During the pandemic, governments have gained in power at the expense of society. The many laws voted and decrees announced have severely limited individual freedoms in many countries, despite the fact that from the beginning many doubts existed regarding the effectiveness, the relevance, and the legitimacy of these draconian measures used to fight the pandemic. The successive lockdowns, the obligation of wearing masks outdoors, the closing of schools and colleges, are just a few glaring examples.

An insider confided to a friend that all he is doing right now is transaction work for real estate holders who are selling now before the market crashes. His clients, members of Sin City’s illuminati, once bitten by the ‘08 crash, believe they’ll beat the crowd to the sales window before the local retail and office market collapses.

Tiny capitalization rates translating into unsustainable values are being dangled in front of these folks and they are willing to absorb the tax consequences to cash out and be ready to repurchase their properties back at a discount in a couple years.

“People primordially fear illness and death, and physicians, from shaman to modern scientists, have always been perceived as holding a near-talismanic power over both. With the rise of modern wealth came the potential for enormous tax harvesting, and politicians were quick to see that this power over life and death could generate deep feelings of gratitude and loyalty. Could they take this power unto themselves?” – William D. Gairdner, The Trouble with Canada . . . Still!

As it began rapidly expanding the money supply early in 2020, the Fed confidently assured the public there would be no unanticipated or serious rise in inflation. Now that their projections have failed to materialize (in fact, their forecasts were off by almost 40 percent), they assure us that this will be but a temporary spike.

But for the sake of argument, let us imagine they are wrong—something that considering their track record is not difficult to do: What then?

Economists frequently tout trade as a mechanism to boost growth and living standards. Yet some continue to extol the virtues of protectionism. However, the internecine debate between free traders and protectionists is less interesting than interrogating why countries erect barriers to international trade. A basic explanation is that opposition to trade is a consequence of nationalism and this assumption is partially true.

Before, during, and after the 2007–09 financial crisis, the masthead of the Federal Reserve Board’s main webpage included the following assertion right below its name at the top of the page:

The Federal Reserve, the central bank of the United States, provides the nation with a safe, flexible and stable monetary and financial system.