I almost didn't read the essay by Gary Gibson, the managing editor of the Whiskey & Gunpowder newsletter, because he was talking about Paul Krugman, whom Mr. Gibson refers to as "cheerleader of the state," and for whom I have a much, much lower opinion, probably because of my envy of his career success despite being, as far as I can tell, a complete failure in predicting the bursting messes we are in, or ever warning against them as they were building, when it was obvious to the Austrian economists all along.
I mean, as an economist, how bad can you be and not suffer for it, for crying out loud?
My problem with it is that "gladly suffering fools" was never popular anywhere I ever worked, as all my employers were very specific in demanding "results" and "competence," which I obviously could not deliver, as my career path of perennially bouncing along the bottom, never really getting past the "trainee" rung of the corporate ladder, so richly attests.
Anyway, Mr. Krugman writes that he and his hotshot Democrat buddies view their position as, "It's only right for the affluent to help the less fortunate."
So that, in a nutshell, is it! He, apparently speaking for all Democrats, wants to help the "less fortunate," and he is as full as any Democrat with his own self-righteousness and smug self-satisfaction in proudly declaring himself so.
Well, I got some Hot Mogambo News (HMN) for Mr. Krugman; everybody wants to eliminate suffering, and the affluent have always helped the less fortunate, to one degree or another, although it has never been enough to satisfy everybody, a tradition of whining carried forward even to today when total government spending is almost exactly half of total spending in the Whole Freaking Country (WFC)! Half!
I mean, if spending half of GDP by local, state and federal governments to let them "help" is not enough, how could it EVER be enough?
I thought it was actually funny when he ridiculously villainized all others as greedy and irresponsible, with the laughable mischaracterization, "The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft. That's what lies behind the modern right's fondness for violent rhetoric: many activists on the right really do see taxes and regulation as tyrannical impositions on their liberty." Hahahaha!
"No matter how needy"? Hahahaha! "Violent rhetoric?" "Tyrannical"? Again, hahahaha!
But as absurdly silly as this, and he, is, his real comic punch line came with the sublime, "There's no middle ground between these views." Hahahaha! Hahahahaha! Truer words were never spoken! Hahahahahahahacoughcoughcoughhahacough!
That was so funny that I was laughing so hard, and so long, that I started coughing, which I notice, now that I see it written out, does not convey the experience as well as I had hoped, but which still, I hope, conveys the Utter, Utter Contempt (UUC) I have for Mr. Krugman and his egregiously bad economic idiocies, the sum of which is always "more spending, more budget deficits, and more taxation of the rich."
I say this not because Mr. Gibson says, "Mr. Krugman is unquestionably on the side of evil," which is true, but because the most evil thing that you can do to poor people (and the others in that "less fortunate" category) is to make suffer more! Which they do when they must pay higher prices for the things they need to survive. How cruel! How monstrous!
And that - that! - is exactly what Mr. Krugman guarantees - guarantees! - when he urges more monstrous amounts of government deficit-spending, more insane increases in national debt, and an insanely increasing money supply, all thanks to an irresponsible Federal Reserve creating the money necessary to the task.
And then, as Mr. Krugman does, to advocate more taxes when he knows these business expenses are always passed on to the ultimate consumer in the form of higher prices, which fall disproportionately high on the poor, and when he knows that raising taxes inhibits economic growth, he seems to be the epitome of insanity! This is madness!
This man is, obviously then, truly evil. And he is evil because he advocates deliberately inflicting pain on the poor! He is thus a villain. He is thus a monster.
As a guy who has seen a lot of "how things work," I am thus a guy who knows that there is nothing that I can do about horrid people like Paul Krugman, or about Princeton, or about The New York Times, except seethe and bemoan the low quality of public education, so rampant in the American school system, that allows this kind of thing to flourish.
And I'm a guy who also knows that having a lot of silver will be both a terrific financial asset to own in terms of capital gains as silver rises in the massive inflation in prices caused by the massive over-creation of money by the Federal Reserve, and I'm a guy who has seen enough movies to know that silver is also a weapon against werewolves, especially when made into a hollow-point magnum bullet, at which point it becomes a defense against everything else, too! Hahaha!
Being serious for a moment, except vampires, of course, which I figure probably, explains why The Lone Ranger was famous for his silver bullets, although we'll never know because all the documentary evidence is mysteriously "lost."
So while I am not quite sure of the precise utility of silver bullets, either now or in the Old West, I am sure of silver reacting to the sorry economics of Mr. Krugman, as it rises along with, and surely ahead of, the massive rises in other prices caused by the Federal Reserve creating enough money to let the government help the "less fortunate" by making them more miserable.
And that is why the decision to buy gold, silver oil is so easy that you happily say, "Whee! This investing stuff is easy!"