Charles Goyette


Charles Goyette, former Antiwar Radio co-contributor and author of The Dollar Meltdown : Surviving the Impending Currency Crisis with Gold, Oil, and Other Unconventional Investments, discusses his LRC article “Obama Gets it Half Right,” the diminishing returns of government “stimulus” deficit spending, Bernanke’s additional job duty: juice up the stock market, why we need higher interest rates (but the decision and power to do so should not be centrally planned), the Fed as last buyer of Treasury debt, and now the largest holder, and the foreign policy implications of bad economic policy: increased militarism by desperate politicians trying to distract the public from the actual problems.

MP3 here. (19:56)

Charles Goyette was a longtime award winning morning drive-time radio host from Phoenix, AZ. He is a libertarian commentator, who is noted for his outspoken anti-war views, his opposition to the war in Iraq, and his economic commentary. He is the author of the book The Dollar Meltdown: Surviving the Impending Currency Crisis with Gold, Oil, and Other Unconventional Investments.

27 thoughts on “Charles Goyette”

  1. What the hell is gold ? What is it good for ? It's just golden bullshit. I can't eat it. I can't build a house with it. The stuff is just there to make some people richer than all the others. Let's get rid of money period and take care of each other. Money just divides us into haves and have-nots.

    1. If you think gold has no value, then don't accept it as a medium of exchange. That's the beauty of freedom and a free market. Nobody is forcing you to accept any currency as legal tender. If you think it is more civilized to engage in barter of a different kind, then that's your choice as a consumer/entrepreneur. You have a fundamental socialist-influenced misunderstanding of what money is. Money is simply a medium of exchange and a store of wealth. It is inherently civilized and peaceful. It lacks the elements of violent coercion that your position implies: you wish to use force to eliminate money from society. This position can only be held by a violent person.

    2. Ever tried eating a Federal Reserve Note? Is your house made from dollars? Didn't think so.

      By the way, if gold is not good for anything, why do central banks throughout the world collect and store the stuff? Why did FDR confiscate it from individuals in 1933? Why has it served as money for thousands of years?

      Get rid of money and take care of each other? Wow. That's quite possibly the most ignorant statement ever uttered – and that's saying something.

    3. "What is it good for?"

      Medical applications

      I have a very useful hunk of it where my upper right molar used to be. It sure beats the Silver/Lead mix used in the old days.

      The true value of gold? It's not what it does, but what it can't do. You can't print it and you can't wage war with it. Imagine if the US had to pay for every tank and bomber with precious metals. They'd be broke in a week. Hence any talk of a gold standard sends the war mongers in DC into a frothing frenzy.

      It's fiat paper money that fuels large scale human misery, not a lump of metal someone dug up.

    4. From "Is Gold Money?" —

      As societies moved from barter to monetary economies, different goods were in competition with each other for use as money. Over time, as monetary exchange expanded in proportion to barter, some commodities were found to work better as money than others, until only a handful of them became "acceptable to everyone in trade."[9] Those were gold and silver.

      What qualities have made gold (and silver) the winners of the monetary competition in centuries past? The qualities most often cited by monetary historians are durability, divisibility, recognizability, portability, scarcity (the difficulty of producing more of it), and a value-to-weight ratio that is neither too high nor too low. Too low a ratio would make it hard to carry enough for spending, while too high a ratio would make small transactions difficult and prevent the commodity from being sufficiently widely owned in the prior barter economy. Gold still has these qualities today. While fiat money has some of them, it fails the scarcity test: it is too easy to create more of it.

  2. You an eat *off** it. And you could build a house with it if you had enough. Gold is a supremely workable and stable metal.

    1. May I advise that rather than arguing for the merits of gold itself, or any other medium of exchange, for that matter that you present the violence inherent in any legal tender law? Force (i.e. government monopolized currency) is barbarous, whereas voluntary exchange (i.e. whatever medium of exchange two parties agree to use) is civilized. Just throwin' it out there…

    2. Gold and silver are the only true currencies. Paper is printed with an immediate cost of borrowing. If you have $100,000 in your pocket, it is highly unlikely you won't get the true value once it is spent. Why is this not discussed anywhere?

    1. If we had legitimate private property rights in this country (we don't), people and corporations that polluted the air and water would be held liable for their acts, including those mining for precious metals.

      Who is responsible for capping liability? The government. Exhibit A is the BP oil spill. First, they don't permit most drilling on land or in shallow waters, forcing producers to drill in deep water using riskier techniques. Then when the disaster occurs, BP's liability is held artificially low by government decree. Ain't that grand?

      One thing that is a virtual certainty: If something is royally screwed up, guaranteed it's because the government boobs and do-gooders are involved. Everything they touch turns to crap.

      1. The 'corporation's shit don't smell' party-line is why liberatianism is way too ideological biased for me. It like a version of corporate fundamentalism!

  3. As for the merits of gold, and whether or not capitalism is a decent economic system, whether capitalism and a free market are the same…the fact is, my fellow libertarians, lot's of antiwar leftists and greens come here to this site too. Don't brow beat them with libertarian perspectives on monetary stuff or anything like that. Really, if this broadbased coalition is going to work, we have to avoid divisive issues like that. Ending the warfare state is what matters here. All of our other pet issues take a back seat. Rightists, leftists, and libertarians…all here oppose war and support peace. Please, don't be a dick.

    Being antiwar is an essential component to being libertarian, but not everyone who is antiwar is libertarian. This is a single issue coalition, not a libertarian bully pulpit.

    1. You should be delivering this sermon to the leftists, not to the libertarians. I've seen plenty of economic arguments on this site, and at least 95% of them have been started by the leftists.

      1. langa, they were mainly stating their views on the matter, then the libertarians jump down their throats. Granted, my advice applies to them, but they aren't the one's lecturing on political economy here. Stating that a moneyless, gift economy would be preferable does not constitute starting an argument. Lecturing said leftists on why it is bad is. Stop reacting, and stay on message.

        Granted, I do think they should refrain from saying this. But, this is about bringing together a temporary tripartite alliance against empire and war. And it is going to have to involve much tongue biting on everybody's part. But especially on our part.

    2. "All of our other pet issues take a back seat."

      No, they don't.

      I've read up on what happens with the "back seat issues" once the main problem is resolved during times of political upheaval.

      "Forget our petty differences! We must unite to oust the corrupt and incompetent Czar from power and end the war! We'll iron out the political details later."

      Yeah, that worked out great didn't it. Men who once stood shoulder to shoulder fighting for the good of the common man turned to each other and with their next breath screamed that the other was a traitor to the nation and all it held dear, after the need for unity had passed. When the same happens again don't act surprised.

      1. This is not at all comparable to the Bolshevik Revolution; the primary control was seizing control of the Russian state. Our goal is to end the empire and it's wars, not overthrow the emperor. The whole point of this temporary alliance to end this madness is temporary; of course we will go back at each other's throats. That's obvious. To achieve this goal through temporary unity, however, let's not get at each other's throats over petty bullshit. This goes for the paleocons and leftists too; to avoid this in the future, if Mr. Horton is reading this, I think economic topics (unless they pertain to The Complex and cozy contracts to big business) ought to be avoided. Charles Goyette is a nice enough guy, but there are other forums to discuss the movement's of gold and silver.

        Let us all be single-minded on issues of war and peace. All else, in relation to said issues, is ephemeral.

    3. I would agree with you, to a point. But until Leftists realize that without the Federal Reserve printing the funny money and legal tender laws, there is NO empire. As long as the power of money itself is concentrated in the hands of a few, those few will dominate everyone else. It is no coincidence that within a few years of the founding of the fed that we were involved in our first World War. To stop the empire will take more than electing a president who will pull the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We must "strike the root". The root, is the Fed and the legal tender laws. It is the enabler of all the evils of the empire.

    4. As with all matters, I try to view warfare on the earth from the perspective of the creator of the planet. The vast majority of Christians fail to understand, or completely ignore, the mandate from Christ in scripture to embrace peace and love our enemies. We are too concerned with the success of somebody's design for managing the afairs of the planet, and we ignore the coming peaceful society that only Christ himself can deliver and administer. Things are going to change around here drasticly by the hand of the King, but a world hell-bent on war will prevail 'til then.

    1. While I do think this is a massive oversimplification, as politics has other dimensions besides left and right, I do agree. There hasn't really been a real solid leftist movement in America since the days of tie-dye t-shirts and LSD. There are just scattered leftists and libertarians. What strikes me about the likes of Obama and Robert Reich is how…well, conservative they are. Leftism calls for the outright overthrow of the capitalist system, whether gradually (social democracy) or immeditately (anarcho-communism and revolutionary socialism). Mere reform of the capitalist system, at most, makes them center-left; and that is a bit too generous. As for what ultra-right is, it is essentially a back to feudalism movement, with mercantilism as their economic agenda and authoritarianism as their governing ideology.

  4. The sell-off in silver is a result of the ending of QE2? Typical lying LRC contributor. Until the comex defaults on delivery of gold and silver, the paper price is a figment of Wall St's imagination.

  5. If anyone thinks gold is good, I'd advise everyone to put themselves at the mercy of South Africa, and buy gold right now at its peak. end snark

  6. Read Bernanke's book of essays. There is no entry for Keynes or fiscal policy in the index. (There's an entry for one but not the other, I forget which and it's late so not going to look it up.)

    Bernanke is a monetarist, not a Keynesian. If you're going to criticize (and I have no problem with that), you might get your classification right to establish creds.

  7. You can certainly see your skills in the work you write. The arena hopes for more passionate writers such as you who aren’t afraid to say how they believe. Always go after your heart. “Everyone has his day and some days last longer than others.” by Sir Winston Leonard Spenser Churchill.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.