Silver In a Romney Regime
The presidential election is a repeat. Turn off the televised elections. This stuff hasn’t been relevant since Kennedy outshined Nixon in the first televised presidential debates. There are differences, but they are virtually non-existent. Republicans want to champion cutting taxes on business and in other ways boosting business profits, companies will hire and produce more goods and get out of the long-term economic crisis. Obama and the democrats agree with the republicans, but maintain benefits to corporations must also be balanced by welfare via social programs.
Bush and Obama have fused the two programs, and no mixture of the two have worked. No matter the hew, Republican or Democrat, the economic crisis is ongoing on the future is one of depressed decline. That means that continued currency devaluation, and that is no surprise as the Federal Reserve recently announced QE in perpetuity, preferring quantities of Federal Reserve Notes over quality of Federal Reserve Notes.
That means Gresham’s Law won’t vanish suddenly at the threat of responsible policies from a Romney Regime, for, in the Republicans case, with their propagandistic emphasis on lowering the tax rate on business, one can only assume that raising the taxes on individuals and families is incoming. This will cut the average man and woman’s ability to buy things, thus nullifying the tax rate on business. If you lower taxes on corporations, but don’t raise them on the poor, then social programs will be cut, and government workers will lose their jobs.
In other words, as Romney takes the helm, if that come January is the case, there will be no paradigm shift to compromise the current silver bull market. Let’s not forget that it was Bush who, as banks failed, ushered in the open bailout era. And so, the republicans bailed out the banks, and the nation was angry, including the democrats. And then the Democrats came to power, and bailed out the banks some more, and the republicans acted angry as if they were merely on the sidelines and not participants.
Both parties are corporatist. The Democrats protest the banks while doing as they please, while the Republicans got down on their knees.
At the beginning of September, Romney made public a fifty-nine point economic plan including cutting corporate tax rates, reducing government spending, eliminating free market regulations, and curbing the power of labor unions. Ten actions he would take, or so the presidential hopeful outlined, included five bills to Congress and five executive orders meant to “foster economic growth and create jobs on his first day in the White House.” Five bills would propose reducing the corporate tax rate from 35-25 percent; hunting for new energy reserves; streamlining federal retraining programs and giving them to the states; as well as cutting non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent .
He champions an end to “Obama-era regulations” and issue oil drilling permits to developers, while pinpointing China as a virtual terrorist “currency manipulator” and look into imposing countervailing duties on Chinese imports; and reverse the executive orders issued by Obama that favor organized labor.
“I propose a different course, a new course unlike any of our past. It will draw on the creativity and invention of the world’s most innovative citizenry,” Romney said. “Government will be their partner, not their master. And government will be small enough for businesses to grow fast enough–fast enough to exploit the global opportunities in our changing world, fast enough to create better jobs, fast enough to provide our children with a future brighter than our past.”
In an op-ed, Romney assured the voter that he would cut individual tax rates so as “to jump-start job creation, grow the economy, and help Americans keep more of their hard-earned dollars.”
In May, Romney argued against the concept of “too big to fail,” and discussed the US debt situation and unfolding eurozone collapse: “My own view is that if a large bank gets in difficulty, why, it can fail,” he said. “There’s no reason why the shareholders or bondholders of a bank can’t lose their funds if a bank were to get in trouble.”
In the same interview, Romney also called the bailout in 2008/2009 the right decision because there was a systemic problem that had to be repaired or the nation would be threatened by “complete collapse of our economic or our currency system.”
The Romney-Ryan campaign has also given the idea of a return to the gold standard some lip-service. The Republican platform in 1980 referred to “restoration of a dependable monetary standard”, while the 1984 platform said that “the gold standard may be a useful mechanism”. More recent platforms did not mention it.
Gold standard or not, state-run economics will remain the status-quo and the US will continue its grave decline. Nothing short of a mass public awakening to the state-enterprise perpetual destruction machine will create the better conditions in which thoughts and ideas can bear fruit. The US is in decline, as incomes are declining and more than half of the population lives beneath the poverty line. For that reason, silver in a Romney Regime will look like it has during the Bush and Obama regimes.