Dawn J. Bennett Interviews Steve Milloy, Publisher of Junk Science

Dawn J. Bennett, founder and CEO of Bennett Group Financial Services, recently interviewed Steve Milloy, publisher of Junk Science, on her weekly radio show, Financial Myth Busting with Dawn J. Bennett.  Milloy’s Junk Science is a popular website that debunks common science myths. He’s also written a new book, Scare Population: Why and How to Fix the EPA.

In his interview, Milloy shares his thoughts on the Senate panel’s approval of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to lead the EPA. Pruitt is a well-known climate change skeptic and critic of the agency. He has fought EPA carbon emission regulations, and some question his ability to lead the EPA.

Milloy says he doesn’t think it’s an issue Pruitt approaches regulation from the “perspective of a polluter”.

He points out, “One of the great myths that the environmentalists have successfully perpetrated is that our air is polluted. Our air is clean, our water is safe.”

He continues, “It’s no longer 1970 or 1960 or 1950. EPA and Americans and states have spent the last 46 years cleaning up the air, and the air is clean. As a matter of fact, the air was clean 25 years ago. The reason Scott Pruitt has sued EPA almost a dozen times is because EPA regularly engages in regulatory overreach. By that I mean they are exceeding the authority granted to them by Congress, and so as AG of Oklahoma, Scott has had to sue them to try to put them back in their box.”

Bennett notes Pruitt has significant conflicts of interest, as he has great ties to the oil and gas industry. Milloy sees no conflict of interest affecting his ability to oversee the agency.

According to Milloy, “As EPA Administrator, he is going to be working for the president, executing EPA’s authority. EPA has various authorities, for example under the Clean Air Act to make the air safe. The air is safe. Scott will make sure that the air remains safe. What’s the conflict of interest? As long as the air is safe, there’s no conflict of interest.”

While many liberals and environmentalists are skeptical of Pruitt’s appointment to the EPA, Milloy believes he’s suited to run this agency.

“I think Scott knows more about the EPA and the wickedness, if you will, of the agency, than most people, because he has sued the EPA almost a dozen times. He is well aware of how the EPA overreaches, and he’s probably the perfect administrator for reigning in the EPA and bringing this rogue agency within the law,” he says.

The Future of Asia Is Uncertain

According to Michael Auslin, Asia’s future is increasingly uncertain. Auslin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and author of the End of the Asian Century: War, Stagnation, and the Risks to the World’s Most Dynamic Region, says Asia a fractured region threatened by stagnation and instability.

Auslin recently appeared on Financial Myth Busting with Dawn J. Bennett, where he further described his viewpoint.

“I think that the danger is that we have gotten ourselves into a mindset where China is a 12-foot tall monster that can do no wrong when the reality is that the golden era of China’s growth, as for almost all of Asia, is over,” he said. “They’ve had an incredible run for a long time, but what they didn’t do was resolve many of the fundamental structural problems in their economies, and so we’re seeing a slowdown throughout the region. The bigger danger is that we’re going to have to worry about a weak Asia and a weak China than we will about a strong one.”

According to Auslin, “one of the big problems has been the breakneck pace of economic growth really papered over so many of the deeper reforms that had to be undertaken.” For instance, many of the financial systems in Asia are very weak and facing massive debt. Asia’s not very good at things like innovation, research, and development, which America takes for granted. Additionally, the region is facing labor problems, including China due to their One Child policy. The government in many Asian countries is too involved, which makes entrepreneurship and innovation very difficult.

During his campaign trail, Trump argued that China is stealing American jobs. On the contrary, Auslin believes what China is stealing and will continue to steal is America’s trade secrets and intellectual policy. According to Auslin, a lot of American jobs are already gone. Some policies that Trump opposes, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, were actually designed to give the U.S. access to markets that had a lot of barriers against American goods, such as Japan. The TPP wasn’t going to see Japan steal American jobs, and those jobs left long ago, he said.

Auslin also explained that there are many differences between Japan and China. Compared to China, Japan was a much wealthier country when it hit its slowdown, he said, and this has allowed Japan to deal with it in better ways that did not cause a lot of despair to the population.

“There were high standards of living and there were already social mechanisms in place and entitlements and the like,” he said. “China doesn’t have that, and China being still a developing nation that’s fairly poor, it’s going to be harder, in fact, for China to deal with its slowdown than it was for Japan. In Japan, it’s been two and a half decades now, and they’ve really found a sort of modus vivendi, being able to deal with lower growth and yet maintain higher standards of living and the like, so I’m actually more bullish on Japan’s ability to weather a continuing slowdown and an aging population.”

Dawn J. Bennett: It’s All Fake News

Dawn J. Bennett, founder and CEO of Bennett Group Financial Services and host of Financial Myth Busting, recently wrote an article, “It’s All Fake News”. In her article, she discusses how there are stories that seem legitimate but were actually fabricated and specifically engineered to go viral and spread through the internet as real news. We’ve seen this particularly throughout the presidential election. Even Facebook has vowed to do something about the spreading of fake news— if that’s even possible.

According to Bennett, exaggerations, lies and setups have been common throughout the history of reporting. For instance, there was the recent Rolling Stone coverage of a gang-rape hoax at UVA; Janet Cooke’s imaginary eight year old heroin addict; the 1993 Dateline episode when a truck was rigged to explode when a presumed safety flaw failed to deliver the anticipated dramatic effect.

“Beyond these specific examples, the glaring fakes and the willful fabrications, there is an even deeper problem that we as citizens and investors must contend with: a systemic and systematic degradation of the quality of the news we receive, a willing collaboration between mainstream media and government institutions that provides all the ‘good news’ that can be manufactured,” said Bennett. “Cable news parrots the relentlessly upbeat message of recovery and growth being spouted by the Fed and the White House, and we are left without facts, having to dig through questionable reports to find the real numbers.”

However, it’s not just the media that lies to us, said Bennett. We lie to ourselves too. Bennett uses the post-election increase in stock prices and bond yields as an example. She explained that Trump’s election resolved a long and ugly period of political uncertainly; relief in the markets has increased but corporate earnings have not. The S&P 500 is trading at 27.9 times the corporate earnings of the past 10 years— a level that was seen just before the market crash of 1929. The financial sector has a lot of problematic stocks that will likely get a beat-down during the earnings reporting season. In addition, many investors are postponing profit-taking for supposed tax reasons and will be stuck amidst a rush to sell, which could make the selloff the worst it’s been since last January. Then, there’s the Federal Reserve’s interest rate hike, which happened just before stock index futures, stock index options, stock options, and single stock futures expired.

“Are we living in a fake news, post-truth world, a post-reality economy?” asked Bennett. “When we can’t agree on basic facts or even that there are such things as facts, you have to ask yourself ‘How do we talk to each other?'”

She continued, “My answer is as it so often is: we must dig for the facts ourselves, be on the offensive against passively receiving news that could truly impact our lives and well-being from our social media feeds, the mainstream media, and even the government and our elected officials. This is not only essential to protect ourselves, but is a basic act of patriotism, of caring for our neighbors and our society.”

The Year of Tribalism

Dawn J. Bennett, host of Financial Myth Busting and founder and CEO of Bennett Group Financial Services, recently called 2016 “The Year of Tribalism.” In her article titled, “2016: The Year of Tribalism,” she explains what has enabled a new type of tribalism to emerge and its advantages and drawbacks.

According to Bennett, the election of Donald Trump signifies a real paradigm shift in American politics— a shift from a politics driven primarily by issues to one driven by identity.  The rise of Trump’s nationalism populism and Bernie Sanders’ progressive populism shows voters are increasingly choosing a new Internet-era tribalism. They are joining together in likeminded communities with shared hopes and fears. This new sort of tribalism is supported and intensified by technology and the Internet.

“Increasingly, there are no gatekeepers, and the barrier to entry into the larger discourse is so low as to be non-existent. As a result, smaller groups can have a larger voice, and our political institutions have become increasingly fractious coalitions of polarized factions,” says Bennett.

The Democratic Party seeks to unite Sanders’ socialist tribe, the mainline Clinton progressives, environmentalist groups, and groups defined by race and gender. Meanwhile, the Republicans hold Trump’s nationalist progressives, mainline fiscal conservatives, the Tea Party, religiously motivated groups, and several groups of Libertarians.

“It’s messy, much more gray area than the clearly drawn lines we wish existed to make our choices easier,” says Bennett.

Bennett says there are both advantages and disadvantages to tribalism. Tribalism has a dark side, as it tends to generate an “us versus them feeling”, where people think those who aren’t with them are against them and those who are against them are the enemy. This “us versus them” mentality has been prevalent following the election. There have been group demonstrations against Trump’s election, as well as an increase in verbal and physical attacks that are directly motivated by the election’s outcome.

Tribalism can bring several advantages too. “With such commonality of purpose and belief, these tribes can be very passionate, enthusiastic and creative and compelling,” says Bennett. “They produce leaders like Trump, who are willing to takes risks, to challenge what has gone before, and to inspire others to do the same. And if that energy can be harnessed and not allowed to run amok, I think we actually have the potential to meet our challenging global future.”

Though the election is over, the challenges facing the nation are far from it.

“Eight years of sweeping economic fundamentals under a rug of bailouts and quantitative easing has left us in a fragile, volatile and dangerous position. Individuals, corporations and nations are overleveraged, with almost nothing left in the toolbox to deal with the next crisis,” says Bennett.

She continued, “To stand up and deal with these problems we have to acknowledge an uncomfortable truth. Our tribes, those groups that support our views and beliefs, that hold us up in times of uncertainty, that fight for us when we need fighting for—those tribes are social constructs. No single tribe can fix the problems facing our country, and no one can rely on their tribe to fix their individual problems.”

Bennett advises that in this time of change Americans should gather their own information, listen to many viewpoints, and in the end make their own decisions, and also protect their wealth and their future.

Dawn J. Bennett Interviews Ed Conrad on The Upside of Inequality

Dawn J. Bennett, founder and CEO of Bennett Group Financial Services and host of Financial Myth Busting with Dawn J. Bennett, recently interviewed Ed Conard. Conard is the bestselling author of Unintended Consequences: Why Everything You’ve Been Told About the Economy is Wrong (2012) and The Upside of Inequality: How Good Intentions Undermine the Middle Class (2016).  Conrad has also written a number of op-eds for The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Politico, Fortune, Harvard Business Review, and more.

In his interview with Dawn J. Bennett, Conard discusses the theme of his latest book— the upside of inequality.

“If you look at United States, we have a very deep pool of well-trained talent which is taking more entrepreneurial risks than their counterparts in Europe and Japan, substantially more risk, and producing faster growth and higher median wages,” Conrad told Bennett.  “If you look at the U.S., employment growth has grown twice as fast as Germany and France since 1980 and three times faster than Japan, at median household incomes which are 15 to 30 percent higher than those economies.”

The U.S. is generating faster growth at higher incomes, compared to other nations. According to Conrad, the U.S. has too few high-skilled workers and the ratio between high and low is very significant. When you think about what a high-skilled worker can do, they really have three jobs, he explained.

“One is they can create innovation like the iPhone that’s beneficial to everyone; the second is they can be doctors and lawyers that just keep the gears moving, and the third is that they can organize unskilled workers into companies that can serve customers more effectively that increases the productivity of unskilled workers,” he said. “Those are the three functions so, to the extent if we’re short on workers, one of the arguments that the book makes is that properly trained talent and entrepreneurial risk-taking are the binding constraints to growth today, not savings. What we see is savings that are unused and the productivity of our workforce slows down.”

Though many people assume it’s impossible to climb the socioeconomic ladder in societies with large inequality income mobility, Conrad pointed out that that’s actually not the case. He explained that there is are two famous studies, one done by two fairly liberal Harvard researchers and one from the University California, that show mobility has not declined at all relative to the past in the U.S. It’s actually increased overtime, he said.

Conrad also noted that there are studies comparing U.S. mobility to that of Scandinavia, which has the most equally distributed income of all high wage economies. What you find is mobility in the U.S. appears to be a sociological issue more than an economic one.

“What you find is mobility is virtually identical for all Americans except in the bottom 20 percent and if you dig into the bottom 20 percent, the mobility is identical for white Americans, it’s slower for black or African-Americans in the bottom 20 percent,” he said. “And if you dig into that, what you find is that single motherhood and high school dropout rates seem to account for almost all of the differences in mobility and that has profound effect on mobility across all races, across all income groups.”

Conrad also said that the Fed’s actions of raising taxes on the risk, regulations and entitlements only slow down growth, which worsens the initial problem.

“The Fed does come in for criticism in trying to pump up growth by printing money,” said Conrad. “I don’t think it will work. You’ve got to remember that the Federal Reserve doesn’t produce anything, it doesn’t create anything that would actually increase growth. But the argument I made in my first book was that the money would largely sit unused because we’re bumping up into other constraints to growth which is our willingness to take risks so, for example, borrow that money and put it to work. It would sit unused and create neither inflation nor growth. So I think it’s largely to destabilize the economy a bit. It’s made financial markets harder to interpret but it’s had actually very little effect, I think, on the economy, so a lot of risk for not much benefit.”

Flyover America: The Financial & Political Misrule of Washington and Wall Street

Dawn J. Bennett, host of Financial Myth Busting, recently interviewed David Stockman, a bestselling author and former director of the Office of Management and Budget. In his new booked, Trumped! A Nation on the Brink of Ruin… And How to Bring it Bank, Stockman explains how 30 years of financial and political misrule by Washington and Wall Street elites have brought the United States to the brink of ruin.

According to Stockman, the Fed’s destructive ZIRP and QE policies have buried Flyover America in debt and clobbered the nation with shrinking real wages and vanishing job opportunities. Meanwhile, the bicoastal elites have greatly profited from the immense inflation of financial assets in the Wall Street casino and debt-fueled expansion of Imperial Washington’s domestic and global interventions.

In his book, he also argues Donald Trump’s unlikely candidacy occurred because Flyover American has had enough of the rigged system that benefits only a few and failed to deliver economic recovery and real prosperity at home and a safer, more stable world abroad.

In his interview with Dawn J. Bennett, Stockman explained that price discovery has been destroyed, market false liquidity has poured into the canyons of Wall Street like a flash flood, and bond prices are crazy worldwide.

“There’s $13 trillion of sovereign debt trading at sub-zero yield which on its face is the craziest thing anybody can imagine because no government should be paid for borrowing money,” he said.

Stockman also noted that in Flyover America, there’s no breadwinner jobs, as most of them have fled offshore, and there’s a 21% decline in the real standard of living. Meanwhile, $13 to $93 trillion worth of financial value falls onto a very small portion of the population.

Many progressives use income inequality to argue for more government intervention in the economy. Stockman explains in his book and interview that economic interventions actually worsen inequality.

“The point is that this income misdistribution they talk about is real and I mention it in my book, but it’s a consequence of bubble finance, it’s a consequence of the Fed falsifying the financial markets, of turning Wall Street into a casino,” said Stockman. “But the fact is that it is not real capitalism at work and that is not permanent wealth creation, so if we look at the period since ’87, the Forbes 400 has had a 1000% gain in real terms and net worth. The top 1%, a 300% gain in at least paper net worth, as calculated by the Federal Reserve. The bottom 90%, zero. Net worth today is not higher than it was in 1987. Now, that’s a perversion or corruption of capitalism, as I said in my last book.”

In his book, Stockman also argues that Trump’s candidacy is directly attributed to the growing sense that the U.S. economy is rigged and only helping those at the top.

“I think right now he’s [Trump] capitalizing on the [Populist] wave because clearly—and I don’t use this word in a condescending way—but I think it’s a fair statement that the rubes are in revolt,” said Stockman. “They’re treated as rubes by the Washington/Wall Street bicoastal elite and they’ve had enough and I think Trump’s phenomenal rise is reflective of that. Now, how that translates into fundamental change in policy… that’s a huge, open question.”

Trump vs. Clinton: Economic Tax Plans

Dawn J. Bennett, host of Financial Myth Busting with Dawn J. Bennett, recently interviewed Gerard Lameiro, an author, economic, philosopher, and engineer. Lameiro is the former founder and CEO of Lameiro Economics LLC, a company committed to promoting practical economic knowledge about freedom, economic growth, and prosperity nationally and worldwide. In his interview with Dawn J. Bennett, he discusses his view point on the economic tax plans of the presidential candidates.

According to Lameiro, Hilary Clinton’s plan is to raise taxes, while Donald Trump’s is to cut taxes. The two plans are about as opposite as they get. He explained that Clinton plans to raise personal income taxes by capping itemized deductions about $350 billion over a ten year period, as well as increasing corporate taxes by $275 billion, though there are not many details available.

Additionally, Clinton is planning a $400 billion fairness tax change. Though not clearly defined, she would have a fair share surcharge, which sounds like she’ll be taxing the rich and adding that to the general fund somehow so it can be spent on other things, Lameiro said. For death taxes, she might raise them, but they definitely won’t be lowered. Clinton would also increase capital gains taxes and the brackets associated with them, but there isn’t a firm estimate on how much revenue that would generate, according to Lameiro. He also pointed out that she would create new tax on stock trades, in which those who buy and sell stocks are going to pay a percentage.

He continued, “Then a new creation, the exit tax, which has to do with businesses who earn income overseas. She would not touch the currently high corporate tax structure and that, but she would add on this new exit tax. In addition, she has also endorsed, or said she is open to, a 25 percent national gun tax. I’m sure the NRA will love that one. And a high soda tax, which is interesting.”

Lameiro said he doesn’t endorse either candidate. His personal point of view is to see pro-growth and a solid constitutional conservative.  He is in favor of fiscally restrained policies, such as doing things that moderate corporate taxes and pulling back on regulations like ObamaCare, he said.

“I do not have such a person currently running that I know of, unless possibly the libertarian and that,” Lameiro said. “But I think Trump is somewhat of an unknown quantity, and he doesn’t have a real defined track record in either economics, or virtually any other area of the government, and Clinton does have a record which I don’t particularly like.”

He continued, “I think her long term record is not pro-growth. I would expect more progressive socialist type programs and policies, and I think that’s already doing a bad number on our economy. I think we have the weakest recovery in decades, generations, and I think this tax plan would probably result in literally trillions of dollars that would not be met with her budget expense that is likely to occur.”

What Does Brexit Mean for Texit?

By now, everyone is familiar with Brexit, Britain’s decision to leave the European Union. In wake of this decision, Britain has given momentum to the movement supporting Texas’ succession from the United States. This movement is driven by a lot of similar issues that resulted in Brexit, including feelings of intrusive federal government, a weak job market and stagnant wages, and dissatisfaction with the current political and economic landscape. During the Brexit vote, the hashtag #Texit blew up. It was present in nearly 2,000 tweets between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. London time (1:00 a.m. in Dallas).

Many people may be thinking, “That’s absurd! Texas can’t secede!” But, in her recent article “Opting Out”, financial expert Dawn J. Bennett points out its possibility and the circumstances that are causing this push for secession. She notes that Texas has the 12th largest economy in the world, just behind Canada and ahead of Australia and South Korea. Texas has a GDP of nearly $1.7 trillion and grosses just as much in exports a year as Switzerland.

The Context For Texit

After the Brexit vote, global markets took a hit, mostly in developed economies. Bennett explains, “In currency trading, the pound lost more than 10 percent against the dollar at one point. Gold screamed up. Friday was also an indication from a trading perspective that the plunge protection team or the Federal Reserve, whoever is currently attempting to control the markets, has lost a bit of that control. When trading is that heavy, it’s just too hard to artificially keep things buoyant. ”

Another reason for the upsurge in talk about for Texas’ succession is our negative economic data points, which people are catching onto. Consumers are more bearish about expectations for the economy.  American-made durable goods orders dropped recently dropped 2.2%, and core capital orders sank. Around 2 billion dollar bonds in Puerto Rico and coming due, and it’s been said that they need help or else will default on their obligations. They’re lobbying in Washington for Congressional approval of a bill intended to help them pay them.   Additionally capital is rapidly shifting. Fortunes are being made and lost. While opportunities are present, they appear and then vanish quickly.

Bennett recommends examining these issues in context of your own personal situation. “How do you weight protection and liquidity in your portfolio? What do you need to do to prosper in this type of environment, or even just hold on to what you have now? I believe that you need to be hyper-focused on and skeptical of certain asset classes that suffer illiquidity gaps even during good times, like micro-cap and small-cap stocks.”

She continued, “This should be an opportunity for our leaders and central banks, and even our political candidates. Instead of grandstanding, or hiding their heads in the sand or over-stimulating by printing money, this could be an opportunity to be open and share, to address the omnipresent sense of betrayal and mistrust of politicians and economists. To speak honestly, and listen carefully. Because if they don’t start, more and more of us will simply choose to opt out.”


Dawn J. Bennett Discusses Central Bank-Driven Monetary Policy & Market Manipulation

Summer sunlight and soap bubbles

Are you familiar with the classic song “I’m Forever Blowing Bubbles”? One verse reads, “I’m forever blowing bubbles, Pretty bubbles in the air, They fly so high, Nearly reach the sky, Then like my dreams, They fade and die.” In a recent article by financial expert Dawn J. Bennett, she explains that this song could well be the theme song for central bank-driven monetary policy and market manipulation. However, unlike the bubbles in the song, asset bubbles won’t fade. Instead, they’ll explode, causing a significant amount of collateral damage, according to Bennett, who says there have been numerous warning signs indicating this will occur soon.

Bennett notes that Mark Spitznagel, billionaire hedge fund manager, told the Financial Times that “markets don’t have a purpose any more — they just reflect whatever central planners want them to.” He then continued to say, “This is the greatest monetary experiment in history. Why wouldn’t it lead to the biggest collapse? My strategy doesn’t require that I’m right about the likelihood of that scenario. Logic dictates to me that it’s inevitable.”

Spitznagel isn’t the only one with this perception. In her article, Bennett explains,”The Bank of Japan, acknowledging the violence being done to the yen by years of quantitative easing, said recently that they are setting aside money to prepare for losses on their huge holdings of Japanese government bonds which were put together and purchased through their printing of fiat currency once they are finally forced to stop monetary easing. Easing is a vortex that has sucked in the central banks over the last eight years, forcing them to continue blowing bubbles to follow bubbles to follow bubbles.”

She continued, “There have been calls even for our own Federal Reserve to go beyond QE to ‘helicopter money’, essentially going beyond interest rate manipulation and money printing by injecting ‘permanent’ money directly into private sector. Could this be why China is establishing a yuan-denominated gold benchmark for trading, in order to start backing their currency with real assets instead of academic theories?”

The U.S. derivatives market the largest bubble in history, says Bennett. It’s worth more than $1 quadrillion dollars in total by some accounts— approximately 20x the value of the whole world economy.

“It’s sheer gambling, including not just equities but physical commodities. The legality is questionable in many cases, but the problem is definitely real and indisputable.”


Why Gold? Why Now?


Financial expert Dawn J. Bennett recently wrote an article in which she discusses the rising value of gold. Gold recently exceed its 15-month high of $1300; the last time gold broke that mark was 67 months ago on September 29, 2010. According to a report from RBC Capital Markets, the upward trend in the market could cause gold to go over $1400. In her article titled “Why Gold? Why Now?” Bennett explains why gold will continue to go up from its 15-month high.

According to Bennett, investors are discovering the truth behind the “recovery” and that is that it is not a recovery. They are recognizing the signs that suggest we are nearing an even bigger collapse, despite reports of the contrary from the media and the Federal Reserve.

“In the face of deranged markets, the draw of gold is clear. Gold and silver have held many roles over history, but one significant one has always been as a hedge against turbulent markets,” Bennett wrote. “These days, the role of gold as a currency, competing against the dollar, the euro, the yen, the yuan, is coming back into focus as well: there is a gold-backed cryptocurrency (think Bitcoin) called the Hayek, and the IMF is backing some loans with gold as security against fiat currency.”

Bennett notes that central banks have time and time again inflated asset bubbles through manipulating credit, housing and now equities. Though free money and quantitative easing consistently fail, banks continue to do it, with many citizens even calling for it.

Despite media reports, the U.S. is not outside of the meltdown in “global” markets. Billions of dollars are borrowed by U.S. corporations at barely 1%, so they can buy back shares of their own stock. This dynamic is responsible for almost 50% of the recent increases in the stock market, says Bennett.  Not to mention, about 50% of Americans are on the government dole in some form, whether through food stamps or being paid by the government not to work.

Bennett believes gold and silver are currently in a unique position because they can serve as insurance against the loss of wealth, potential violent turbulence in collapsing markets, and fiscally foolish governments.

“As with any kind of insurance, you can buy it and hope never to need it,” wrote Bennett. “Now is the time to do the research and search for opportunities and protective strategies. If you do your homework and can be comfortable with the fact that gold and silver can be volatile, consider putting 5 to 10% of your portfolio in gold and silver coins, or other investments in this historic and lasting asset.

To view Dawn J. Bennett’s complete commentary, click here.