This is not the blog that I thought I would be writing this morning, nor was it the one for which I had the least bit of preparation. The words do not flow easily from this heavy heart. The re-election of Barrack Obama extinguishes the flames of hope and optimism I had that the United States of America was not lost, and that her people would once again choose to live by the principles and values enshrined in their founding documents. The shackles of leftism, at this moment, seem too strong for the forces of liberty to break.
The re-election of Barrack Obama means that a majority of the people in this country have resoundingly said they no longer want the unalienable right to pursue their own happiness, but want an all-powerful government to dole out happiness in amounts they have determined to be fair. The re-election of Barrack Obama means that a majority of the people in this country support the destruction of the best health care system in the world and replacing it with government rationing and less individual choice. The re-election of Barrack Obama means that a majority of the people in this country are not interested in employment or economic growth but rather in undeserved benefits paid for by some magical government money that doesn't depend on a growing private sector. The re-election of Barrack Obama means that a majority of the people in this country think that a man who wants to reduce American strength and refused to protect the lives of Americans serving abroad, is going to somehow provide protection for them and their families. The re-election of Barrack Obama means that a majority of the people in this country accept the victim status attached to them by the left and want to give the Federal government the authority to redress their perceived grievances. The re-election of Barrack Obama means that a majority of the people in this country have lost faith in themselves and their communities and instead have foolishly invested their faith in big government.
There is going to be much analysis of last night's election in the coming days and weeks. But analysis won't change the reality that things are going to become much more oppressive in this country over the next four years, as they have over the last four. This President is hell-bent on punishing his enemies and rewarding his friends, both actions will deplete us even more as a nation. Expect new edicts from the President that will regulate free speech out of the Internet and radio, as well as yet undetermined areas of our lives. Expect the world to become more chaotic as President Obama weakens U. S. military strength, and the forces of evil in the form of radical Islam become stronger. Expect even more debt and higher and higher taxes to pay for the President's ever-expanding portfolio of social programs. And finally, when there is no more wealth to squeeze out of the producers and give to the non-producers, expect Greece-like insolvency and riots. And the once great nation of the United States of America will no longer be exceptional, which is the true dream of Barrack Obama senior and one which the son will bring to fruition, thus making the father very proud indeed.
Click here to check out my political song parodies.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Another Time For Choosing
It's election day, and I am reminded of something that Ronald Regan said in his now famous speech for Barry Goldwater during the 1964 presidential campaign entitled, "A Time For Choosing." Towards the end of the speech he said, "We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness." Those words, uttered almost 50 years ago, couldn't be more apropos to the next 24 hours. For those who think that I am being overly dramatic or exaggerating for political effect, consider how far down that road to a thousand years of darkness we have traveled in the last four years.
Four years ago, or fifty years ago, we as Americans would have never thought it possible that our government would have a 32% ownership in General Motors, or any other company for that matter. And furthermore, that the Executive branch of our government would void legitimate ownership of that company's debt, i.e. the bondholders, and give that equity to the President's political supporters in the unions. We would have never thought that our President would close GM car dealerships, not because they weren't profitable, but because they were owned by Republicans.
Four years ago or fifty years ago, we as Americans would have never thought our government would destroy the financial industry with a law that had written into it special provisions for a dozen of the biggest financial institutions. This law, known as Dodd/Frank, has decimated small community banks and credit unions because they can't afford the millions of dollars required to be compliant. Hundreds of these smaller institutions have been closed in the last four years, simply because they can't afford the price of government intrusion into their business .
Four years ago or fifty years ago, we as Americans would have never thought our President, the first black man to be voted into that office, would divide us even more along racial lines. By attacking as racists those who disagree with him on the right policies for this country, he slashed open this nation's wound of racial disharmony that was well on its way to healing forever. But he didn't stop at race, he divided us along lines of wealth and poverty, male and female, gay and straight, young and old, religious and non-religious and in hundred more ways to voluminous to list here. We never would have thought that our President would actively pursue a policy of divisiveness to further his own political agenda.
Four years ago or fifty years ago, we as Americans would have never thought our government would, using bribes and threats to Congress and with members from only one party behind closed doors, craft and pass a law that allows the Federal government to confiscate one sixth of the U.S. economy that is comprised of the health care industry. Furthermore, we would have never thought that under that same law, and upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, that the Federal government would be given such authority over the lives of the governed as to allow it to compel individuals to purchase a product in the form of health care insurance.
Click here to check out my political song parodies.
Four years ago or fifty years ago, we as Americans would have never thought our government, under control of a radical President, would deliberately implement policies that would slow growth for the purpose of increasing dependence on government programs. That these policies would decrease middle-class wealth by 40% and middle-class incomes by $4500 a year. And furthermore, that our government would engage in such fiscally irresponsible behavior as to add more national debt than any other administration in the history of our great country. This debt threatens to crush us and make us weaker at home and around the world.
Four years ago or fifty years ago, we as Americans would have never thought that our President, in a candid moment he didn't know was being recorded, would speak words of appeasement to the Russian President, saying he would have more flexibility to reduce U.S. nuclear strength after he was re-elected. We would have never thought that any President, Republican or Democrat, would show such weakness abroad as to not defend U.S. sovereignty or American lives, and would actually sit and watch while an ambassador and three other Americans were brutally murdered.
Yes, I think we have indeed made great strides down that road to a thousand years of darkness. And the further down that road we travel, the more the entire world will be plunged into that darkness. America is the last best hope of man on earth. Today we can give rise to that hope by changing the course we are on and by replacing our President with one who believes in the American hope and will lead us back to the road of light and prosperity.
Four years ago, or fifty years ago, we as Americans would have never thought it possible that our government would have a 32% ownership in General Motors, or any other company for that matter. And furthermore, that the Executive branch of our government would void legitimate ownership of that company's debt, i.e. the bondholders, and give that equity to the President's political supporters in the unions. We would have never thought that our President would close GM car dealerships, not because they weren't profitable, but because they were owned by Republicans.
Four years ago or fifty years ago, we as Americans would have never thought our government would destroy the financial industry with a law that had written into it special provisions for a dozen of the biggest financial institutions. This law, known as Dodd/Frank, has decimated small community banks and credit unions because they can't afford the millions of dollars required to be compliant. Hundreds of these smaller institutions have been closed in the last four years, simply because they can't afford the price of government intrusion into their business .
Four years ago or fifty years ago, we as Americans would have never thought our President, the first black man to be voted into that office, would divide us even more along racial lines. By attacking as racists those who disagree with him on the right policies for this country, he slashed open this nation's wound of racial disharmony that was well on its way to healing forever. But he didn't stop at race, he divided us along lines of wealth and poverty, male and female, gay and straight, young and old, religious and non-religious and in hundred more ways to voluminous to list here. We never would have thought that our President would actively pursue a policy of divisiveness to further his own political agenda.
Four years ago or fifty years ago, we as Americans would have never thought our government would, using bribes and threats to Congress and with members from only one party behind closed doors, craft and pass a law that allows the Federal government to confiscate one sixth of the U.S. economy that is comprised of the health care industry. Furthermore, we would have never thought that under that same law, and upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, that the Federal government would be given such authority over the lives of the governed as to allow it to compel individuals to purchase a product in the form of health care insurance.
Click here to check out my political song parodies.
Four years ago or fifty years ago, we as Americans would have never thought our government, under control of a radical President, would deliberately implement policies that would slow growth for the purpose of increasing dependence on government programs. That these policies would decrease middle-class wealth by 40% and middle-class incomes by $4500 a year. And furthermore, that our government would engage in such fiscally irresponsible behavior as to add more national debt than any other administration in the history of our great country. This debt threatens to crush us and make us weaker at home and around the world.
Four years ago or fifty years ago, we as Americans would have never thought that our President, in a candid moment he didn't know was being recorded, would speak words of appeasement to the Russian President, saying he would have more flexibility to reduce U.S. nuclear strength after he was re-elected. We would have never thought that any President, Republican or Democrat, would show such weakness abroad as to not defend U.S. sovereignty or American lives, and would actually sit and watch while an ambassador and three other Americans were brutally murdered.
Yes, I think we have indeed made great strides down that road to a thousand years of darkness. And the further down that road we travel, the more the entire world will be plunged into that darkness. America is the last best hope of man on earth. Today we can give rise to that hope by changing the course we are on and by replacing our President with one who believes in the American hope and will lead us back to the road of light and prosperity.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Barrack Obama-The Democrats Hindenburg
Beginning in 2004, when Barrack Obama gave the keynote address at the Democrat National Convention, the party faithful have seen him as the Democrat's version of Ronald Reagan. With his great oratory skills and political savvy, he was going to lead the Democrats to political dominance that would last for decades. Mr. Obama's victory in the 2008 Presidential election brought to fruition this lofty narrative and put the final nail in the coffin of the Republican party. Or such was the belief among many Democrats.
A funny thing happened on the way to decades-long political dominance, actual real-life governing got in the way. It was bad enough that Barrack Obama had absolutely no experience having actually run anything, but he surrounded himself with people who had the same lack of this very important skill. He, and the country at large, soon found out that you can't simply govern a nation with lofty, well-read speeches. At some point, if he wants to be successful, a President has to persuade members of the opposite party in Congress, and the public at large, that his policy ideas are right for the country. Barrack Obama had no ability to this end and from the start of his administration governed by fiat. His Presidency quickly became persona non grata among the voters, and in the 2010 mid-term elections, they sent a clear message by handing control of the House of Representatives over to the Republicans and giving them 5 more seats in the Senate. In fact, the Republicans gained the most House seats than either party had in any previous election. But even with this resounding rejection of the President's policies, especially Obamacare, Mr. Obama ignored the will of the people and continued to govern against it.
And now we come to the end of the 2012 election cycle, one which has shown the American people a President who is not only un-presidential, but mean-spirited and a true political bully. But more than that, the President has lead members of his own party to behave in a like-wise manner. He said he wanted to fundamentally transform America, but instead he has fundamentally transformed his own party from a group of well-meaning, albeit at times wrongheaded, public servants to a group of opportunistic and thuggish community organizers. The rank and file Democrats thought they were getting in Barrack Obama a Reagan, but instead received the political equivalent of the Hindenburg.
Click here to check out my political song parodies.
A funny thing happened on the way to decades-long political dominance, actual real-life governing got in the way. It was bad enough that Barrack Obama had absolutely no experience having actually run anything, but he surrounded himself with people who had the same lack of this very important skill. He, and the country at large, soon found out that you can't simply govern a nation with lofty, well-read speeches. At some point, if he wants to be successful, a President has to persuade members of the opposite party in Congress, and the public at large, that his policy ideas are right for the country. Barrack Obama had no ability to this end and from the start of his administration governed by fiat. His Presidency quickly became persona non grata among the voters, and in the 2010 mid-term elections, they sent a clear message by handing control of the House of Representatives over to the Republicans and giving them 5 more seats in the Senate. In fact, the Republicans gained the most House seats than either party had in any previous election. But even with this resounding rejection of the President's policies, especially Obamacare, Mr. Obama ignored the will of the people and continued to govern against it.
And now we come to the end of the 2012 election cycle, one which has shown the American people a President who is not only un-presidential, but mean-spirited and a true political bully. But more than that, the President has lead members of his own party to behave in a like-wise manner. He said he wanted to fundamentally transform America, but instead he has fundamentally transformed his own party from a group of well-meaning, albeit at times wrongheaded, public servants to a group of opportunistic and thuggish community organizers. The rank and file Democrats thought they were getting in Barrack Obama a Reagan, but instead received the political equivalent of the Hindenburg.
Click here to check out my political song parodies.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Why Obama Will Lose On Tuesday
When Barrack Obama loses the Presidential election this Tuesday, it will be for two main reasons. One, he just can't transform the souse ear of his policy failures into the silk purse of re-election victory. And the second cause of his loss will be a poorly run campaign. I know some of you are thinking, "But Axelrod and Plouffe are the geniuses that ran Barrack Obama's successful 2008 campaign." Well, a high school student council campaign would have won in 2008 against John McCain, who at times looked like he didn't even want the job.
The biggest problem for President Obama is not that he is a big government Liberal, which he most certainly is, but that the voters see him as dangerous to their individual liberties. Especially in light of the public statements he has made, which are antithetical to our system of government and the Constitution. In a 2002 radio interview, Barrack Obama called the Constitution a charter of negative rights, because it only said what the Federal government can't do. In other words he doesn't want to see any limiting principle enforced on the Federal government. Since becoming President, Mr. Obama has publicly expressed envy for the power possessed by China's Communist leaders, lamented that the founders wrote a Constitution which made change difficult and has expressed a desire to circumvent Congress (and the Constitution) and make laws himself without the laborious legislative process.
But back to the poorly run campaign. The Barrack Obama re-election campaign has been chaotic, veering from Bain Capital attacks to Mitt Romney's tax returns to Mitt Romney's 47% remark to Big Bird to Mr. Romney's binder comment in the second debate and then back to the Bain Capital attacks. The President's campaign has done everything it can to avoid talking about Barrack Obama's dismal record on the economy, energy, the debt and foreign policy (especially the Sept. 11 attacks on Benghazi which killed four Americans, including our ambassador). All that has been left to them is to attack Mitt Romney, which I think has back-fired. It has made the President's campaign look negative and week, while Mitt Romney's effort has been seen by the voters as uplifting and positive. Someone should have told the Obama campaign that voters don't like electing a President that is a gloomy Gus. But then they were committed to the low road upon which they set themselves and nothing was going to make them change course. Not being able to adapt to new information and changing situations is what made President Obama a horrible failure as a president, as well as giving him a losing campaign.
Click here to check out my political song parodies.
The biggest problem for President Obama is not that he is a big government Liberal, which he most certainly is, but that the voters see him as dangerous to their individual liberties. Especially in light of the public statements he has made, which are antithetical to our system of government and the Constitution. In a 2002 radio interview, Barrack Obama called the Constitution a charter of negative rights, because it only said what the Federal government can't do. In other words he doesn't want to see any limiting principle enforced on the Federal government. Since becoming President, Mr. Obama has publicly expressed envy for the power possessed by China's Communist leaders, lamented that the founders wrote a Constitution which made change difficult and has expressed a desire to circumvent Congress (and the Constitution) and make laws himself without the laborious legislative process.
But back to the poorly run campaign. The Barrack Obama re-election campaign has been chaotic, veering from Bain Capital attacks to Mitt Romney's tax returns to Mitt Romney's 47% remark to Big Bird to Mr. Romney's binder comment in the second debate and then back to the Bain Capital attacks. The President's campaign has done everything it can to avoid talking about Barrack Obama's dismal record on the economy, energy, the debt and foreign policy (especially the Sept. 11 attacks on Benghazi which killed four Americans, including our ambassador). All that has been left to them is to attack Mitt Romney, which I think has back-fired. It has made the President's campaign look negative and week, while Mitt Romney's effort has been seen by the voters as uplifting and positive. Someone should have told the Obama campaign that voters don't like electing a President that is a gloomy Gus. But then they were committed to the low road upon which they set themselves and nothing was going to make them change course. Not being able to adapt to new information and changing situations is what made President Obama a horrible failure as a president, as well as giving him a losing campaign.
Click here to check out my political song parodies.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
The Stars Shine...For Themselves
Last night (Friday November 2, 2012) celebrities that included Sting, Bruce Springsteen, Christine Aqularia, Bon Jovi, Aerosmith, Mary Blige, Matt Lauer, Jon Stewart and others put on a show, ostensibly to aid Hurricane Sandy victims. But as is the case with most benefit concerts, the result was to show the largess of the celebrity participants, not to meaningfully improve the shattered lives of the intended beneficiaries. As the victims of the hurricane were desperately searching for water and dumpster diving to feed themselves and their families, the celebrity benefit prostitutes were backstage guzzling bottled water and eating smoked salmon. Don't get me wrong, I think helping out those who have been victims of natural disasters is a good and decent thing to do. I just don't understand how it helps a storm ravaged area to disrupt it with celebrities and their security details and entourages, just so they can feed their own egos on stage for a few minutes. Couldn't the same amount of funds, or more, be raised if each celebrity quietly donated a chunk of cash. But, of course, this wouldn't allow for the attention-starved celebrities to go on stage and say, "Look at me! I'm a good person!"
The benefit concert for the victims of Hurricane Sandy is illustrative of the Liberal mindset of intentions over results. The left doesn't have to show any positive results from their actions, as long as their intentions are good. Well you know what they say about good intentions paving the road to ruin, or something like that. These celebrity participants in the benefit concert won't entertain the idea that there is not one person who is going to donate money to hurricane victims because of their performance last night. Consider the ego of someone who thinks, because they sing a song or make a statement at a benefit, there will be millions of people who will see the light and donate to improve the lives of those effected by the storm. Wouldn't it benefit the victims more if these celebrities, in addition to donating money themselves, quietly lobbied their other celebrity buddies to write a check to the relief effort? But this method, while more effective in the stated goal of helping storm victims, would preclude the public display of the compassionate celebrity riding in on their white horse, singing a song and rescuing the wretched and hungry from their dire circumstances.
In the end, it is not about politics or ego, it is about living your principles. To this end, I give you the example of the late Harry Chapin, who I probably would not have agreed with politically, but never the less I respected his dedication to his principles. Harry performed over 200 concerts a year and donated half the proceeds to causes he believed in. He did this year after year without fanfare or bragging. The Hurricane Sandy benefit participants disappear in the shadow of the memory of a real humanitarian like Mr. Chapin.
Click here to check out my political song parodies.
The benefit concert for the victims of Hurricane Sandy is illustrative of the Liberal mindset of intentions over results. The left doesn't have to show any positive results from their actions, as long as their intentions are good. Well you know what they say about good intentions paving the road to ruin, or something like that. These celebrity participants in the benefit concert won't entertain the idea that there is not one person who is going to donate money to hurricane victims because of their performance last night. Consider the ego of someone who thinks, because they sing a song or make a statement at a benefit, there will be millions of people who will see the light and donate to improve the lives of those effected by the storm. Wouldn't it benefit the victims more if these celebrities, in addition to donating money themselves, quietly lobbied their other celebrity buddies to write a check to the relief effort? But this method, while more effective in the stated goal of helping storm victims, would preclude the public display of the compassionate celebrity riding in on their white horse, singing a song and rescuing the wretched and hungry from their dire circumstances.
In the end, it is not about politics or ego, it is about living your principles. To this end, I give you the example of the late Harry Chapin, who I probably would not have agreed with politically, but never the less I respected his dedication to his principles. Harry performed over 200 concerts a year and donated half the proceeds to causes he believed in. He did this year after year without fanfare or bragging. The Hurricane Sandy benefit participants disappear in the shadow of the memory of a real humanitarian like Mr. Chapin.
Click here to check out my political song parodies.
Friday, November 2, 2012
October Surprise-A President Doing His Job
The idea of an October surprise in Presidential politics started with the election of 1988, when Democrats accused George H. W. Bush of having flown to Iran before the 1980 election to make a special deal with the Iranians not to release the hostages until Ronald Reagan was safely elected President. Of course, the story was proven to be a complete fabrication by the Democrats. Other October surprises did have some basis in truth, illustrated by the revelation a few days before the 2000 election that years prior, George W. Bush had been charged with a DUI. The whole idea of an October surprise, some revelation that has an important impact on the outcome of a Presidential election, is really more myth than reality. Usually practiced by Democrats, October surprises have rarely had an impact on elections, but there is still an unexplainable mystique about them.
Some have suggested that the October surprise assigned to this year's Presidential election is hurricane Sandy, more to the point, President Obama's response to hurricane Sandy. Let's examine the President's actions closely. He flew to and over some storm devastated areas, mainly in New Jersey, and promised quick government aid. He received the slobbering endorsement of Republican Governor, Chriss Christie, who is trying to ensure his own re-election next year in a predominantly Democrat state. The dog-looking-for-a-bone response of a Governor from a state in turmoil aside, the President did nothing that wasn't commensurate with his job description. And yet, the expectations for this President have been lowered so much, that even doing his job for a couple of days earns him high praise. There are even those deluded few, on both sides of the political spectrum, that think his performance was so spectacular that it will sway voters away from Mitt Romney next Tuesday and re-elect the President. That would not only be a surprise, but a miracle. Considering that his storm performance has done nothing to bring down chronically high unemployment, increase the slowest GDP growth in decades, reduce the ever-expanding food stamp roles, reverse the growing number of people in poverty and reduce the historically high debt and deficit that threatens to make the country insolvent.
Another aspect of the President's storm-related political pandering is his promise to speed up the process by which government operates in order to get aid to stricken areas as quickly as possible. My question is, "Why can't government always work that way?" Why not have a government that is streamline and employs efficacy in everything it does, as Mitt Romney has suggested and Barrack Obama has criticized throughout this campaign. It seems to me that the real October surprise is that when things really need to get accomplished, President Obama has endorsed Mitt Romney's government model. So why would the American people elect a part-time practitioner of better government when they can have as President the man who designed it and would employ it on a full-time basis?
Click here to check out my political song parodies.
Some have suggested that the October surprise assigned to this year's Presidential election is hurricane Sandy, more to the point, President Obama's response to hurricane Sandy. Let's examine the President's actions closely. He flew to and over some storm devastated areas, mainly in New Jersey, and promised quick government aid. He received the slobbering endorsement of Republican Governor, Chriss Christie, who is trying to ensure his own re-election next year in a predominantly Democrat state. The dog-looking-for-a-bone response of a Governor from a state in turmoil aside, the President did nothing that wasn't commensurate with his job description. And yet, the expectations for this President have been lowered so much, that even doing his job for a couple of days earns him high praise. There are even those deluded few, on both sides of the political spectrum, that think his performance was so spectacular that it will sway voters away from Mitt Romney next Tuesday and re-elect the President. That would not only be a surprise, but a miracle. Considering that his storm performance has done nothing to bring down chronically high unemployment, increase the slowest GDP growth in decades, reduce the ever-expanding food stamp roles, reverse the growing number of people in poverty and reduce the historically high debt and deficit that threatens to make the country insolvent.
Another aspect of the President's storm-related political pandering is his promise to speed up the process by which government operates in order to get aid to stricken areas as quickly as possible. My question is, "Why can't government always work that way?" Why not have a government that is streamline and employs efficacy in everything it does, as Mitt Romney has suggested and Barrack Obama has criticized throughout this campaign. It seems to me that the real October surprise is that when things really need to get accomplished, President Obama has endorsed Mitt Romney's government model. So why would the American people elect a part-time practitioner of better government when they can have as President the man who designed it and would employ it on a full-time basis?
Click here to check out my political song parodies.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
All That's Gold Does Not Glitter
Have you seen them? The old men with long white hair and beards, dressed in dirty robes and holding signs that say, "The end is near." Well, they're out there, only now they have nationally syndicated radio talk shows, cable channels and news web sites. Today's purveyors of doom and gloom have learned how to profit handsomely from convincing the gullible that soon they will need to hunker down in their root cellars, clutching an over-priced freeze dried lasagna in one hand and a bar of gold in the other. The former is a loss of several hundred dollars, but the latter could mean risking a significant percentage of one's life savings.
The gold pushers are always touting how much gold has increased in value over the last ten years. Which is true, but most retirement investment strategies occupy a much longer span of time, somewhere closer to thirty years. And over that time period gold has not fared so well, just ask those individuals who invested in gold at its height during the early 1980s and are still holding on to it. For these folks to break even on their investment, when you factor in inflation, gold would have to rise to $2400 an ounce. The value of gold over thirty years has not even kept pace with inflation, conversely, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has returned an average of ten percent a year, after adjusting for inflation. Put another way, thirty years ago you would have been much better off investing your money in blue chip DOW stocks than in gold.
One can certainly make money on gold, but by trading it, not investing in it. Gold is, after all, a commodity and as such is very volatile. The other problem with gold is that contrary to the gold hucksters on the radio, gold doesn't have intrinsic value, it's value is entirely perceived. Besides being used in the making of trinkets and bobbles, gold has very few real uses. Prior to the development of silicon, it was used in the manufacturing of electronics, but there is very little gold in electronic components today. Furthermore, in a world gone wrong scenario, I would want energy, guns and ammo, not gold. You're not going to power a generator with gold or defend yourself and your family with it, unless you threw the gold like rocks. Those, indeed, would be expensive rocks considering the $1720 an ounce gold is trading at today.
I heard an investment manager once say that buying gold is an act of desperation. No matter how bad things may appear, I refuse to allow myself to lose faith in man's ability to self-correct and right the ship. If you buy gold on the advice of a radio personality, you better hope the radio personality also tells you when to sell that gold, hopefully before the bottom drops out. Because, as with all commodities, the price of gold fluctuates wildly over time. You don't want to wake up one day and find you have been fluctuated out of your life savings.
Click here to check out my political song parodies.
The gold pushers are always touting how much gold has increased in value over the last ten years. Which is true, but most retirement investment strategies occupy a much longer span of time, somewhere closer to thirty years. And over that time period gold has not fared so well, just ask those individuals who invested in gold at its height during the early 1980s and are still holding on to it. For these folks to break even on their investment, when you factor in inflation, gold would have to rise to $2400 an ounce. The value of gold over thirty years has not even kept pace with inflation, conversely, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has returned an average of ten percent a year, after adjusting for inflation. Put another way, thirty years ago you would have been much better off investing your money in blue chip DOW stocks than in gold.
One can certainly make money on gold, but by trading it, not investing in it. Gold is, after all, a commodity and as such is very volatile. The other problem with gold is that contrary to the gold hucksters on the radio, gold doesn't have intrinsic value, it's value is entirely perceived. Besides being used in the making of trinkets and bobbles, gold has very few real uses. Prior to the development of silicon, it was used in the manufacturing of electronics, but there is very little gold in electronic components today. Furthermore, in a world gone wrong scenario, I would want energy, guns and ammo, not gold. You're not going to power a generator with gold or defend yourself and your family with it, unless you threw the gold like rocks. Those, indeed, would be expensive rocks considering the $1720 an ounce gold is trading at today.
I heard an investment manager once say that buying gold is an act of desperation. No matter how bad things may appear, I refuse to allow myself to lose faith in man's ability to self-correct and right the ship. If you buy gold on the advice of a radio personality, you better hope the radio personality also tells you when to sell that gold, hopefully before the bottom drops out. Because, as with all commodities, the price of gold fluctuates wildly over time. You don't want to wake up one day and find you have been fluctuated out of your life savings.
Click here to check out my political song parodies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)