes President he would view his constituency not as just Republicans, but the whole nation. As such, he is unlikely to do much about the controversial issues that trouble Democrats. Instead, he would focus his presidency on his second principle.

Mitt Romney’s greatest strength in the campaign is his history of competence in business, in saving the Salt Lake City Olympics, and as Governor of Massachusetts. At his core he is running for President because he believes he would do a better job of managing the federal government than any of his GOP opponents, and better than Barack Obama. With the exception of Ron Paul, I have to agree.

Johnson is the former Governor of New Mexico, and a long-time critic of the drug war. Because of the latter, I featured him on my drug policy reform website, Repeal.NET.

Early in the current presidential campaign, I saw Johnson as possibly next in line for the Ron Paul movement. As Paul’s support grew and Johnson floundered, I was hopeful that Johnson would endorse Paul and start working on his campaign. Even if Paul doesn’t win, this would have set the stage for Johnson to be the movement’s candidate in 2016. Johnson’s 1-2% could make a minor difference for the Paul campaign in the early states, especially New Hampshire.

Instead Johnson chose a different path. While he has said positive things about the Paul candidacy, he has not made an overt endorsement. To the contrary the small amount of support Johnson has is drawn away from Paul. His campaign is not even secretive about it, invoking Ron Paul’s name in its request for contributions on the campaign home page:

Giving money to Gary Johnson’s campaign does not “support Ron Paul.”

So far these are minor grievances. The larger problem with Gary Johnson is his decision to embrace evil, in the person of Roger Stone. In September Stone endorsed Johnson, and Johnson posted the endorsement on his campaign website. A couple weeks ago Johnson told Daily Caller that he is working with Stone. And about a week ago Stone posted an interview with Johnson, a puff piece with softball questions.

So what? Roger Stone is known for dirty tactics in politics. This was thoroughly covered in a piece in the New Yorker about Stone. He brags about it himself, even posting covers of these portrayals on his website.

He includes such quotes on his About page:

Professional lord of mischief - Weekly Standard

Legendary conservative political hit man - TheHill.com

A dashing, colorful artist of the underhanded - David Brooks, New York Times

Skilled in the dark arts of politics - The Atlantic

Master of right-wing political hit jobs - Politico.com

Is this who you’d want on your team? If you embrace dirty politics, Stone is your man.

In case it’s not obvious or you don’t already know, I’m one of Stone’s victims. I’m certainly not the only one, as the quotes above were all written before my encounter with him. About one year ago, Stone participated in a horrendous and false mailer calling me a “sexual predator”. This was sent to thousands of homes, including to my neighbors and my mother. As Stone surely intended, it got a lot of media attention, including this article in The Daily News. Stone bragged about his role in damaging both me and the Libertarian Party on his blog post, Libertarian Payback.

Gary Johnson’s political problem will not be solved by attacking others. His problem is that he did not do well enough in getting media attention, fundraising, and other things to build up his own name.

His choice of Roger Stone is disturbing because he should know Stone’s reputation. Embracing such a negative figure with such a high profile shows that Johnson does not care about doing what’s right. Evil men like Stone should be shunned by any candidate with decency.

I personally reached out to a number of people involved with the Johnson campaign, to make sure they know who Stone is and why they should disavow him. This has not happened.

Despite my past support of Johnson and my general agreement with him on many issues, I cannot accept a candidate who works with Stone, or others like him. I will work to oppose Johnson’s effort to become the LP candidate. Libertarians should recognize that Stone tried to subvert the LP nomination process in New York in 2010, and then attacked the party when he failed.

–Update– Adding emphasis to the Stone-Johnson connection, Stone wrote an article today supporting Johnson in the Daily Caller.

Our Spending Problem

The US Government is $15 Trillion in debt, or about $50,000 per American. Under the Obama administration, that debt is growing by over $1 Trillion a year. This is unsustainable. It is the biggest problem facing America today.

Romney did hold the line on spending as Governor of Massachusetts, but he hasn’t offered any clear plan on how to cut. In stark contrast, Ron Paul has offered a plan to cut $1 Trillion in spending in the first year.

Jobs Jobs Jobs

The US is struggling with high unemployment. The establishment answer is for government to “create jobs”. That answer is wrong. Government-created jobs come from taxpayer money, exacerbating the spending problem. And government simply is not good at choosing where to create jobs. The Solyndra debacle is a great example (and it’s not just Obama’s fault).

Ron Paul knows that real jobs are created by the private sector. Government interference in the economy discourages small business entrepreneurs.

The deeper problem is how big government leads to crony capitalism. Both Obama and Romney play that game, as a listing of their major contributors shows:

Obama gets large contributions from employees of big corporations. Romney gets his from the banks and financial sector. Perry is funded by the energy industry. These special interests are focused on getting money for themselves, not for creating jobs.

Ron Paul’s contributions are more spread out among regular people not tied to any company or industry. His biggest contributors are soldiers.

Foreign Policy and National Security

Our national security depends on our ability to defend our own country. We are spending ourselves into bankruptcy, which will badly impair our national defense. By cutting, including our military spending overseas, we will save our economy and our capacity to protect the borders of this country.

The establishment criticism of Ron Paul focuses on his foreign policy. They call him “extreme” because, for example, he wants to eliminate all foreign aid – where the government gives our money to other countries. The establishment is out of step with the people – a majority of Americans favor cutting foreign aid.

Another example is the concern about Iran developing a nuclear weapon. The establishment says Ron Paul is dangerous because he would allow Iran to do so. Yet the same establishment is remarkably quiet about the fact that George W. Bush allowed North Korea to do the same.

No one knows better about threats to our country than our soldiers on the front lines. As mentioned above, they are his leading contributors. Read more about this from The New York Times.

The Constitution and Civil Rights

While the media frequently refers to Ron Paul as a libertarian, his core message really centers on the Constitution. The Constitution limits the federal government. By overgrowing its constitutional limits, the federal government interferes with states’ rights to manage their own affairs, and with the private sector creating jobs.

As part of federal overreach, our individual civil rights are impaired. Congress just passed the NDAA which authorizes indefinite detention without trial. Similarly there has been a great deal of concern about the Patriot Act.

You may or may not like California legalizing medical marijuana. But do you really think the federal government should interfere with a state’s decision on the issue? This story cuts to the core of both states’ rights and civil liberties under the Constitution.

Beware the False Attacks

There are many insiders who fear Ron Paul, and they have relaunched a plethora of old attacks against him. You have to recognize that those who criticize him are engaging in propaganda, and that they don’t really care about these issues. What they really care about is protecting the flow of government money their special interests receive.

1. Ron Paul is a racist – This is not only false but idiotic. Ron Paul is the only candidate who criticizes the racism in our government policies. In 1979, Ron Paul voted for Martin Luther King Day. Newt Gingrich voted against it. Why aren’t the same critics calling Gingrich a racist? The National Review is among the critics, despite its own history of racism.
2. Ron Paul hates Israel and/or Jews – I’m Jewish and I support Ron Paul. There are others, such as David Kretzmann. I’ve looked at all the criticism and most of it fails miserably. Ron Paul is the only candidate who recognizes Israel as a sovereign nation. Back in 1981 Ron Paul was one of only a few who supported Israel when it bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak. The difference is that the establishment views Israel as a client state, where we give Israel money and Israel obeys us. Ron Paul views Israel as a sovereign and independent nation.
3. Ron Paul is a kook – Running up $15 Trillion in debt is crazy. Ron Paul is the only one with real answers. In a political world full of big spenders, he certainly is outside the mainstream. That’s exactly what we need.
4. The newsletters – This is the strongest criticism of Ron Paul. He did allow his name to be used on newsletters that contained controversial material. At best you could call some of it politically incorrect. But it is widely agreed even by his critics that the objectionable bits are not in his writing style, and they are not consistent with the things Ron Paul has been saying for decades. Ron Paul did do a poor job as a publisher in this regard, 20 years ago. That is the strongest criticism against him, and it isn’t much. These bits were a very small part of a lot of material, including some anti-racist comments. The critics fail to mention that mostly the newsletters were about investing, especially in gold. And they certainly don’t mention the parts that openly reject neo-Nazis, David Duke and the KKK, like this:
5. Ron Paul is unelectable (or can’t beat Obama) – Ron Paul consistently polls better against Obama than all GOP candidates other than Romney. He polls better among independents and Democrats than Romney does.

Consistency and Honesty

Even his critics concede that Ron Paul is the most consistent of any of the candidates. He has been saying the same things about government for decades. He does not change his views to fit polls nor to get campaign contributions.

That consistency means something – honesty. No one doubts that Ron Paul says what he means and that he means what he says. In contrast, the flip-flopping by Romney, Gingrich and Obama show that they are inconsistent, calling their honesty into question.

It’s time for an honest leader. It’s time for Ron Paul.