Tag Archives: Ron Paul

Is Ron Paul a hypocrite? Yes. Read Robert LeFevre on the “withdrawal of sanction”

Ron Paul was recently chastised for accepting a “government benefit” in the form of Social Security – the implication being that he is a hypocrite.

Read what Robert LeFevre had to say about “withdrawal of sanction” and then you decide:

The victim of aggression is not, at the moment of aggression, providing his sanction. The sanction comes later when the victim, having already suffered because of some incursion against him, now goes to the government and says, in substance, “You have taken some of my resources and I want them back.” At this point, the government responds, “We don’t blame you. We really didn’t want to hurt you. But we had a project that simply had top priority so we took your resources in order to accomplish it. Now, if you will just file the correct papers, we will get some resources away from others and then turn them back to you.”

The victim sanctions the looting of others as a defensive or retaliatory move in order to get his own returned and in order for him to remove himself from the role of victim. But this is the sanction by which government grows. When you accept any kind of a handout, benefit, pension, social security, subsidy, or even police protection, government literature, advice, or whatever from the state, you are, in essence, justifying the government’s future incursions against others. Although you are probably making a mental note: “I’m just getting back some of what I’ve paid,” you are becoming a statistic the government can use to demonstrate that the program it has must be supported. “Mr. Smith (and others) is now depending on our handouts, benefits, pensions, social security, medicare, and other things, and would be lost without these goodies.” Thus, you sanction the state at the point where you voluntarily accept something from the state when a choice is open to you not to accept.

LeFevre goes on to say:

Make this distinction in your mind. When you have no choice and are forced, you are the victim and you are not sanctioning. When you have a choice and are not forced, but you accept a government “benefit” of any kind, then you are not a victim but you are sanctioning.

If you stop sanctioning governmental procedures, it will not be able to use you as a statistic to justify either future growth or present programs.

So, according to LeFevre, yes, Ron Paul is a hypocrite. How about you?

The False Religion of Political Legitimacy

Ron Paul Responds to His Son’s Detention by the TSA

The following statement by Ron Paul was issued by his campaign:

The police state in this country is growing out of control.  One of the ultimate embodiments of this is the TSA that gropes and grabs our children, our seniors, and our loved ones and neighbors with disabilities.  The TSA does all of this while doing nothing to keep us safe.

That is why my ‘Plan to Restore America,’ in additional to cutting $1 trillion dollars in federal spending in one year, eliminates the TSA.

We must restore the freedom and respect for liberty that once made American the greatest nation in human history.  I am deeply committed to doing that as President of the United States.

Senator Rand Paul was detained for a period this morning at Nashville Airport.

source

Why I Will Not Vote For Ron Paul – by Anthony Freeman

Before my fellow friends of freedom “flame” me, let me first define my terms. I define “voting” as:

- the use of the political process by which individuals seek to force their will and opinions upon those who disagree with them.

I consider the political process of voting as nothing more than “mob rule”. It is akin to encountering a group of thugs in a dark alley who claim a right to your property because they outnumber you. Political voting is simply a contest for the control over the use of coercive power.

I, like the Voluntaryists, consider the political process to be illegitimate. Here is the Voluntaryist view from their website:

Statement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.

This is in alignment with the inescapable conclusions so eloquently presented by Lysander Spooner in No Treason VI: The Constitution of No Authority and Robert LeFevre’s A Way To Be Free – Epilogue. I consider both of these a “must read” for anyone who considers himself a supporter of life and liberty.

I will not vote via the political process.

Instead, I propose a different kind of voting. It is voting with your dollars through mutual, voluntary exchange. Pay, voluntarily, for those products and services which you value. Withhold your resources from those offering products and services which you do not. If products and services are forced upon you seek any peaceable means possible to avoid or evade the imposition. This is the essence of self-defense.

While Ron Paul is no doubt a friend of liberty, I do not agree with his chosen means by which to achieve his desired end. While his motives may be pure, it is inconsistent to utilize the coercive process of politics to bring about the end of coercion. His motive may simply be to use the political platform to publicize the ideas of liberty but it is a dangerous and misleading path. It gives legitimacy to the most destructive institution of all – coercive government. What is the alternative? Self Government.

Utah Considers Return to Gold, Silver Coins

From FoxNews:

By Stephen Clark

Published March 03, 2011 | FoxNews.com

advertisement

It’s been nearly 80 years since the U.S. stopped using gold coins as legal currency, and nearly 40 since the world abandoned the gold standard, but the precious metal could be making a comeback in the United States — beginning in Utah.

The Utah House was to vote as early as Thursday on legislation that would recognize gold and silver coins issued by the federal government as legal currency in the state. The coins would not replace the current paper currency but would be used and accepted voluntarily as an alternative.

The legislation, which has 12 co-sponsors, would let Utahans pay their taxes with gold and also calls for a committee to study alternative currencies for the state. It would also exempt the sale of gold from the state capital gains tax.

The bill cleared a state legislative committee on Wednesday, the first of 13 similar bills in statehouses across the country to do so. If the bill clears the House, it would have to pass the Senate before the governor could sign it into law.

Attorney and Tea Party activist Larry Hilton, author of the original bill, said he doesn’t foresee any roadblocks.

“There’s enough uneasiness going on in the economy to trigger people to feel that, hey, having a little Plan B, kind of a backup system, is not a bad idea,” he told FoxNews.com.

The U.S. used some version of the gold standard from 1873 until 1933, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt outlawed the private ownership of gold amid the Great Depression. An international monetary system based on a gold-exchange standard continued until 1971 when President Richard Nixon stopped the U.S. from redeeming dollars for gold altogether.

Critics of the gold standard say it limits countries’ control over its monetary policy and leaves them vulnerable to financial shocks, such as the Great Depression. But supporters argue that the current financial system’s dependence on the Federal Reserve exposes the value of U.S. money to the threat of inflation.

Rep. Ron Paul, a longtime critic of the Federal Reserve who has called on a return to the gold standard, has praised Hilton’s efforts.

“Efforts such as yours in states around the country highlight the importantance of returning to sound money,” Paul wrote in a letter to Hilton. “Even if such efforts fail to achieve legislative success on their first try, their importance lies in bringing to the public’s attention the problem of the ever-weakening dollar and the necessity of returning to a sound monetary system.”

Hilton said the bill before the House doesn’t go as far as his original draft, which was more sweeping, including recognizing more than just U.S. minted coins and more details on specific tax treatment. But he said he’s willing to take it step-by step.

He also said he’s not pushing to restore the gold standard in the U.S.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke this week dismissed the notion of the gold standard returning to the U.S.

“It did deliver price stability over long periods of time, but over shorter periods of time it caused wide swings in prices related to changes in demand or supply of gold,” he told the Senate Banking Committee. “So I don’t think it’s a panacea.”

Bernanke also said that gold couldn’t return as the world standard because there’s not enough gold in the world to effectively support the U.S. money supply.

Hilton said he’s taking a positive approach to the issue.

“This is not an anti-dollar issue at all,” he said. “We want to strengthen the dollar. We think by introducing gold and silver of our nation’s history, by injecting that into the debate is very healthy for our policymakers.”

Jeff Bell, a policy director for the Washington-based American Principles in Action (APPIA), which helped shape the Utah bill, told FoxNews.com that passage of the bill would send a message to Washington and other states.

“People sense that in the era of quantitative easing and zero interest rates, something has gone haywire with our monetary policy. But people are afraid to say it,” said Bell, who was an adviser to Ronald Reagan’s 1976 and 1980 presidential campaigns. “If one state recognizes gold as a valid currency, I think it would embolden people not just in other states but in Washington.”

Bell credited Tea Party activists for advancing the legislation this far. Rep. Brad Galvez, who introduced the legislation, is a freshman legislator backed by the Tea Party.

“Saying we now recognize gold as money is a big step forward,” he said.

Twelve other states have offered similar proposals: Georgia, Montana, Missouri, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, Vermont and Oklahoma.

Austrian Economics in Fortune Magazine

From Fortune Magazine:

Will the Fed be able to survive Ron Paul?

December 14, 2010 11:48 am

The erstwhile presidential candidate and soon to be head of Congressional oversight of the Federal Reserve talks gold, jobs and the presidency with Fortune.

If there’s anything to be said about U.S. Congressman Ron Paul, he sure is persistent. And lately, that inner flame that’s helped him gain the reputation for sometimes being the “G.O.P. loner” appears to be paying off.

The soft-spoken obstetrician has represented the 14th District of Texas on and off since 1977, spending much of his political career arguing that the Federal Reserve is evil for America and far too secretive. He doesn’t see why there’s so much faith in paper money, including the U.S. dollar. If Paul had it his way, there’d be a return to the gold standard. He even laid out his case in his book, End the Fed.

What’s more, Paul is a big believer in Austrian economic thought – the idea that government has no role in regulating the economy. And for years, he’s supported keeping Congress from any action not explicitly authorized in the Constitution, or that he sees as wasteful spending, including – as a recent New York Times article highlighted – on issues as ceremonial as honoring Mother Teresa with the Congressional Gold Medal.

No doubt Paul’s views fall outside the mainstream. At times, his thoughts are arguably off-putting and easy to brush off as extremist political rhetoric. Even Libertarians don’t always see eye-to-eye with the Texas politico.

Lately though Paul’s views are garnering the attention that he and supporters have long been waiting for. Earlier this month, Paul was picked to head the House subcommittee on domestic monetary policy. That means he will help oversee the body he’s opposed to — the Federal Reserve — as well as currency and the dollar’s value.

If anything, it appears the timing somehow worked out for beliefs that Paul has held for decades. The congressman’s backing has grown considerably with the rise of the Tea Party, whose frustrations with government bailouts of big banks and corporations following the financial crisis seem to fall in line with Paul’s views.

I caught up with Paul this week to talk about his new role, the Fed, how the world could possibly return to the gold standard and the 2012 presidential election. The following is a lightly edited transcript of our talk.

What are the Federal Reserve’s shortcomings?

They’re doing a job that’s impossible to do. So it’s not a single person’s fault. It’s not just former Chairman Alan Greenspan or just current Chairman Ben Bernanke. It’s the assumption that anybody knows what interest rates should be, or the assumption that they know what money supply should be, or the assumption that they can have stable prices or the assumption that they could deal with unemployment.

Do you think we’re better off without a Central Bank?

Sure, it’s better off that we don’t have depressions and inflations and financial chaos and the problems that we face. We of course wouldn’t have this backdoor financing of big government fighting wars overseas and getting people to depend on the welfare state. None of that can happen without a Federal Reserve.

What do you think of the Fed’s latest move to start pumping $600 billion into the economy in hopes to boost the recovery through huge purchases of long-term bonds?

I think it’s terrible. They got us into trouble because there was too much quantitative easing. I mean it was a continuous inflation and artificially low interest rates that Bernanke gave us – he gave us all the bubbles so you can’t solve all the problems of quantitative easing with more of it. So we had one, we’re on number two. But actually we had it under Bernanke. They didn’t call it that but it was essentially the same thing – massive monetary inflation with interest rates way lower than the market.

So what do you think the economy would look like without the Fed?

We’d probably have a much healthier economy – it wouldn’t be so fragile. Nobody would be worrying about currency exchange rates and people wouldn’t be in and out of currencies and spending all their energy doing what they’re doing. Also, we wouldn’t have a situation where the Fed creates money and hands it out for free and let’s the banks make billions of dollars. And the poor people who are retired and have CDs get nothing and because of the downturn in the cycle, which the Fed creates, people lose their jobs and lose their houses. You wouldn’t have any of that.

This was all very clearly predicted by Austrian economic theory and it’s come about and it’s very disturbing to the Fed because they’re going to have to recognize that their theories are completely wrong and they’re not about to do that gracefully.

As chairman of the House subcommittee on domestic monetary policy, which among other things oversees the Federal Reserve, you’ve mentioned you will renew your push for a full audit of the Fed. What do you hope this will do?

It would tell us who the beneficiaries are.  They’ve released recently some information but they really didn’t tell us exactly about everything and where the money has gone and what kind of collateral they have. The people in this country deserve to know who are the beneficiaries and their budget and what they hand out is bigger than the Congress, which is pretty amazing. They’re off budget. They’re not responsible to anybody.

Who do you think the beneficiaries are?

We don’t know exactly but obviously banks and big corporations and foreign central banks and foreign governments.

How do you think these corporations have benefited from the Fed?

They receive free money. I mean they tide them over. The free market would have allowed General Motors (GM) to go bankrupt and the various companies that got the benefits. The banks would have had to reassess and the bad debt would have been liquidated rather than have all the derivatives and the illiquid assets being dumped on the taxpayer, which is what the Fed holds. Instead of the people who made all the money in the boom times suffering they got bailed out and the people who got stuck with it will be the American taxpayer.

You’ve long advocated returning the world to the gold standard. Where do you see the US dollar going?

The world will eventually give up on the dollar. That’s why the markets are so shaky – they don’t know what to do. Gold prices are up and commodity prices are starting up. And most people realize that the world will not be suckers forever and just take our dollars at will. I mean if we can create trillions of dollars and expect to buy goods and services someday they’re going to put their foot down and I think we’re just starting to see the signs of that happening.

The euro conveys no more confidence than the dollar. All the currencies are paper money. So the only way you can measure the value of the currency is by something that has been used for 6,000 years and that is in its relationship to gold. And that of course shows that all the currencies are weakening, which means in time all the crisis will go up. So the measurement has to be on what the money purchases.

I think what’s going to happen is what’s happened in the last 10 years. People will start using gold as money, shift some of their paper assets into gold. Purchasing power of gold goes up and it will go up in all currencies, even though there may be minor fluctuations where the yen may do better than the euro – that sort of thing.

Do you really think America could adopt the gold standard? How can this practically happen?

Not only the faith in the gold standard, it’s the lack in confidence in paper and insanity of creating money out of thin air. Throughout history, we’ve seen that money ought to be a real asset whether it’s silver or whether it’s gold depending on the situation. People always want something of real value.

Look at how many people have money in exchange-traded funds for gold. Billions and billions of dollars. I’ve always considered myself being on the gold standard. I studied this in the 1960s and the predictions made that Bretton Woods couldn’t work. When it failed in 1971 it really caught my attention. Back then you can buy gold at $35 an ounce. I put my reserves in gold and it hasn’t hurt at all. People who would have had at the same time parked a bunch of paper dollars back then they would have lost about 80% of their purchasing power where the purchasing power of gold has skyrocketed.

But then some would argue that investment in gold is also a bubble. What would you say about that?

They can believe it, but I think it’s the bonds that are at a bubble and the dollar is at a bubble. But no, I don’t consider that a bubble at all. There will be corrections – you can have gold go down $200 or $300 and it wouldn’t prove a thing.

Although I wrote the book End the Fed, I don’t say that you should end the Fed in one day. All I say is allow the constitution to be used – you can use gold and silver as legal tender, that’s what the law still says. We have multiple currencies being used around the world all the time. There’s no reason why we can’t have a couple of currencies circulating here in this country. So we should be allowed to have gold and silver as legal tender to pay our debt.

How do you think the economy would improve if the gold standard were adopted?

The transition is one thing, but if you were on a gold standard the economy would be many, many fold stronger and you wouldn’t have the business cycle. You wouldn’t have to go through booms and busts. Prices would be relatively stable, the purchasing power of your money would be stable, balance of payments would be adjusted automatically.

But gold over the century has increased in supply by 2% to 3%. If more people are demanding gold and there doesn’t seem to be enough physical gold, it pushes the purchasing power of gold up. Then the incentive grows for the people to mine gold. So it has worked many many times over hundreds if not thousands of years of history.

Do you want to end the Fed?

Well, I don’t expect to. The Fed’s going to end itself when they destroy the system. So yes I would end the Fed but I would do it gradually and have a transition. I would let people voluntarily opt out and not be forced to use depreciating money. Just think about how terrible it is that people make 1% or less on a certificate of deposit and banks get money for free and then they buy Treasury bills for 3% or 4% making billions of dollars. It’s just not fair and people are waking up to this.

You’re a big believer in Austrian economics, which holds that government does not have a role in regulating the economy. Some people would argue it was the lack of government regulations that contributed to the financial crisis. What would you say to something like that?

I think it was too much regulation. What they did was create the imbalance by keeping artificially low interest rates, which causes excessive debt and mal investments. For instance, interest rates were low, builders built too many houses, prices of houses seemed to go up, seemed like it would last forever, congress comes in and they pass a law, affirmative action that you must give loans to everybody even people who don’t qualify.

Will you run for president in 2012?

Sure, there’s always a chance. Probably depends on my mood come next January or February. I have not made up my mind. I have a lot of people supporters who are very anxious for me to do it. Right now I’m totally undecided.

It seems a lot of presidential candidates will neutralize their positions on certain touchy topics.Would you ever characterize yourself as extreme?

No, I think what we have is extreme. It’s out of wack. I mean I want to balance the budget – I don’t know why that would be extreme. I want limited government, I wanted personal liberty, I want to bring our troops home.

But some would consider ending the Fed is a bit extreme, don’t you think?

No, I think printing money is extreme and crazy. I think the obscenity is allowing the Federal Reserve to print $3.3 trillion and we don’t even know where it went. That to me is what’s so extreme. And that’s what the American people are waking up to. Government is extremely out of control. That is what I think everybody agrees on in the Tea Party movement.

Ron Paul is a True Classic, but…

Ron Paul is a True Classic but he needs to read Lysander Spooner’s No Treason VI: The Constitution of No Authority:

Ron Paul Questions Ben Bernanke at the Financial Services Hearings

Money, Silver, Economics and Mexico – Hugo Salinas-Price


Hugo Salinas-Price

The Daily Bell is pleased to present an exclusive interview with Hugo Salinas-Price (left).

Introduction: Hugo Salinas Price, 75, is a successful, retired businessman who lives in Mexico. He has been a follower of the Austrian School of Economics since his youth. He has written three books in Spanish on how and why silver should be instituted as money in Mexico, in parallel with paper money, and numerous related articles in English and Spanish, posted at his website. His organization, the Mexican Civic Association Pro Silver, is actively lobbying the Mexican Congress to approve legislation, which will institute the pure silver “Libertad” ounce as money.

Daily Bell: What is your campaign in Mexico for sound financial policy?

Hugo Salinas-Price: I actually avoid discussing “sound financial policy” because one can argue about that till the cows come home. During the last fifteen years I have devoted my efforts to one single aim, and that is to achieve the monetization of a silver ounce coin currently minted by our Central Bank. This coin has no engraved monetary value and is called the “Libertad” coin; it can very easily be turned into a monetary coin, that is to say, a coin with a monetary value. As such, anyone owning such a coin could, if he or she wished, be able to pay any bill or debt denominated in Mexican pesos.

The monetary value of this coin would be slightly higher than its bullion value; the monetary value would not fluctuate according to the price of the silver ounce, but its monetary value would be raised if the bullion price of silver rose and closed in on the monetary value. The Central Bank would give the coin its monetary value, according to a formula in the proposed legislation.

If the price of silver fell to $1 dollars an ounce, the monetary value of the coin would remain where it was last pegged. (But it would still be better money than any paper or digital money in the world!)

On the other hand, if silver should go to $50 dollars an ounce, this coin would remain in circulation, useable as money, because then its monetary value would be about $57 dollars, and stay there until a further rise in the value of bullion silver.

The monetized silver ounce would be an excellent refuge for savings and would attract them irresistibly. You don’t need a bank account, you don’t even have to know how to sign your name, to invest your savings in this simple and inflation-proof way.

This coin would be better money than the US dollar and I expect many Americans would be wanting to own these “Libertad” ounces once monetization is realized.

Daily Bell: Has Mexico always suffered from an unsound economy? Does Mexico now have a stable political structure?

Hugo Salinas-Price: The first question is like asking me “When did you stop beating your wife?”

Seriously, I think the Mexican economy is sounder than the US economy – which isn’t saying too much. The Mexican economy is much less complex than the American economy. Think of the Mexican economy as a low, wide pyramid or mound. The American economy is by comparison a skyscraper. Personally, I don’t like to occupy hotel rooms above the 12th story, thinking of the possibility of a fire. Think also of all the things that can go wrong for a skyscraper: a power outage, and you and your family are on the 30th floor. No elevators, no water, no refrigerator…you get the idea. The American economy is vulnerable in ways that the Mexican economy is not.

Mexicans have mostly fully-paid housing – the house may be very modest, such that most Americans would not care to live that way, but – it is paid for! Mortgages are not widespread; during recent years there was an increasing use of mortgages but on the whole, the Mexican population lives in housing that is paid for.

Mexican indebtedness is not as great as in the US; because until recently, 70% of the population did not have bank accounts – which given the behavior of banks in general, is a very good thing.

Mexicans, unlike Americans, are used to bearing with hard times. They can “cope” with situations which would drive an American to despair. We do not have a government that prints the World’s money, so we haven’t been as coddled by all levels of government, as the American people.

About political stability: I don’t think American political stability is stronger than ours. We don’t have Tea Parties and we don’t think about taking up guns and holing up in our houses. Matter of fact, I think I see a Revolution brewing right in the old U.S. of A. But of course, we can always be the object of “Regime Change” by the Powers That Be in Washington, D.C. It’s happened before, though most Mexicans are not aware of the fact that our Glorious Revolution of 1910, was a “Regime Change” Operation, carried out covertly by the U.S., because Mexico was getting too prosperous and inviting European Capital into the country, in preference to American Capital. So, it can happen again – any excuse will do. How about: “The Drug War in Mexico threatens American security”? That ought to do the trick.

Daily Bell: Give us some background on yourself. Where did you grow up? Where did you go to school and how did you get interested in business?

Hugo Salinas-Price: I grew up in Mexico City, the eldest of six kids. My father was a Mexican from Monterrey, Mexico. My mother was an American from Bryn Athyn, PA. Our family all spoke both English and Spanish from childhood. We still slip from one language to another when we talk. Most of my friends as a boy were sons of Americans living in Mexico. I went to High School in my mother’s home town, which is a religious community, and enjoyed it greatly. I tried three different Universities looking for a career, and dropped out of all three. I was particularly unhappy at the famous Wharton School of Business and Finance, at the U. of Pa.

After three strikes I was out and decided, at the ripe old age of 20, that I better get to work and stop wasting money. So, I got a job from my father. Two years earlier, he had set up a small company manufacturing radios and I got the job of manager. So I started at the top and did what I could to stay there! Well, fortunately we had a bright man as engineer, he was a Mexican who had been interested in electronics since he was boy. One day, this man asked me “Mr. Salinas (no employee of mine has ever called me by my first name) why don’t we manufacture TV sets?” I said, “Are you out of your mind? That’s a terribly complicated technology, we can hardly make good radios…” But he insisted, “No, we can do it; it’s not such a big problem.” So I said, “Well, build a sample; if you can build a TV set, I’ll give you a new car…”

So we got into TV business, and that saved that tiny company. If we had not done that, in not more than two years we would have gone broke. I didn’t realize this until many years later. In 1954 I married; my wife and I fell in love at first sight, she was 15 and I was 18. The very best decision I ever made in my life!

Elektra couldn’t sell our sets by selling to retailers – there were a dozen manufacturers offering retailers their goods, with well-known brands; our brand was unknown. So, we went to direct sales.

Once we were in direct sales, we added other household goods to the stuff our salesmen could offer the public. Our salesmen were heroic, they knocked on doors from morning till night, and got us our orders.

In 1959, I began to set up our stores, where salesmen could take their customers to view the merchandise. So that’s how we got into retailing. We sold on terms – credit up to 24 months. How to sell on credit – and collect! – was something learned from my father, who learned it from his father. That’s what we are still doing today, with about 1,000 stores.

Daily Bell: How big did Elektra get – and was it your biggest achievement in business?

Hugo Salinas-Price: Elektra has gotten rather large – stores in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Salvador, Panama, Peru, Brazil and Argentina. (Argentina is the pits, let me tell you.) Elektra owns a bank, which has a very large deposit base among the same people who are its customers. Very solid bank, I am pleased to say. Our Systems department is vast – one of the largest in Latin America. I started up our Systems in 1968, on a ten-year plan to get the company wholly computerized. This finally happened in 1983. We are totally up-to-date in this technology.

Well, my biggest achievement in business happened in 1987, when I was 55. I didn’t know it was that, at the time. What happened was that – I got myself out of the way. Elektra had 59 stores, no debt, was running just fine; my eldest son, who was 32, had been working at Elektra for the past seven years, and he knew everything there was to know about it and was much more active and energetic than I; so one fine day, I just up and resigned, to everyone’s great surprise. Cancelled all Powers of Attorney, Bank signatures, the works. Son Richard took over that day and – that was the best business decision I ever made!

Daily Bell: Is it easy to build a business in Mexico? Why did you decide to retire from it?

Hugo Salinas-Price: Maybe it’s hard, maybe it’s easy. For those who have the knack, it may be easy. I don’t have that knack. Let me tell you I see a family that sells tasty food out of a pick-up truck at around 11 a.m. weekdays; they set up business outside of the building where I have my office. That family pays zero taxes and is raking in money every day, customers galore. A lot of Mexico lives this way, under the taxman’s radar, Praise God!

Now why did I decide to retire? I am not really a businessman. I got a job and worked at it “in my fashion” – never got a degree. I enjoyed my work very much, designing radios and TV sets and “Combos”, and opening stores. Actually I am more of a thinker than a man of business. I have very few friends. Don’t play golf. I have a large library, I like to collect books. I saw that Richard had much more push than I did, that he knew exactly what was going on in the business and more enthusiasm than I about running the business. So, I just handed over the reins. I have never missed not being No. 1. And I never will. It appears that very, very few men are willing to give up being No. 1.

Daily Bell: Does Mexico have a large middle class? If not, why not?

Hugo Salinas-Price: No, I guess I would have to say we do not have a large middle class. I am worried that our middle class may begin to contract in numbers, given the world situation of excessive debt everywhere.

Why is our middle class in danger of contracting? First of all, I have to express my opinion that the US middle class that prospered so much after WW II was to a large extent based on an expansion of credit which took place in the US after WW II and up to 2007. So, as that expansion appears to be over, you may see an unpleasant phenomenon take place – people who thought they were in the middle class, reduced to poverty. Present US policies are headed toward that outcome.

The problem for Mexico has been that, as in all countries everywhere, its governments have attempted to stay in power by spending money they don’t have in order to get the votes. So this spending hits the value of our money and cancels the savings of those who would make up the middle class. This policy hits us harder than Americans, because our money is not welcome outside of our borders, unlike Americans whose Fed can print up money and allow Americans to export it to buy a lot of nice things all over the world.

Daily Bell: Is Mexico a bifurcated state between upper class and the poor? [If so] why is it?

Hugo Salinas-Price: I think that a “bifurcation” – in other words, a division into two – is one of the objectives of Communist agitation: to promote “class consciousness” through envy, mainly. This way of advancing in politics has been going on for centuries. Julius Caesar used it and it worked for him – and he was no Communist.

I can truly say that I do not feel we are in a “bifurcated state” – to promote this feeling is the policy of Chavez in Venezuela, as it has been the policy of Castro in Cuba. My opinion is that there are always and everywhere, rich and poor, but this only becomes a problem when a politician or a political party wants to create the problem for their own advancement. Perhaps we shall face that problem further on – as you well may, yourselves.

Daily Bell: How bad is the drug war in Mexico? Do you think drugs should be made legal?

Hugo Salinas-Price: The drug war is mainly between those who are in the drug dealing business and are fighting over territory. But this war also breeds criminals who take up other ways of getting money, by assaulting peaceable citizens. A US President once told a Mexican President: “Mexico is the spring-board for drugs into the US.” To which our President at once replied: “If we are the spring-board, you are the swimming pool.”

Legalization of drugs would greatly diminish the problem of outlaw drug lords in Mexico – but I mean, legalization in the US. We have a drug war, because drugs are illegal in the US and thus fetch a very high price. Legalize the business in the US and the price of drugs will come down to the price of corn. Mexicans will go back to raising vegetables. Remember, it was Prohibition that made Al Capone rich.

Daily Bell: Is the drug war Mexico’s fault, America’s fault or both? Is Mexico a failed state?

Hugo Salinas-Price: We had marihuana in Mexico when I was a boy. Only a few people indulged in it. Nobody cared if they did. Cocaine was in use in the US in the 30′s – Cole Porter wrote it into one of his songs: “I Get a Kick Out of You”.

Personally, I blame the artificiality of life in our times – caused by funny money, which distorts all aspects of human life – for the hunger that people feel for drugs, to forget their insecurity.

Mexico a failed state? Not yet, by any means! The US may be a failed state long before Mexico falls into such a condition. If we can monetize a silver coin – and believe me, it is quite possible we shall be able to do this – can a State which has silver money be called a “failed State”? Note well: our politicians are far, far less corrupt than yours! Ron Paul, a noble exception among US politicians.

Daily Bell: Would a more stable currency help Mexico?

Hugo Salinas-Price: Undoubtedly. But all currencies in the world are essentially unstable since they are all fiat currencies. There can be true stability only under a gold standard.

Daily Bell: What is your plan for the silver Mexican dollar? What is it called?

Hugo Salinas-Price: My plan is to have the Mexican silver ounce monetized, i.e., turned into ready money. It is called the “Libertad”. This coin would come into circulation in parallel with paper and digital bank money.

People would then have the option of obtaining this coin for their savings – on which no interest would be paid; unlike deposits in banks on which the banks pay interest, people would save these coins even though they pay no interest. This is as it should be: there is no reason for people to expect interest on their savings, if what they are saving is worth saving.

Policy all over the world today, is to promote consumption. This is total nonsense! Savings must come before, long before consuming.

Families who have savings are happy, satisfied people. They are secure in the knowledge that they have solid savings for emergencies and for their retirement. This makes for a happy nation. And that should be the object of politics.

Daily Bell: Will your plan come to fruition in the near future? Does it have much support?

Hugo Salinas-Price: I think there is a good chance it will come to fruition in the near future. We were almost there, late last year. The terrible condition of the world, in monetary terms, is a plus for the silver coin. I have a book out just recently, where I mention all the warnings I made before the present chaos, announcing the coming disaster. The Mexican Congress made a poll of public opinion, last year, and found that 81% of the people want silver money.

We have wide support in the Congress, both Houses. Just yesterday I had a very heartening meeting with one of the leaders, he is all for the measure. He is President of the Mexican College of Economists and influential. I have met with energetic women in the Congress who are all for silver. (Silver is a tradition in Mexico, not yet forgotten.) Yes, there is lots of support. The main opponents are those arrogant individuals who have Post Graduate degrees in Universities such as Stanford, Princeton, Yale, Harvard, etc. who think that what they learned in the US is Gospel Truth. Their minds are closed. Not so the majority of our Congressmen and women, who still enjoy common sense.

Daily Bell: Why did you decide to devote your life to this cause?

Hugo Salinas-Price: When I was a boy, I had an excellent man as teacher. He was an Englishman born in the Victorian era. He made us memorize poetry every week. Do you remember this:

“Tell me not in mournful numbers
Life is but an empty dream.
For the soul is dead that slumbers
And things are not what they seem.

“Life is real, life is earnest
And the grave is not its goal.
Dust thou art, to dust returnest
Was not spoken of the Soul” …

“Let us then be up and doing,
With a heart for any Fate.
Still achieving, still pursuing,
Learn to labor and to wait.”

Daily Bell: A Psalm of Life by the great poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. You are obviously a literary person, as your many articles illustrate. Are you a critic of Mexico as it is?

Hugo Salinas-Price: No, I don’t think I am a critic of Mexico as it is. Why write about our defects when we are all conscious of them? What I attempt to do is to inspire our people to rise to what they can and should do, and specifically, to inspire them to the greatest possible thing they can do: monetize a silver coin.

Daily Bell: What does Mexico have to do to become a successful state in your opinion? Is America the problem?

Hugo Salinas-Price: I wouldn’t say that Mexico is an “Unsuccessful State” at all. It has problems which are common to the whole world and which mainly arise from the world’s having abandoned real money by stages, beginning in 1909, or 1873 if you want to go back that far, when the US government decreed that the Treasury would no longer continue to accept all the silver offered to it and return it minted into dollars.

I must admit that the US has forfeited its leadership in the world, over which it had such mighty power after WW II, by unwise behavior in the sphere of banking and money. You have an oligarchy in power, actually running the US Government behind the scenes, and they want to retain their power at all costs, even sacrificing the American People to their ends. Together with their brothers in the UK, they are the prime obstacle to a reform and renewal of Finance and Money, to put the world on a path to sustainable prosperity. I believe they have put a rope around their own necks due to their obstination and avarice. The rope is closing in on them – note the rising gold price.

A strong state is a generous state. As the US has become weaker and troubled, it has become easier for people to take out their frustrations on minorities. Thus the illegal immigrants are in for it. The politicians approve of this – it distracts people from thinking about the true causes of their troubles. Not that I blame Arizona for the legislation it is putting into place regarding illegal immigrants. This measure has provoked wrath in Mexico, but the fact is, Arizona is clearly within its rights.

Daily Bell: Is America becoming a failed state?

Hugo Salinas-Price: I don’t think so, not yet. But popular discontent may cause a lot of grief in the US. Americans are not used to hardship.

Daily Bell: Are you an Austrian free-market economist?

Hugo Salinas-Price: I am an economist without a degree. If I had a degree in economics, I would probably not be an economist. Yes, I consider myself an Austrian economist – but a Neo-Austrian economist. You see, Professor Antal E. Fekete of Budapest, has improved some points of the Austrian theory as left to us by the eminent Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. He is the founder of a Neo-Austrian School of Economics. Those who have accorded Mises and Rothbard iconic status, don’t think there can be any improvement upon their theories. I disagree and I think that Mises, a fine gentleman of my acquaintance when I was young, was great enough to accept well-founded observations which improved upon his basic ideas, without discrediting their underlying value.

Daily Bell: Are free-market economics having an impact in Mexico?

Hugo Salinas-Price: Yes, but the impact has not been favorable. Because “free market economics” was thought up when gold was the only money that existed. Economists of that time could not imagine a world without true money such as we have today!

It turned out that a free-market without the gold standard caused the de-industrialization of the US, Britain and Europe – and Mexico, too.

Deindustrialization causes unemployment, of course. Since the deindustrialization occurred while we were trying out “free market economics”, the deindustrialization has been blamed on “Free Market Economics”, when the real cause was going off the Gold Standard. Very, very few anywhere, see the relationship. I have written briefly about this, in my article, “Gold the Protector and Creator of Jobs.”

You see, if we had the gold standard, Americans and Mexicans could simply not buy from countries that did not buy from the US and Mexico in return; that being the case, if the gold standard were reinstated jobs would sprout like mushrooms in a matter of months. Protectionism is only a Band-Aid.

Daily Bell: Where does Mexico go from here?

Hugo Salinas-Price: There is going to be terrible turmoil in the world. No one can know what is in store.

Daily Bell: Where do you go from here?

Hugo Salinas-Price: This is my last decade! From here, the grave.

Daily Bell: Are you optimistic about Mexico’s economy?

Hugo Salinas-Price: Not too optimistic – unless we monetize the silver coin. I think it will be a seed from which a multitude of good things will grow, beginning with an awakening of a spirit of confidence and pride in our country.

Daily Bell: Are you optimistic about the West’s economy?

Hugo Salinas-Price: Without the gold standard, we are at a dead end. A very dangerous place to be.

Daily Bell: Is America headed for a depression or hyperinflation? How about the EU?

Hugo Salinas-Price: I think the US is already in a Depression, but the Media are keeping the news from the people. If Bernanke’s creation of massive amounts of money ever gains traction by the money filtering down to the people, then inflation will take hold, and Bernanke will not be able to stop it, try as he may. The genie will be out of the bottle!

Europe is in for a bunch of trouble. I do have a suspicion that the EU was deliberately attacked by US Finance. Certainly, Europe dug its own grave with their version of funny money, although they kept up appearances pretty well until given a strong push by the rating agencies. Perhaps the European Monetary Union will fall apart and the euro may disappear as things unravel.

Daily Bell: Will the EU and the euro survive?

Hugo Salinas-Price: The euro is a fiat money construct and is destined to fail eventually. The EU was a good idea, but based upon sand. I remember that von Mises wrote that the Austrian Empire, which was a collection of nations with different languages, religions and customs, was held together by the gold coin of the Empire. When that went, the Empire was doomed. I suspect that unless the EU wakes up and initiates a move to a European gold standard, they too are doomed. The buying of gold in Europe is a signal that instead of being fought or ignored, it should form a part of planning for the future of Europe.

Daily Bell: What’s the biggest problem in the world economically today?

Hugo Salinas Price: Without a doubt, the enormous “structural problems” which the economists talk about – imbalances of trade, where some countries export lots of stuff and other countries buy quantities of that stuff but have nothing, or little, to sell to the exporting countries – this problem has caused China for instance, to accumulate enormous “reserves” of dollars and euros, while the US and the West in general have lost their industries. This is the main problem in the world today and it cannot be remedied without the gold standard.

Only through the gold standard can the world achieve peace and harmony in economic relationships. Only the gold standard can prevent a huge country like China, from devastating the industries of the “developed world”.

Daily Bell: Is that the biggest problem in South America and Central America too?

Hugo Salinas-Price: I certainly do think it is the biggest problem today. However, I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s the only problem. People have different sets of values, you know. Not everyone everywhere wants to live in a suburban home with two cars, grass in the front yard, two kids that are going to go to college, etc. etc. Strange as it may seem, some people in this world – and they are not a few – prefer to live simple lives, working only when they have to and perhaps as little as possible. “Work” is not such a great thing everywhere. Some people like to be what we call, lazy. They like to take a nap in a hammock after lunch.

So the idea of a world-wide middle class with a similar standard of living must be an illusion founded on misconceptions about people. There is great deal of harm done by “Improvers”, who are always thinking of ways to improve upon what people actually want if they are let alone.

Give them sound money, and let each work out his destiny, I say. A couple of years ago, a poll was taken to find out who are the happiest people in the world. Guess what? Mexico was Numero Uno!

Daily Bell: Any English books or articles you have written that you recommend?

Hugo Salinas-Price: I have not written any book in English – the readers I write for are Mexicans and I really have no business talking about the rest of the world, including the US. If I translate some of my articles into English, it is because I feel a few people may be interested in what is, after all, a unique project with no similarity to anything being proposed in the rest of the world.

You can find my articles in English at my website, www.plata.com.mx. Thank you so much, for taking an interest in my opinions!

Hugo Salinas-Price comes across as thoughtful and gracious soul – someone who truly has the good of his country in mind in many ways. His is certainly a life well-lived. He has built a national Mexican company from the bottom up, provided for his family and then spent his mature years engaged in a great struggle to introduce sound money into the economy of his native land. In fact, given the sensibleness of his endeavor (which grows closer to success in our opinion every year) you would think that his campaign to create a legal and circulating silver dollar in Mexico would already have borne fruit.

Given the shape of the Mexican economy and of paper money in general, Price’s monetary solution makes sense. Silver is the money of the people, just as gold has traditionally been the money of bankers and the wealthy. Silver has traded in a ratio with gold for millennia, and thus bi-metallism has been the monetary standard of choice for many cultures and countries. Historically, this is provable and seems reasonable to us here at the Bell, but such is the decrepitude of modern understanding of money that the Internet is assaulted a thousand times a day with elaborate monetary plans featuring all kinds of money stuff and strategies.

Essentially, money over the millennia has proven to have four characteristics:

(1) durability (value),

(2) divisibility (malleability),

(3) transportability, and

(4) noncounterfeitability (serviceability)

As free-market economist Murray Rothbard has famously pointed out, money evolved from a competition featuring different kinds of money stuff. Gold and silver (and to a lesser extent copper), precious metals often found together, were not appointed by a committee or king. The market itself determined the choice of money historically – and in fact money has manifested itself in other forms as well – beads, salt, sugar even large, carved rocks. But ultimately and over and over, the market itself has chosen gold and silver as the money of choice.

We have often observed in these modest pages that a gold (or silver) backed currency would prove most attractive if some country were to step forward and issue it. In fact, were Iceland or Greece or some other nation currently struggling with the ruinous ramifications of mercantilist fiat money to simply back the national currency with gold, many difficulties would be reduced or eliminated. (Of course, a country would need to find the gold to begin with, but that is a separate question.)

In the best of all worlds, of course, a country and a ruling class will not mandate the composition of money nor control its circulation. The market itself would decide on the composition of money, the kinds of banking that was demanded and even the level of fractionality with which money would circulate, if any. In fact, money really is a pretty simple issue once the market itself is re-involved. In a laissez-faire money economy, interest rates would fluctuate regionally, no doubt, the supply of money would vary from region to region and even inflation or deflation rates would be variable.

What we have today, of course, is much different. The powers-that-be have taken the various paraphernalia of money – its banks, bills and issuance – and gradually hollowed them out, offering instead an imitation that provides a historical representation but none of the control or value. Even government mints, which used to stamp gold and silver, today work overtime stamping what in the past would have been considered slugs – any kind of non-precious metals.

From our point of view it is only a matter of time until some nation, some group or even some region re-introduces currency backed by precious metals – or even, as Price hopes, beings to circulate the metal itself as a national money. If Price has his way, Mexico will be the first major modern country to do this. We wish him well in this important quest. When Mexico does begin to circulate its Libertad, others countries will soon follow. The benefits will be clear and fairly immediate.

Doug Casey on Immigration

Doug Casey on Immigration

(Interviewed by Louis James, Editor, International Speculator)

L: So, Doug, a while back there was a big furor among many people, including some of your libertarian friends, about the new immigration law – or anti-illegal-immigration law – passed by the state of Arizona. We had other fish to fry at the time, and then the markets got all jittery, but I know you have thoughts on the subject of immigration, so let ‘er rip – what do you make of all this?

Doug: I think it’s incumbent upon a free person to go anywhere he or she wants.

L: And that they have every right to do so, without restriction?

Doug: Absolutely. Everyone should be able to travel, whether they’re coming or going, without the approval of a state. As I’m sure you’re aware, it was only a hundred years ago that almost anybody, from almost anywhere, could go almost anywhere else, without a passport.

L: The good old days.

Doug: At least from that point of view. In a free society, all property is privately owned. Immigrants, like other travelers, would only have to make sure they have a place to lay their heads down at night.

L: Some people might argue that it was different back then because travel was long, arduous, and expensive, so you wouldn’t get masses of poor and poorly educated people flooding into rich countries the way you would today. The world is a different and far more dangerous place today, and such idealistic policies from the past are no longer workable.

Doug: Well, they would be wrong. Anyone who thinks the world was a safer place back in the U.S. Civil War era, or when the Indians were watching the Europeans arrive, or during the crusades, or during the Black Death, or during the rise of Rome, or during the last ice age… Well, ignorant is about the best that can be said for them. And as for the poor masses, that’s exactly what America came to be filled with, in wave after wave.

For example, in the 1840s and ‘50s, there were the starving and penniless from Ireland fleeing the potato famine. Over the centuries, most of the immigrants to the new world were not rich adventurers on holiday, coming over to see the exotic flora and fauna. They were typically the most persecuted and impoverished people from all over Europe. These were desperate and sometimes dangerous people, fighting for survival. The ones who did so successfully were among the most resourceful, driven, and creative – in other words, just the sort of people who can add value to an economy.

So no, that thinking is just plain wrong and wrong-headed. It’s always been the poor, the hungry, huddled masses.

L: As Emma Lazarus’ famous poem about the Statue of Liberty goes: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

You know, I shouldn’t be surprised – because, as you like to point out, after hydrogen, stupidity is the most common thing in the universe – but it somehow always does manage to surprise me when I run into obstinate anti-immigrant bigotry. This entire country was built by immigrants. We’re all immigrants. Even the “native” Americans are just older immigrants. How can any American possibly be so blind as to fail to see the hypocrisy of being against immigration?

Doug: Just so. You know, that poem also says: “Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!” I’ve always rather liked that line, because it’s quite anti-elitist. It’s truly a sad thing that the Statue of Liberty has become an empty symbol, as meaningless as the Declaration of Independence. It’s another sign of the death of America, which has gone from being the land of the free and the home of the brave to the land of tax slaves and the home of welfare recipients. And it’s precisely because it was the land of the free and brave that America was so fearless of immigrants; Americans were not afraid to work hard and compete with anyone from anywhere.

The statistics tell us that now, however, about 47% of Americans don’t pay income tax; they look forward to April 15 as a day the government sends them money. Of course I don‘t believe in the income tax – or any other taxes, for that matter. But the U.S., like Europe, has turned into a place where most people feel entitled to have the state – or rich people – take care of them. They certainly don’t want to compete. They want free handouts and will keep voting for them, come hell or high water. Forty million Americans are on food stamps, and I promise you that number is going much higher.

L: I think they’ll get both hell and high water as a result. But didn’t immigrants cause some problems back then? I know there were anti-Irish sentiments, to continue with your example. “No Irish need apply,” etc.

Doug: There were certainly problems. Look, life isn’t just full of problems; life is problems. Though I’d guess that even back then, more problems were caused by the people already in America than by those arriving. But that doesn’t mean the new arrivals were bad for America. Just the opposite. The kind of people who would leave wherever they were born and make their way – as long and arduous as you say – to America would have been the best class of people. They clearly had the most “get up and go…”

L: Literally.

Doug: [Chuckle] Yes. They were the most opportunity-seeking and generally the most freedom-loving. Those poor wretches were not a net drain, as their modern counterparts are seen today, but a huge boon to the country – and the same could be true today, if we had the right policies.

L: Well, look what Australia has built on foundations of being a prison colony. It seems pretty clear that whom you let in doesn’t matter, it’s what the systems in place encourage people to do once they get there that matters.

But one more challenge; some people would say that back then America had wild frontiers, beyond which anyone could go and hack a living out of the wilderness. Now the U.S. has no open frontier; it’s a closed system with limited resources, resources newcomers may take from those already on board.

Doug: They’re wrong too, and self-serving in their myopia. The U.S. still has vast, vast stretches of empty land, owned by the federal government, which could be re-opened to homesteading. And Space Ship One has shown that there is an infinite frontier opening up for those daring enough to go colonize it.

But this is the 21st century. Homesteading shouldn’t mean hacking a farm out of the wilderness anymore, it should mean launching a technology company, or engineering some new solution to an expensive problem, or offering a valuable service to people who need it, and so forth. Space isn’t the final frontier, opportunity is, and it’s infinite. It serves no useful purpose whatsoever to try to limit people’s access to opportunity – and if the U.S. stops the best and the brightest among us from following new opportunities here, they will do it elsewhere, and the U.S. will get left behind.

L: So, you don’t see any problems with throwing the borders wide open today? Let anyone into the U.S. who wants to live the American Dream – maybe they’ll bring it back to life?

Doug: Well, to start with, it’s not America anymore, it’s the United States, a welfare-warfare state that offers perverse incentives to be non-productive and goes around the world creating enemies with an extremely aggressive foreign policy. So I expect there would indeed be problems if opening the borders were the only change made.

As long as the U.S. is mass-producing enemies in the Middle East and elsewhere, it does make some sense for it to try to erect walls to protect itself. Welfare is a disaster, but while the U.S. is handing out expensive goodies and subsidies, it makes sense for the U.S. to try to limit how many people it has to support. In both cases, however, the answer is to get rid of these destructive and counterproductive policies, not to close the border. If you get rid of the welfare-warfare state, you solve the perceived immigration problem. The U.S. needs to return to being America.

L: “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none.” But America is not the only thing that has changed over the last 100 years…

Doug: That’s right. There are two main differences between the people who want to immigrate today and those who did so in the past. First, in those days, it was mostly Europeans, so there was less racism in the reaction to them. Today, it’s … not mostly Europeans, and I’m sorry to say that, regardless of what people say, I think the cold reception is very much race-driven. But racism is a fact everywhere – the Orient, Africa, Europe – everywhere. It’s a holdover from primitive times. But I believe it will diminish over time, by which I mean the centuries to come.

Second, in those days, immigrants had to work and produce in order to survive. There were none of the counterproductive policies I mentioned above; no welfare, no unemployment benefits, no health care subsidies, no government housing projects, no subsidized transportation, none of these things. So immigrants had to start producing immediately and become self sustaining right away, or they’d starve. That sounds harsh to modern ears, but if they were starving where they came from and had limited opportunities, just the chance to not starve in America, with its unlimited opportunities, was an attractive prospect.

Today, immigrants are actually encouraged to explore all the wonderful benefits and services the U.S. government has to offer – and this attracts the wrong kind of person. And corrupts everyone else. It’s not that poor people want to come here that’s the problem today; we always had poor people wanting to come here. It’s that our government handouts are attracting parasites as well as creative opportunity seekers.

L: Are you saying that some anti-immigrant feelings may have some justification?

Doug: Only because of the corrupting influence of the system. There’s a certain atavism in the hostility towards immigrants. We believe, correctly, that America used to be in many ways better than any other country in the world. And these new people are not integrating the way past immigrants have. They come from different cultures, with different values, and they often seem to be bringing those cultures here, rather than becoming Americans – they are changing America, and that scares people. This creates resentment among people who like things the way they were, and that, while not necessarily laudable, is understandable.

But even the fear of American culture being changed wouldn’t be such an issue if America hadn’t ceased to be America. In the past era of “rugged individualism,” immigrants had to integrate. They wanted to be Americans as soon as possible – that’s why they came. Now the state, with services in several languages and all its “safety nets” makes that optional – even subtly encourages them not to, for the sake of “diversity.”

L: And of course no one wants to give up their old ways if they don’t have to.

Doug: Exactly. Even though perhaps well intended, the hate crime laws that punish boorish behavior towards people who are different have the unintended consequence of further reducing the incentive to integrate.

L: Hm. But if the America we knew and loved no longer exists, there’s the question of what immigrants would be integrating into today…

Doug: At this point, they’d be trying to integrate into a militarized welfare system, in which everyone is trying to live at the expense of everyone else. And that’s exactly the problem.

As I’ve said before, America was a beautiful idea, but pandering politicians and social engineers have killed it. Instead, we have the United States, which is just a country, like any other in the club of 200 or so states that are nothing more than protection rackets in terminal decline. The racket is done – the system doesn’t work anymore, and I believe that the nation-state as we know it will cease to exist as a meaningful player within the next generation or two.

And that’s a good thing. Because of technology, almost everyone can go almost anywhere they like, and the result will be new groupings of people based on common values, not the random and meaningless groupings we have today, based on where people are born. I believe these new forms of social organization that will replace today’s governments will be more stable, productive, and valuable to their members (who will be able to shop for the ones they deem most advantageous), so I’m in favor of making that transition happen as fast and easily as possible. Open borders would help with that.

L: So, the basic answer to those who fear open borders is that free immigration is not the problem, the problem is the welfare-warfare system.

Doug: Right. It’s the government of the United States that is creating the problems that a lot of individual citizens resent. It’s rather inchoate anger, in most cases, but they do sense that something is wrong. Unfortunately, they don’t understand the causes, so they blame the immigrants, while they should be blaming their rulers and tossing them out of office.

L: Okay, but that’s the ideal answer. Realistically, it’s hard to imagine a sudden burst of reason in Washington causing the federal government to roll back its counterproductive welfare and warfare policies and to open the borders to the most creative, driven, and entrepreneurial people around the world.

Doug: Yes, that’s completely out of the question. They may make noises about national security in a world awash in terrorism, etc., but the truth is that every politician knows that opening the borders would allow a huge influx of relatively cheap and competent labor into the U.S. market. That would break the rice bowls of too many fat, overpaid U.S. laborers who think they have a birthright to $30, $50, or $70 per hour jobs. It’s not going to happen, not by vote of the parasitical/political class that rules the world today.

However, an equalization of wage levels around the world will happen, in time, as a result of economic trends that can’t be stopped. The Chinese fellow who works for $2 a day, doing the same thing a U.S. worker does for $20 per hour now, may soon be making $2 per hour – and so will the American. But the Chinese fellow might actually be better off than the U.S. worker at that time, because he won’t be burdened with the monstrous tax and regulatory burden of his U.S. counterpart.

L: And he won’t see anything wrong with working more than 40 hours a week.

Doug: Nor would he dream of taking sick days and three weeks of paid vacation. The Chinese guy will simply work harder than his U.S. counterpart.

L. That might change as the playing field levels. But the bottom line here is that you’re saying that people can be as closed-minded as they want, close the borders entirely, keep those different-looking people out – but you can’t keep the jobs in. Even if the U.S. adopts a law preventing companies from employing the cheapest labor available on the global market, that will just ensure that U.S. companies will be replaced by more nimble international competitors. It’s going to happen, regardless of what anyone wants, says, or votes for.

Doug: And, perversely, the more political action the U.S. takes to stop it from happening, the more certain the outcome is. It will happen.

L: I love the irony; the market will level the playing field, elevating the world’s poorest, most needy people – and it will do so where decades of wrong-headed and destructive foreign aid have failed.

Doug: Yes, and at that point, when opportunity abounds around the world, the nation-state as we know it will have no credible value to offer people, and it too will go into the dustbin of history.

And it’s already started. I happen to be speaking to you from Washington DC, and last night I went to the Tyson’s Corner shopping center…

L: I remember when that was a gas station out in the middle of nowhere…

Doug: I do too. It’s gigantic now. So, my wife and I were people watching. We didn’t do anything resembling scientific research, but we did consciously try to quantify what we were seeing. Looking at the people working in the shops, I would say that about 80% of them were discernibly foreigners. And then we counted people riding the escalator from the first to the second floor, and we could immediately see that about 50% of the shoppers were discernibly foreigners.

L: What do you conclude from that?

Doug: That all these immigration laws do is raise the cost of entry. And what that does is discourage the sort of entrepreneurial middle-class people who’d have the easiest time contributing positively to the U.S. economy the moment they got here. Those people will go elsewhere, where there’s less state interference with opportunity, leaving more of the welfare-seekers who sneak in illegally. It’s completely perverse.

L: Any other comments on the Arizona law specifically?

Doug: Well, you know governments are always passing reams and reams of stupid laws. It’s what they do. I don’t believe stopping immigration is a legitimate function of government. If I did believe government was necessary, I’d restrict it to protecting Life, Liberty, and Property via police, courts, and military. But most people see the state as a magical cornucopia that will give them anything they want as long as they vote for it, and, more frighteningly, as a Big Brother that will make everyone play nice with them.

L: Heh. Yes, people forget that a government powerful enough to compel others to do what they want is powerful enough to compel them to do what others want. Big Brother… doesn’t anyone read anymore?

Doug: I don’t know; perhaps they just talk on their cell phones and watch reality TV. But it’s pretty alarming. These attitudes are sending what’s left of America down the wrong path fast. And as the economic situation winds down, Boobus Americanus is going to blame the immigrants. That’s bad enough, but for readers of this column, the more serious consequence will be that they will blame the emigrants as well. It’s a double-edged sword that cuts the wrong way, both ways.

L: Emigrants – those bastards. Why won’t they stay here and let us tax them more so they can pay for us to live beyond our means? Where’s their patriotism? Traitors. I bet they don’t even like baseball and apple pie!

Doug: [Chuckles] The only good news about that is that wealthier people are generally welcome in other countries. So, for many reasons we’ve talked about before, it’s important to diversify your assets out of the U.S., or wherever your home country is, and start looking for places where you’ll be more welcome.

L: Makes me wonder why any smart person would want to immigrate to the U.S. I guess they still see it as America.

Doug: Well, most of those who do come here to study go back where they came from. It’s mostly Asians, who go to U.S. universities for higher degrees in advanced sciences and the like (while their U.S. counterparts are taking courses like gender studies and sociology), and then take that knowledge home. They can see that the U.S. still has more capital, but it’s on a curve going down, while other places are on a curve going up – which is a much smarter place to build an enterprise. And they can feel that immigrants are not welcome in this country anymore.

L: That would seem to have investment implications. Would you rather place bets in Shanghai than Wall Street?

Doug: I’m not inclined towards stocks anywhere right now. I hate to employ an overused phrase, but it’s perfectly apt to say that we’re facing a perfect storm. This and many other trends we’ve discussed – just about every trend I can see – they all point to very dire consequences for the U.S., making conventional U.S.-centered investment strategies very risky. It’s not just stormy weather but a Class 5 hurricane on the horizon, and this attitude towards immigrants is one strong sign of our times. Not good.

L: It’s gone way beyond straws in the wind; we’ve got whole hay bales blowing by. And they say: “Short Wall Street!”

Doug: [Laughs] That’s right. Short Wall Street. Short the dollar and the euro – paper currencies in general. Short bonds. Get more of your cash out of the U.S. before they ratchet up the currency controls. Go long on the precious metals, quality energy plays, and certain agricultural commodities, especially productive land. It’s the same thing we’ve been saying all along in these conversations, only it’s getting more urgent.

It’s just amazing. You’d think that people could see this train wreck coming and try to prevent it, or at least get out of the way. Instead, they’re asking the government to throw more coal into the boiler, as the locomotive heads towards the tracks dangling over the edge of the cliff.

L: Right then. Off I go – got some hatches to batten down.

Doug: You do that, and we’ll talk again soon.

If you want to get a keen sense of which way the wind is blowing in the U.S. and global economies, reading The Casey Report is a must. Doug Casey and his editorial team analyze big-picture trends and predict what’s going to happen in the near future. They were right on the housing bubble… the subprime crisis… the demise of the dollar… gold’s meteoric rise… and much more. Details here.

If you received this from a friend click the link to receive Conversations with Casey direct.