But let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you – and why?
Walter E. Williams
1988
All It Takes Is Guts: A Minority View
That works for me.
I now have a new book in my queue.
Our country has prospered by providing individuals with the opportunity to get ahead and to enjoy the fruits of their success. Consequently, we have out-performed and out-grown every developed country on earth.
We must not allow today’s socialist fever to wreck the American dream.
Liz Peek
November 14, 2025
It’s not just the 1 percent — socialists are coming for your money, too
See also: Margret Thatcher.
The only way to get us out of the debt crisis and prevent America from going bankrupt is AI and robotics.
Elon Musk
November 27, 2025
Elon Musk Warns ‘The Only Way to Get Us Out of the Debt Crisis’ and ‘Prevent America from Going Bankrupt is AI and Robotics’
This is to go with yesterday’s QOTD.
I do not know if Elon is correct or not. I suspect Elon knows that he doesn’t know that AI and robotics will actually work. I find the assertion plausible. But there will never be a proof. It may be that AI and robotics will do the job, but going down that path means we will not fully commit to any of the other paths, hence that the assertion of it being the only way cannot be tested.
I also find the assertion that is no way out plausible. We just don’t know. And don’t know how to figure it out prior to just trying it. The problem is that not only is our economic system a very complicated issue with many non-linear feedback loops, but it is also not repeatable.
Because of this no one on the planet can successfully defend a claim that an accurate model exists. Furthermore, I posit that no one will ever be able to accurately model the economy. I make this claim because the existence of an accurate model will itself be the addition of still another variable that the model must take into account. This addition of another variable disrupts the model.
Think of it this way, if people know the future, they will change their behavior to take advantage of that knowledge, which changes the future yet again. And it is not just one person who changes their behavior. It will be billions of people, millions of organizations, and thousands (including national, state, and local of the entire world) of governments. Each of these feedback channels, on their own, can cause the model to predict a different outcome. Each tweak of the model will require more tweaks once the output is known and feedback comes in. Only if the feedback has a lower amplitude for each tweak will the model reach equilibrium. And this is just for the design of the model. Running the model has the same type of problem. And the designers of the model have to do this for all practical situations.
In classical control system design this is described as the loop gain being less than one. This is requited to have a stable system*. To make the problem readily solvable the system model is generally limited to something no more complicated than linear differential equations. With the massive number of feedback channels in our economy, nearly all of which are nonlinear, you will have an incalculable number of opportunities in the N-dimensional space (with an extremely large N) for there to exist unstable situations. I assert such a model will not be possible in my lifetime and perhaps not ever.
We are going to have to take aim in a particular direction and roll the dice to find out if we chose a direction that has a solution.
* This is a necessary condition. It is not a sufficient condition. There also are requirements on the phase/time-delay of the feedback, but that is beyond to scope of this discussion.
While it is a matter of entrepreneurial judgment and not economic theory to affirm gold’s superiority as the ultimate “store of value” and potentially even as the preferred replacement for fiat monies (though silver has often been a strong competitor to gold for the latter role), I must agree with Lagarde’s assessment of the empirical facts concerning reserve asset competition, not with Powell’s dismissive attitude about gold—when the chips are down and the world is forced to turn to an unconditionally trustworthy reserve of purchasing power, the world will turn to gold. What soaring gold prices might indicate is that the world is now turning to gold.
Vincent Cook
November 28, 2025
Central Bankers Disagree About Gold | Mises Institute
The prices are certainly rising. This is just this year:
I see the stumbling of Bitcoin. I see Trump and Elon fail to get the U.S. deficit under control. I see the mounting U.S. debt becoming a huge, unstoppable monster. I wonder if the price of gold reflects a lack of confidence in the U.S. dollar. I think of the Zimbabwe dollar (I have trillions of them). Our country is not Zimbabwe, Argentina, or Venezuela so if someday we do have runaway inflation, it almost for certain will not be on the scale of those countries. But if it does happen, it could happen very rapidly. These events frequently have high emotional content. It is like someone shouted fire in a large room with not enough exits. A lot of people get trampled who would have survived had everyone remained calm.
And, of course, gold may not be the thing that saves people in a stampede. Maybe it will be guns and ammo to defend against the looters searching for food or even, as in the movie Doctor Zhivago, stealing the lumber from your home to burn for warmth.
If you do decide to buy gold, please remember my advice.
French-American here — spent 20 yrs in France, 13 in the US. Let me speak to this.
I think the only reason Europoors tolerate their miserable existence is because they tell themselves lies about what the rest of the world is like. They eat gruel in their AC-less social housing while the most awesome party in history is being thrown just next door.
If you hang out in France, you’ll routinely hear them say things like: “in the US, people die in front of hospitals” (they literally believe this to be the case) or “our social system is the envy of the world.”
Their image of the US is completely delusional, and they are often shocked to discover that when they visit here. Their Marxist media brainwashed them into thinking America is some Dickensian horror, with Monopoly-style fat capitalists running around with their top hats and monocles, exploiting dirt poor workers.
…
Now, how do Americans perceive the French (and Europeans at large)?
Well, the tragic reality is that they really, truly don’t think of them. They may cross their minds once a month, at most. Why would they think of that irrelevant backwater of a continent?
The few times they do come to mind, it is, at best, as a quaint vacation spot. A nice place to sip espresso and spend their American dollars — which go such a long way in these third world countries! The closest comparison is how Europeans think of Thailand or Cambodia.
That’s at best. At worst, they think they’re a lazy, entitled, smug, snobbish, rude people with a bright future behind them, who confuse regulation for progress, don’t realize their economies were left in the dust a very long time ago, simply stopped innovating because they’ve lost the will, ability, or both, and who would rather brag about their 60%(!!) public spending to GDP ratio than fix their communist shit hole of a system.
Nice wine though.
Flo Crivello @Altimor
Posted on X, November 26, 2025
I am reminding of something told to me by a person raised in China:
… the schools in China taught that in the U.S. there was lots of food but only the rich could afford it. And rather than let the poor people have food for an affordable price the rich would dump the excess food in the ocean. The fact that food is so plentiful and cheap that poor people in this country are obese apparently didn’t make it through the censors.
I am also reminded of something the president of a small company (about $25 million a year in the mid 1980s) told a small group of us once. Paraphrasing some, “People in other countries have no idea what it is like to live in the most powerful country in the world. Someone in a country that is number five or seven, might be able to come close to imagining what it is like living in a number two or three country. But even the number two country doesn’t know what it is like living in the number one country. And living in the number one country, we have no idea what it is living like in even the number two country.”
I didn’t really understand that then. I understand a little bit now. I have no reason to believe it is wrong.
Via GrandParaLarry @ParaLarry:
For now.
If the FPC (see also here) and SAF (see also here) have their way, then eventually the price of a Thompson clone could drop to a few hundred present day dollars.
In related news, I didn’t realize people were working on the interstate sale problem. I think should be an easy win. I’m pleased to see it is being addressed.
Interesting:
Peter Schiff says only an unlikely government intervention can save Bitcoin
Schiff is again warning that holders of the digital currency are in for a grim awakening — and an unlikely Bitcoin price rally is their only hope. He notes that Bitcoin can only hit a new all-time high if the U.S. government steps in and buys massive amounts of it for its strategic reserve — a move he believes is highly unlikely.
…
He has only recently doubled down on his long-term prediction that Bitcoin is on track to drop well below $88,000 by 2026, as the asset, aside from losing a significant amount of value in its retreat against the dollar, has struggled to assert resistance against gold.
That is an easy prediction to verify as valid:
Bitcoin is a faith-based asset. It has no substance other than many people believe in it. If enough people stop believing it is something of value its value will drop to, essentially, zero.
Has that time come? I don’t know. Other “experts” say no:
Peter Brandt predicts Bitcoin to hit $200K by Q3 2029 – Cryptopolitan
Brandt said that he remains a long-term bull, despite the recent market downturn, viewing the current sell-off as a healthy reset that may open the door for future profits.
Brandt challenged forecasts from figures such as BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes and Tom Lee, who have predicted that BTC will at least hit $200,000 by the end of the year. Notably, in October, Hayes and Lee reaffirmed their belief in the forecast.
…
Brandt believes that the current sell-off is a beneficial moment. He claimed that “this washout is the best thing that could have happened to Bitcoin.” Other commentators like Rational Root agree with him, pointing out that such falls in the past have made room for new market highs. Historically, such “reset phases” have frequently preceded sharp price hikes.
Reality is tough. Really tough. And accurately predicting the emotional direction and magnitude of a large population may be an unsolvable problem.
Brandt has his biases. He owns a fair amount of Bitcoin and advising others to buy it benefits him. I have my biases, I don’t own, and never have owned, any Bitcoin. It has always seemed untrustworthy to me. I view Bitcoin as far less trustworthy than paper money. And, except for certain currencies, and short time periods I don’t trust them. So, my advice* is to get whatever money you can out of Bitcoin as soon as you can and convert the cash into something having real value such as gold, ammo, guns, land, or even buildings or an underground bunker. If paper money were trustworthy, my status as a multi-trillionaire would mean I could now retire in comfort. But I cannot.
* I am not a financial advisor. My advice is, at best, that of an amateur.
Chuck Schumer stepped on a rake with the shutdown and the hammer and sickle wing of the Democrats wants to use Mamdani narrowly beating Cuomo as justification for taking over. I am happy to let AOC take the wheel and drive off a cliff.
Slow Joe Crow
Comment to Becoming Woke
While there is the certain hazard the rest of the country suffers as the car goes over the cliff, I cannot plausibly imagine a less bad outcome from our current predicament. What can we do to make sure the drive train is in good working order and the car is fully fueled? I don’t really care whether or not the vehicle has working brakes. They always double down on their mistakes so I would not expect them to be used in any case.
Democrats are looking ahead with hope that the anger in their party boils over so they can focus on hammering Republicans over health care. Next month, Republicans will give Democrats a vote on extending the enhanced ACA subsidies. It will almost certainly fail, and Republicans are preparing an alternative plan they can put on the floor to vote for instead. Nevertheless, it will give Democrats another opportunity to go on offense.
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) said while it’s “definitely a disappointment” the shutdown didn’t end with the outcome Democrats preferred, people should be directing their anger at those imposing higher health care costs on Americans.
Igor Bobic, Jennifer Bendery, and Arthur Delaney
November 11, 2025
Why Democrats Caved In The Shutdown Fight | HuffPost Latest News
What I don’t see discussed in the media in plain language is the consequences of these higher premiums. Except for U.S. New & World Report, the wording is all, at best, very circumspect:
5 Consequences If ACA Premium Subsidies End in 2026 | AJMC
The return of the subsidy cliff would likely lead to “coverage churn,” where individuals cycle in and out of insurance due to fluctuating income. This instability not only undermines continuity of care but also disrupts the broader insurance market by reducing the number of healthy, continuously insured individuals.
What expiring ACA subsidies could mean for consumers and the economy | Mizuho Insights
In the absence of subsidies, the U.S. healthcare system will confront lower volumes, tighter margins, and renewed financial pressure across the board. For a sector already navigating demographic shifts, labor shortages, and cost inflation, the withdrawal of federal support could prove a defining headwind in the years ahead.
What the End of Obamacare Subsidies Could Mean for Your Health Coverage | TIME
Insurers across the market—not just those relying on ACA subsidies—are bracing for the effects of the expiration, as volatility is expected.
The shutdown is about to end. Will millions lose their health insurance?
Without the pandemic-era subsidies, ACA health insurers could face the prospect of serving a larger share of high-cost enrollees, Corlette said.
“We could be in for a stretch where insurance companies have to raise their premiums again to reflect a smaller and sicker market,” Corlette said. “So 2027 premiums are likely to be even higher, and some insurance companies may decide this is not a market they want to continue being in.”
Hospitals Face a ‘Slow Train Wreck’ if ACA Subsidies End, Expert Warns | Health Care | U.S. News
Could the loss of these subsidies destabilize insurance markets, and if so, what kind of consequences could we see for patients and for providers?
We already know that insurance companies are bracing for a market that is much smaller, has fewer enrollees but is also much sicker than it has been.
That’s because insurance companies are assuming that the people most likely to be deterred by a higher premium are folks who are relatively young and healthy. What insurers really need is what they call a balanced risk pool, where there’s essentially a balance between healthy and sick people, with healthier people subsidizing sicker folks. Then the healthy people drop out, which means that the insurance companies have a smaller group of more expensive people to cover and then they raise their premiums.
Some of them may find the market less attractive because they worry they can’t fully recoup their costs. So we could see over time, not only rising premiums in this market but also fewer insurance companies participating.
Let me translate this for you. With the subsidies ending there is a high risk of a death spiral in the health insurance industry. As premiums rise, healthier enrollees are likely to drop coverage, leaving insurers with a sicker, costlier pool. This forces insurers to raise rates further, compounding “instability.”
Copilot supplied:
Bottom Line
The end of ACA subsidies would mean higher premiums, fewer enrollees, and greater instability for insurers, while threatening the ACA’s long-term viability. Unless Congress extends or replaces subsidies, the ACA could face a slow-motion collapse driven by adverse selection and affordability crises.
The insurance companies will have to revert to some of the previous practices which protected them against this sort of death spiral insurance premium situation. They will need to be able to refuse insurance to people with preexisting conditions. While unpopular, they may revert to having lifetime and annual limits which were banned by Obama Care.
As near as I can tell, the U.S. Constitution does not give the U.S. Government the power to provide health insurance. Of course, during the Obama administration SCOTUS disagreed with my reading of the U.S. Constitution.
My take on this is that the money has to come from some place. The subsidies are paid by taxes. By cycling the money through the tax process, then back to insurance companies, then to healthcare providers a considerable amount of “friction” has been introduced, and the total cost of health care has been increased. This is a waste of money.
Free markets are best because they reduce “friction” and the competition results in innovation.
Let ACA fail. Let people evaluate their own risks and be responsible for their own health care. Let insurance companies tailor their coverage for the markets and how they decide to define them. Let private charity groups vet and pay for deserving people unable to afford insurance or pay out of pocket. Let the people who chose to abuse their bodies with consumption of alcohol, tobacco, other recreational drugs, and other risky behaviors pay the price for their stupidity.
Prepare appropriately for the transitions.
Voting for communists because you’re poor is roughly akin to throwing virgins into a volcanic caldera to stop an eruption.
But then so are most of the things governments think they can do to improve the economy, from printing more money or less money, raising or dropping interest rates, regulating several aspects of the economy, or just about anything else.
I mean, all of those do something. They just rarely do what the government thinks its doing/wants them to do.
…
Which is why communism is the worst of all systems, because it thinks it can “scientifically” and “top down” control all of economy from production to consumption.
And all it does, over and over again, is throw virgins in volcanos to stop the lava flow.
Only the promised wonderland of free stuff never arrives.
And you end up tragically short on virgins. And everything else, as well.
Sarah A. Hoyt
November 6, 2025
Throw Another Virgin Into the Volcano! – According To Hoyt
My analogy for this is that an economic system is a like a machine. Government is like friction in the machine. It removes energy (wealth) that could have been used for something else. Some of this government removed energy is put to beneficial interests. Enforcing contracts and protecting the rights of individuals are essential functions that government has the potential to do reasonably well. When government imposes regulations the friction does little more than turns the machine energy into heat and the benefit is near zero as far as the machine (economic system) is concerned.
As more friction is inserted (regulation and taxes) into the machine the net energy decreases and more and more system in the machine must be shut down to conserve energy while still allowing the machine to run in some capacity. Black markets appear as bypasses around the friction points. These bypasses work after a fashion but there are other problems. Contracts are ultimately enforced by violence and threats of violence. Trust decreases because of all the laws that are being broken put people at risk of being ratted out to the government. Planning becomes difficult because supply chains are not predictable. If enough friction is added the machine slows down and stops (economic collapse).
The socialist will not admit responsibility for their destruction of the economy. Among other excuses, they will claim it was bad luck.
It is amazing to me how reframing things makes such a huge difference in not just the point of view, but in the conclusions about reality. Here is one such example (via Sarah A. Hoyt):
I spent nearly four decades in a relationship with a woman who had problems with depression. When she got depressed any evidence of her/our situation would be rationalized into justification for the hopelessness of things.
For example, if we were tight on money because of an unexpected car repair or some such thing my pointing out that we both had steady jobs and would be back to normal in a month or two. But she could not see “the light at the end of the tunnel.” It was a catastrophe. If a depressive episode occurred when things were going well, she had rationalizations to justify her depression “This is just temporary. It will get worse tomorrow.” “It is all downhill from here. This is the best it will ever be.”
This affected even the most ordinary of things in her daily life. And the really sad part was the self-fulfilling prophecy of it. This literally happened more times than I could count… She would be driving down a street free of traffic with a green light ahead. She would start slowing down as she approached the light. She did this because she was afraid the light would turn red, and she would have to stop. Of course, this increased the chances the light would turn red, and her concern would be justified.
I could see the future as awesome with a “clear road ahead”. She could only see the bridge ahead being taken out by a meteor.
Or another reframing, after your wife has just had sex with another man:
Sloppy seconds always feel amazing
With the following comments:
Agreed!
Yes they are love it 👅👅👅👅🔥
With most men, assuming the wife didn’t get killed, it would mean a divorce. Yet, another set of men think this is awesome and something to be enjoyed. How can these two framings be compatible with the same data? Yet, they are. These are alternate, very real, realities.
From the engineering world one of my favorites is to tell people to solve tough problems by looking for a different point of view. Imagine never having seen a wheel before and viewing a heavily loaded cart from a distance moving straight away from you pulled by a single horse. How can that be? That just can’t work! But if you look at the cart from a 90 degree again to its direction of motion it is incredibly simple.
Politics are filled with examples. One of my favorite examples is destroying the “right” versus “left” view of politics. People tend to believe that if you are opposed to a few of the left-wing policies that you must be in favor of all of the right-wing polices. In essence, many people will shout, “There are only two choices!”
<heavy sigh>
No. There are many ways to view the political world. A simplistic way of understanding my view political ideal is, “Free markets, free minds.” With this point of view, you see people on both the right and left as incoherent and something to be opposed. Both “wings” want some things controlled by the government and other things free from government interference. They just want government oppression for different things.
And on a whimsical note, there are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who do not.
If you look for these alternate framings/realities, you will soon see them everywhere. And in doing so, just as with the wheel example, you will find better solutions to problems of all types. Psychology, sex, engineering, politics, almost anything can be seen from different viewpoints. And finding better solutions to problems in all domains makes the world a better place.
Rapidly transforming the American public’s beliefs is a daunting task—all the more so if you dismiss their current values as unacceptable. The Democratic Party’s pragmatic wing has been pleading to broaden the tent, ideally before the Trump administration stamps out all opposition. The party’s progressives seem determined to reeducate the public rather than compromise for their votes. This is a seductive approach if the goal is ideological purity. It is a problem only if the party hopes to win elections.
Jonathan Chait
October 6, 2025
Democrats Still Have No Idea What Went Wrong
Ideological purity only works if the ideas have a strong correlation with reality. The problem Marxists have is that Marx’s ideas were found to be at odds with reality within a few years of him articulating them. His central concept, the labor theory of value, was rejected along with the incoherent fluff built upon that. He was a nobody until Lenin came along and concluded the incoherent fluff was actually genius.
Lenin brought Marx’s theories back from the dead, where they belonged, and laid the groundwork for the deaths of tens of millions in the Russia and U.S.S.R. As the Marxist infection spread worldwide over 100 million were murdered by their own governments. There have been hundreds of attempts to tweak the implementation of Marxist theory to create the promised utopia. While some of been far less deadly than others, the bottom line has always been that free markets and free minds outperform the Marx model of government.
Yet, 150 years after Marx’s ideas were first dropped into the dustbin, we have a major political party still trying to claim they have relevance. If they want to win elections (gain power) then they need to be at least somewhat content will a little power rather than a lot of power. They need to give up the authoritarian model of government. I suspect this is unacceptable to them and they would rather destroy the evidence they are wrong than accept the truth and exercise power within the confines of reality. The current government shutdown is only the most recent data point supporting this hypothesis.
Prepare appropriately.
I distinguish between naive socialists and power socialists.
Naive socialists have economically illiterate compassion.
Power socialists want to use envy and the compassion of naive socialists to gain political power to smash their enemies and control everyone.
Apatheia Ⓥ 🇺🇸 @DanKellyFreedom
Posted on X, July 16, 2025
Sadly, this account no longer exists. Perhaps it was a bot or something.
Regardless, the distinctions and descriptions resonate with me. And it is a little more polite than the more common, “useful idiots”. This comes in handy when you are discussing politics with your mother-in-law or others with the potential to disrupt domestic harmony.
Name three things that the government does cheaper and better than private individuals and organizations. It would be no trick at all to name dozens of things that the government does worse and at higher costs.
Attributed to Thomas Sowell
Posted on X, August2, 2025
I strongly suspect this is not an actual quote of Sowell. It certainly fits the essence of Sowell’s work, but you will be hard pressed to find something that comes close to a direct quote.
Zohran Mamdani’s run for mayor of New York City is a clear and present danger to the stability, economic health, and democratic foundation of both the city and the nation.
His platform is rooted in a radical socialist ideology that has, time and time again, led to failure, repression, and suffering wherever it has been tried.
And thanks to a clip surfacing on social media today, we see that Mamdani is not hiding this. In fact, he has been strikingly open about what he believes and what he plans to do. You can listen to his comments for yourself here.
Speaking in 2021 at the Young Democratic Socialists of America Organizing Conference, Mamdani said his goal is to “continue to elect more socialists” and to be “unapologetic about our socialism.”
He followed that with two key objectives: boycotting Israel and “seizing the means of production.”
The phrase “seizing the means of production” is not some vague slogan—it is the core tenet of Marxist revolutionary ideology. It means that private property, businesses, and industries are taken from their owners and turned over to collective or state control.
Quoth the Raven
June 30, 2025
“Seize The Means Of Production”: Mamdani Lays Bare His Agenda
This is consistent with yesterday’s QOTD.
Watch and listen to the video:
You can vote your way into socialism. You have to shoot your way out.
Prepare appropriately.
Thanks to a clip surfacing on social media today, we see that Mamdani is not hiding this. In fact, he has been strikingly open about what he believes and what he plans to do. You can listen to his comments for yourself here.
Speaking in 2021 at the Young Democratic Socialists of America Organizing Conference, Mamdani said his goal is to “continue to elect more socialists” and to be “unapologetic about our socialism.”
He followed that with two key objectives: boycotting Israel and “seizing the means of production.”
The phrase “seizing the means of production” is not some vague slogan—it is the core tenet of Marxist revolutionary ideology. It means that private property, businesses, and industries are taken from their owners and turned over to collective or state control.
Historically, this has been done not through elections or peaceful reform, but through authoritarian rule, state violence, and mass suppression.
Quoth the Raven
June 30th, 2025
“Seize The Means Of Production”: Mamdani Lays Bare His Agenda
Part of me wants to say, “Go for it! You can be a bad example for the current generation.” But that would be like rooting for cancer in your foot. It is already stinky, and it is not something you show off to your friends, but cancer is still a really bad thing.
The dynamic that leads to collapse is as invisible as the extremes. Once the organization–household, institution, corporation or nation-state, the dynamic is scale-invariant–has hardened into a brittle state of stasis, it’s impossible to shrink the budget without collapsing the entire structure.
I call this the Rising Wedge Model of Breakdown: as expenses, self-interest and debt all expand, it becomes increasingly difficult to slash expenses without triggering the implosion of the organization.
Under the guise of cutting the fat to save the muscle, what actually happens is the muscle is cut to save the fat. This is a complex process, but in summary, the most competent realize the organization is dysfunctional and cannot be salvaged in its current bloated state of denial, and so they immediately jump ship.
The naive who believe they can turn the situation around give it their best effort but the resistance to any meaningful sacrifices is so tenacious that they burn out and quit.
That leaves the delusionally incompetent who reckon they’re finally getting the power they long deserved. This leads to the substitution of PR and artifice for actually reducing the organization to a sustainable level, for what’s required is not just a revised spreadsheet but an entirely new culture and value system.
…
The story of the next decade is the playing out of the Rising Wedge Model of Breakdown / The Ratchet Effect throughout the entire status quo: households, institutions, corporations and nation-states will all hasten to cut muscle to save the fat and then wonder why everything is imploding under the weight of delusion and denial.
As noted previously, what’s required is not just a revised spreadsheet but an entirely new culture and value system. Without that, we get zip, zero, nada in meaningful adaptation to new realities.
charles hugh smith
June 5, 2025
oftwominds-Charles Hugh Smith: The Ratchet Effect: Easy to Spend More, Spending Less Triggers Collapse
The key takeaway is that spending less triggers collapse.
Prepare appropriately.
We have a lot of dollars sloshing around the world thanks to years and years of artificially low interest rates and quantitative easing, and more of those dollars are going to be coming home as foreigners get out of U.S. financial asset.
You’re seeing a global exodus out of U.S. stocks, out of U.S. bonds, and all that cash is going to come back home, bidding up prices.
The solution involves much higher interest rates. Now, I understand that’s going to be very painful, given the economy that we’ve created, built on a foundation of cheap money.
It means stock prices come down, real estate prices go down, companies fail. There’s going to be bankruptcies. There’s going to be defaults. There’s going to be a protracted recession, probably a much worse financial crisis than 2008, but all that has to happen because the alternative to that is even worse.
The U.S. is on the path to “runaway inflation” that could become “hyperinflation.”
Peter Schiff
Euro Pacific Asset Management Chief Economist
June 18, 2025
Peter Schiff warns of stagflation for US economy | Fox Business
Is this true? It does resonate with me. Hyperinflation is one of my big concerns in life. And because of this I have socked away $100 Trillion for a rainy day. But I have never even taken a class in economics. Perhaps I should invest/prepare differently.
For me the big wildcard in all this is that economists can’t really accurately model the economy. The math does not exist to account for the emotional reactions of what people do with their money and other assets. It could be a one sentence post on social media by the U.S. President or Elon Musk changes the entire dynamic.
One could argue that short term blips are unpredictable, but the long-term averages adhere to some math model(s). But then, how do you explain economic Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman having such an uncanny knack for getting nearly everything wrong? Economically blinded by TDS?
If so, then how do we know most other economists are not also economically impaired by the same or similar syndromes?
Oh, by the way, I ran out of Markley’s Law posts. The sources dried up early this year.
When wealth taxes fail, the Democrat Plan B is always to feed off the middle class through methods like new sales taxes or gas taxes. Seattle is already in the midst of an economic decline and a budget shortfall of this size is a crisis. Not only did their new taxes cost tens of thousands of jobs for the area, but they increased their spending projections, counting their chickens before they hatched.
Insanely, Democrats in Washington still want to pass a similar Payroll Tax system for the entire state (due to their own budget problems) despite the fact that it has been an unmitigated disaster in Seattle. The economic events in Seattle and the Pacific Northwest in general are a canary in the coal mine for the entire nation; a warning of what is to come if Democrats are allowed to continue running some of Americas biggest metropolitan areas.
Tyler Durden
April 2, 2025
Seattle Economic Crisis: Proof That Democrat Wealth Taxes Lead To Disaster | ZeroHedge
It is only insane if they are motivated by the general welfare of the Seattle and Washington state citizens. If their motivation is the destruction of the city, state, and country, then it makes perfect sense.
Prepare appropriately.
What could they possible expect? Surely, they did not believe companies would just pay the taxes, right?
Seattle payroll tax revenues fall short by $47M
Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell released his payroll expense tax (PET) report for 2024 Tuesday, and its projections came up nearly $50 million short.
“Today’s announcement that PET revenues collected in 2024 were $47 million lower than projected requires action to ensure our budget remains balanced,” Harrell explained in a statement.
Harrell said that his 2025 budget proposal was based on the projections from the independent Office of Economic and Revenue Forecasts. But since they got it wrong, the mayor said for the 2026 budget, “my office will consider all options, including additional revenue sources and appropriate expense reductions, to ensure we are making the priority investments and funding the essential services that matter to our residents.”
Did the payroll expense tax push jobs out of Seattle?
The payroll tax is levied on large corporations in the city, like Amazon and Expedia. Such a steep revenue forecast error suggests high-paying companies or their jobs are leaving the city.
It’s precisely why KTTH host Jason Rantz called the news “catastrophic” in a thread on X.
“What people haven’t realized yet—but soon will—is that the sharp drop in payroll expense tax revenue means jobs are leaving Seattle,” Rantz explained. “The whole point of the PET was to squeeze ‘free’ money out of businesses because the city arrogantly assumed it held all the cards. But what did PET actually do? It pushed Amazon jobs to Bellevue, kept employees working from home (and out of Seattle), and helped fuel layoffs at companies hit hardest by the tax—like Expedia.”
Jobs are leaving Seattle
Even Harrell acknowledged, “This decrease in revenue is aligned with recent reports of major employers moving thousands of high-paying jobs out of Seattle to other cities in our region.”
And, of course, next they will try to push jobs completely out of the state:
He noted that the Seattle payroll tax idea may go statewide with the budget proposal from Washington Democrats.
What’s next?
Republican State Rep. Chris Corry of Yakima took notice of the payroll woes in Seattle. He posted, “Paging literally everyone in Olympia.”
I just can’t believe they would deliberately kill their geese laying the golden eggs. Hence, I have to believe they really are that stupid. And since they are incapable of learning they are going to double down on their mistake.