Al, I think you and Chris will like each other very much, as I consider the two of you being in the top 5 of all people I read, listen to and enjoy. And that would be top 5 out of nearly 100.

Your philosophy does you well, I completely agree.

I should contact you sometime. Clay

his disciples would go on to do getaerr things than even he had done, and I don’t think that is limited to the Apostles.Regarding the uniqueness of Jesus even if 90% of what we know about Jesus is a fabricated myth (and I don’t believe it is that high), I won’t write it off to mere happenstance that he came into the world at the right place and time, and with the right words and actions, to become the keystone for a tremendously (and arguably the single most) significant social and spiritual movement in history. To me that suggests there were and are some very special metaphysics at work. With this understanding, out of all the avatars, seers, saints and sages in history, to profess Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior is to acknowledge the story of the man we call Jesus as the one I find most compelling, and that it led me to know the spirit of Christ, the Logos, as my primary guide. Finally, I don’t think that once a person professes Christianity all other options are then off the table, such that to follow or even convert to another tradition is to be shunned by God. I hear the spirit of Christ repeatedly telling me that God doesn’t play favorites. Yes, I’m a universalist.

Swedish meatballs? Holy smoke another one of Big Al’s favorites!

What time is dinner tomorrow?

Big Al

The publics cash should be facilitated by a public entity. Private brokerages should handle checking and pooling of resources by the facilitation of stock.

Money should NOT have counterparty risk. Money should be whatever the market says it is. Without real money, both inflation and government size and power will grow relentlessly until the system collapses under it’s own unsustainable weight. The situation would be no different than the current one. You cannot print capital, PERIOD. Printing can only transfer capital from it’s rightful owner to those who receive the printed money first -until there is no more capital left to transfer.
Without real money, with intrinsic value, any perceived individual freedom is an illusion.
In an excerpt highlighted toward the end of this article: http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1334944357.php Harry Schultz describes perfectly why gold is necessary.

Intrinsic is an oxymoron – in out. If anything, a dollar is intrinsic – a debit to one, a credit to another. It’s only an accounting tool. The problem is the accountant is charging usury. People like Harry are the reason people will invariably go to a guy with a huge vault of gold, doing NOTHING, for the facilitation of currency. http://fauxcapitalist.com/2011/03/27/the-gold-double-standard/

Gold has intrinsic value for the same reason all other raw materials do. It requires capital, labor, and risk, to produce. It also has many applications, but none as important as it’s role as money. As an accounting tool, or a measure of value, nothing else comes even close to gold’s suitability. It is the best proxy for all things real. It’s value, relative to raw materials, labor, houses, cars, education, healthcare, you name, is more stable than any other money ever used. On top of that, it can be stored for as long as you like without special care since it does not corrode or lose it’s value. It is fungible, that is, each unit is the same as every other unit, no matter where it is mined. Unlike diamonds, it is not subject to cut, carat, color, or clarity. Unlike paper money, it is not subject to the financial or political condition of any issuer. It is the only global money that would enhance individual liberty, not diminish it.

To suggest that the dollar is an accounting tool is ridiculous. Unlike the meter, mile, kilo, or pound, the dollar is not what it used to be. The average house in 1920 was about $3,000; the average price of a car was about $250; gasoline was 20 cents; a barrel of oil was $3. Tuition at Yale was about $650 in 1920, or about 32 ounces of gold. Today, it is still about 32 ounces of gold, but has gone up 85 fold in dollars to around $55,000. This inert metal has also provided a far superior inflation hedge than the Dow has. Since 1971, gold is up over 40 fold while the Dow is up about 14 fold. In the real world, the Dow has actually done much worse due to all the deletions and subsequent additions. The composition of the Dow today has little in common with the Dow an investor would have purchased in 1971.

Let a public entity ‘coin’ money and let private mints do the same.
End the tender laws.
Let multiple forms of money compete in the market.
Our current monetary system is analogous to the Public School System.
There is no level competition.
In order to send your child to a private school you have to pay property tax for a service you do not receive.
We shouldn’t a property owner be able to direct his property taxes by voucher to the school of his choice.
When allowed…. this format is so popular it requires lotteries to select because it is over subscribed.
The same would be true with multiple currencies in circulation.
Let the market separate good money from bad. Let Gresham’s Law influence what we save. This is exactly why some of us have bags of junk silver and the 7-11 has what it has in it’s cash register till.
There will always be an economy…let circulate what the magnitude of market decisions prefers.

You could have a bunch of different currencies, but if someone is charging usury for paper loans it’s because the rest of the nation is too dumb to figure out how stupid that is and will still be under the control of bankers. I could say if someone isn’t charging usury for paper loans, the rest of the nation would wake up, but the communities who are lending paper usury free insist that it isn’t a loan. They try to say there’s no borrowing because they don’t have anyone sign a formal promissory obligation. Luckily, people(not bankers) do have a conscience and will generally police themselves by producing something in turn for what they purchase. I would think if there was a list of everyone the currency was issued to, people would have more confidence in it. If you take a piece of paper in exchange for a product(sell), you are actually a lender of a product and the borrower of a piece of paper. If you are issued a piece of paper with which you buy something with, you are a borrower of paper(paper debt), a borrower of product(real debt), and a lender of paper. Buy, sell – debt involved. Trade – no debt. The amount of any currency has to be regulated by a central authority so it doesn’t inflate out of control, and the people it was issued to feel an obligation to give it back some day.

I do not agreed with your collectivists money creation conclusion.
I agree with Mark…let the market decide what is money…
what is a
1) medium of exchange
2) unit of account
and
3) store of wealth.

I guarantee the government can easily provide for 1 and 2…the problem is with the likes of Barney Franks and Maxine Waters they can never create a mediumof exhange/unit of excahnge that stores wealth. Wealth is repelled from centralized money like a drop of rain on a fast moving car’s windshield with RainX recently applied.

You have more in common with Franks and Waters than I do.

Anyone who doesn’t recognize that left wing rhetoric is written by the same people who write the right wing rhetoric is all the same – controlled opposition. Complaining how much people that don’t even produce anything are taxed – progressiveness. If there was a flat tax, you couldn’t fight with each other.

I never said give anyone money. You have to give it back at the end of your career, after you save a bunch of stuff like gold for your retirement. That is if your into storing treasures on Earth. A private bank is charging usury for lending out paper. Everything in this upside down world stems from that fact.

Excellent “school” lesson – Matthew!

Philo what you complain about in your 1:20 PM post is the way the world existed prior to 1694 and the establishment of The Bank of England.
And even after 1694 many jurisdictions thrived until being strangled by Central Banks of thier own.
My question to you is…In the history of Cental Banking name one Central Bank that has accomplish it’s stated purpose.
At this point we agree…but from there I agree with Matthew….shifting money issuance from one privatized agent of the elite to an elected one is akin to the street vendor apt with walnut shells shifting the pea as your wallet is harvested.
Back to my Sweedish meatballs!!!

I’m not talking about having a central bank. I’m talking about no bank. A bookkeeper that writes down a number on a ledger under someone’s name, then issues them some paper bills or a check is not a banker. All funding for the common use infrastructure(government) should come from taxation(flat taxation). NO “borrowing”. The books should be open for the public to see. From there on you would have to save for all your purchases, or find investors to form a company that you can work at, at the brokerage that handles your checking account. Theoretically, there would always be employment, and money to save, with no insane bankers controlling the planet.

There was no inflation between 1800 and 1900. Get the point? For those who actually work hard and live within their means, there ought to be a safe way to save what they’ve earned, don’t ya think? People should not have to take on risk and become sophisticated investors in order to protect their savings. Many don’t have the interest nor the ability to grasp what’s necessary in a fiat (corrupt) system.

What point are you attempting to make with your second sentence? I never said that I was for fractional reserve banking. If private parties want to engage in borrowing/lending, that should be their business.
What do you mean by “in out” value?

Who are you to say what someone’s private property should be used for? If gold sitting in a vault is so scary to you, why do you wish to help it remain there? That is, after all, what you are doing by foolishly demanding that something other than gold should be used for money.

Since 90 years is just too much for you, let’s go back 40 years. In 1970, the average car price was less than $4000. The average house was less than $25,000. Gasoline was 36 cents. Oil was $2.50 to $3.00 (same as 1920!). Yale tuition was $2550, and, thanks to Nixon’s ending of the dollar-gold link, $6210 by 1980. In 2000, Yale tuition was less than half what it is today. You really don’t think such moves would make planning a challenge for parents who are trying to save for their children’s education? Meanwhile, their wages are falling in real terms (purchasing power). The entire middle class is on the same accelerating treadmill that has already pitched millions into poverty.

If there was no bank, there would be nothing to save. If you add up every dollar worth of promissory obligations at every bank, you’ll find it roughly equals the amount of every dollar in every checking account, savings account, and physical bill/coin. Bankers collect usury on the cash supply. There is no fraction of anything. They expand and contract the cash supply as they will. I could care less if someone has a vault of gold as long as they’re not facilitating the cash supply. Intrinsic – Latin – in out. Yes, relations between things change in a manipulated market, like the education of a garbage Yale economics degree. Bankers create poverty so we have something to talk about other than getting rid of them.

Now you “could care less if someone has a vault of gold.” That’s an about-face from “Gold should be used for something other than sitting in a vault doing nothing…” But I’ll take it.

I don’t see anything pertinent to the dialog in your statement that “If there was no bank, there would be nothing to save.” My argument is simply that gold and silver should be used as money as they were prior to the civil war. The gold standard that came later is not the model that would be argued for by any Austrian economist. The link you provided earlier contained a critique only of this deeply flawed gold standard in an attempt to “debunk” gold’s merit as money.

Your statement that “relations between things change…” has nothing to do with the examples that I provided. Neither does your opinion of Yale. The examples I gave show that the relationship between gold and virtually ALL goods and services remains remarkably consistent -manipulation or not. Fiat paper hides this fact.

“intrinsic – Latin intrinsecus, “on the inside,” came to be the English intrinsic, “inner, internal” and “inherent.” – thefreedictionary.com

From Merriam-Webster:
Origin of INTRINSIC

French intrinsèque internal, from Late Latin intrinsecus, from Latin, adverb, inwardly; akin to Latin intra within — more at intra-
First Known Use: 1635
—-

There you go, here’s what I think of Austrian Economics http://recoveringaustrians.wordpress.com/ No matter what kind of gold standard there is or was, bankers were ripping people off. Why don’t you just take your bills, buy gold, and let those of us who know that if no one borrows from a bank, there would be no money, nothing to save, only barter, and a very slow going economy, reform monetary policy. A public bookkeeper should take over all current mortgages and stop the interest accruement. Issue currency usury free to individuals as the debt previously mentioned is extinguished. Now there would be money to save with no banker parasite. No more mortgages. You save to buy. No more defaults, which is actually the main cause of inflation. Inner value. Wow.

I took my “bills” and bought gold long ago. The CURRENT system requires borrowing. Every dollar is loaned into existence. Gold and silver as money have no such requirement. Defaults cause deflation. Inflation is the result of policymakers’ response to defaults. Your government issued paper would lead to all the same problems. Connected entities would still get bailed out. It’s funny to distinguish between a small group of powerful men in banking from those in government. Power will be abused no matter the title of those who have it. Gold empowers the individual. Wow indeed.

If I borrow a dollar into existence, buy something, then default on the dollar, that means I won’t be producing anything to capture the dollar back to extinguish the debt. That dollar is actually worthless, but it’s effect is to dilute our perception of what a dollar is worth – dilute the money supply. Now it takes more dollars to equal the same amount of debt as before, so yes, if the bank doesn’t facilitate the creation of more debt(dollars), you will have deflation which in our culture means unemployment. Banks don’t have to force defaults, but if they didn’t, people might figure out they don’t actually lend anything but paper. Gold empowers those with huge vaults of it to control the money supply so they don’t have to sell it in order to pay the guards of their mansions. They don’t produce anything to pay the guards with. People will always create a paper debt currency, as many communities do, in an effort to keep themselves employed and keep what they earn. It’s just a matter of doing it right, and on a national scale.

To clarify, dollars(debt) are being created and extinguished on a daily basis. If the pressure extinguishing them(by payments to the bank) out ways the pressure creating them(bank loans), the cash supply contracts – depression. Less money in everyone’s pocket because there’s less money. There could potentially be too much debt than necessary causing inflation but you are going to have a booming economy.

Paper money is not necessary for employment, as you say. It also does not help anyone “keep what they earn.” It does just the opposite!

More currency in circulation does not mean more value in everyone’s pocket. Wealth is being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands -despite exploding money supply growth. Paper money expedites this process of wealth consolidation.

Stable money empowers everyone. Gold is the most stable money there is. Debt based money (paper) hurts nearly everyone. When gold itself is used as money, no one with “huge vaults of gold” has any control over the money supply.

Well, there’s community currencies that are perfectly stable all over the planet helping to keep people employed. No gold involved.

Goldism – practiced by people who will argue that bankers are charging usury on paper loans because it’s not “backed by gold”. So therefore, the paper has to be backed by gold so bankers can charge usury. If your dumb enough to pay usury for a paper loan, you’re not going to be smart enough to not let bankers run your life.

I said gold is money, NOT paper. There should be NO paper at all, backed or unbacked.
You are coming from a purely emotional, wishful place. Logic should tell you that your paper would be inflated away like any other.

oooh, your talking about a barter economy that has no debt, only direct trade. I might come to the conclusion that is the only answer.

Same reason you let people go to a parasite for their money – lack of education.

Now you’re blaming Al for the monetary system? Priceless!

You can buy things with the money you have because people with promissory obligations to the bank are producing stuff. Why should they pay the parasitic middle man usury so you can have money in your bank? It’s called “the physics of money”.

That’s fine, but Al is on the right side of this debate. To the best of my knowledge (I’m 99.9% sure), he is for sound money, not this ponzi system of debt pyramiding that enriches the big banks at society’s expense.

If by “sound money”, you are referring to “gold backed”, that would actually be “insane banker money”. Sound money would be money not facilitated by a private banker.

Did you forget already? I’m talking about gold ITSELF. Not paper with “backing.” Gold would be “facilitated” by the market and mining. By the way, there is no money as sound as gold. There are mountains of evidence to support this claim. By definition, paper is not money. At best, it is a receipt for money, a claim -no different than a dry cleaners ticket. Otherwise, paper is just a currency, and a poor one at that.

Wow, aren’t you clever. You just don’t get around much.

If you give a crap about actual solutions and your sick of legalized fraud happening in every building we call a “bank”, I suggest you visit the links I’ve given and read everything on these sites to begin to understand what’s going on in reality. Yes, I try to stick to one point at a time because it’s obvious to me that people are talking incessantly and not saying anything.

thesophist, I wouldn’t assume that my mind is superior. We all have our strengths. Sounds like you were a detective or profiler? If so, it would be fun to see your blunt assessment of some of us here -even if we feel “roasted” afterward!

philo, not “every” bank deserves your disdain. Local and regional banks are captives of the central banks, which aren’t banks at all. Unsound practices are forced from the top, down. The small banks must go along or close.
Most who comment here are well aware of the legalized fraud. Many are also aware that the best way to effect sweeping change is by individual action, which is motivated by understanding (education), not by the demands of others. Imagine if everyone understood. Who, then, would be left to enforce what no one agrees with? Who would hold T-bonds and dollars over gold and silver? Nothing but ignorance precludes people from making the right decision. This is why I’ve commented here that this system stands on ignorance alone. Without the support of the masses, it would collapse.

Why would anyone who doesn’t know that banking is pure fraud open a bank? Is there a banker that doesn’t know the game is rigged? You know they have to put on a big show to get away with what they’re doing, right? Besides, you’re not even clear on what they’re doing, otherwise you’d have a clue as to the real solution to it is.

Let me put it this way, if you sell a house, the dollars in your checking account that you got for the sale are the deed to the house. They are half of the debt instrument and the promissory obligation to the bank is the other half of the debt instrument. You don’t want the house though or you wouldn’t have sold it. Notice I didn’t say “trade for it”. You want what the seller of the house is going to produce. They bank didn’t have debt instruments(dollars) before the borrower went there. You are the lender. You don’t care about getting interest because you have liquidity. You can easily transfer the debt. The debt YOU are in – on the positive $ side. The borrower is on the negative $ side. The banker lives off the usury from the borrower producing stuff and giving it to him when he produces nothing but bookkeeping services. He gets away with this because he always has a huge vault of gold in case people think a “gold standard” is going to change anything. If you lend a piece of paper that’s already a debt instrument(dollar) with a promissory obligation corresponding to it at a bank already, that would be very stupid if you actually did anything to earn that dollar. You would be really gambling in an economy someone else is controlling. Bankers don’t gamble.

I am perfectly clear on what the banks are doing. This why debt should not be allowed to circulate as money. All paper money is a bill of credit. Whether it is a promise to pay a fixed amount of gold, or a promise to pay another bill of credit of the same face value (the current system). Both are an IOU. Both open the door to deception, but the former is infinitely better that the latter. Gold itself IS money. It’s time for people like you everywhere to re-learn that fact and demand that it be recognized as such by those who rule by deception and secrecy. Why would anyone accept debt for the payment of debt in the first place? You cannot extinguish debt with more debt. So, again, we see that this system stands on the people’s ignorance.

“There is a distinction between a ‘debt discharged’ and a debt ‘paid’. When discharged, the debt still exists though divested of it’s charter as a legal obligation during the operation of the discharge, something of the original vitality of the debt continues to exist, which may be transfered, even though the transferee takes it subject to it’s disability incident to the discharge.” — Stanek vs. White, 172 Minn.390, 215 N.W. 784
——

Remember that the first thing dictators do when they rise to power is outlaw the private ownership of gold. Hitler, Lenin, and Mussolini did it. Oh yeah, and FDR.

“All the perplexities, confusion and distresses in America arise not from defects in the constitution or confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, as much from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation.”
– John Adams

By the way, banks do not need (or have) “huge vaults of gold” to get away with what they do.

Hi Matthew,
Thank you for your kind response. OK, the ‘roast’, hmmmm, not sure if I’d really want to do that. It’s the Karma principle I’m worried about. In the past when I’ve gone after someone to ‘take them to task’, even if it’s just been in sarcastic fun(as Don Rickle’s used to do) it seems that within a couple of days of that incident something really embarrasing usually happens to me. I’ve gotten a little ‘gun-shy’ about doing that. I think it has something to do with the ‘sowing and reaping” idea. As to my background, I worked with the criminal element for over 20 years. While I am not certified,(well, maybe I am) I have had training in investigation technique and abnormal psych. And the rest just comes naturally. I think I’d better leave the ‘roasting’ to the real professionals, JerryO^OTB and irishtony. 🙂

Debt is extinguished when the borrower sells something to the lender – the guy with money in his checking account who writes the borrower a check for a product or service, then the borrower takes the check and makes a payment to the bank at which point the money doesn’t exist anymore. Debt is created when a borrower goes to a banker to facilitate a loan(debt). The borrower signs a promissory obligation for 100k for example, and the banker credits the lenders account – the lender is the guy who sells(not trades) the house. Money was just created. I know this is probably very confusing to you because your conditioned to parrot things like “You cannot extinguish debt with more debt”. The borrower also sells a bunch of stuff to the banker to get dollars to give back to the banker(usury) when the banker didn’t have any dollars in the first place and still doesn’t because the debt was extinguished and if all debt is extinguished there would be no money. He did have a limit to how many dollars he could create depending on whether it’s time for a boom or bust. You are just stuck thinking we can’t create a cash supply(debt) that no parasite is facilitating. Community currencies all over. It can be done on a national scale. Colonial scrip was probably a good example until the bankers counterfeited a bunch of it so they could take over. John Adams was one of those guy’s that believed an “illumined elite” should be guiding the course of mankind – stupid. But, then again, he couldn’t really go up against the biggest mob on the planet at the time – no internet. You have no idea how much gold is in the vaults of the biggest mob on the planet.

I hate to tell you this, but you haven’t said anything new or noteworthy. When I asked why anyone would accept debt for payment of a debt, it should have been clear to you that I was referring to participants in the real economy. The fact remains that the liability is only transferred from one party to another in this system.
It should be common knowledge that, due to the pyramiding of debt with interest, there is never enough money at any given time to satisfy all the debt. This is why the system is not sustainable. It requires exponential debt growth in order to function.

Your cluelessness and gullibility are on full display when you hold out more paper as the solution to a paper problem.
Money should not just be a claim on something of value (a debt); it should have value itself. It is strange that this concept somehow threatens you. Your confusion plays right into the hands of those you so oppose.

Ultimately, the market should be allowed to decide for itself, without interference from bankers OR politicians. Since your “solution” still involves centralized control, it might interest you to know that even Karl Marx knew that ‎“Although gold and silver are not by nature money, money is by nature gold and silver.”

We have a private entity with a monopoly on the facilitation of cash so we know we don’t live in a free market. But, we insist that people that work the hardest(sweat), and are the poorest, are that way because it’s a free market. And we have rampant poverty and welfare recipients because it’s a free market. We seem to believe that if there isn’t a huge disparity in standard of living, things just won’t get done. Will things just not be invented and produced if the promise of living better than everyone else is not the motivation of the inventor/entrepreneur? Would it not be rewarding enough to be paid to think as opposed to working a production line? Would anyone work a production line once they realized they were conditioned to believe they’re dumb from the day they were born and only the most aggressive of us end up in management and executive positions? I’ve spent a lot of time thinking while working on a production line. I also spent a lot of that time listening to very wealthy people on the radio(like Rush Limbaugh) talk about nothing for hours. There just simply needs to be an accounting tool like dollars in order to facilitate the creation of stock(private ownership) and the pooling of resources in a modern venture economy that produces new stuff every day. Currency, liquidity. We would need to produce weaponry for the defense against banker controlled nations, unlike the Native Americans did. There will always be people making various wages for their time, but does there have to be such a huge disparity, poverty and unemployment? Is not the current system just a way of fooling everyone that they’re keeping a large percentage, at least, of what they earn in an open free market, when in fact the richest of us don’t earn(produce) anything? And they’re insane and have an agenda that seems to include killing the majority of the population without killing themselves? I personally have to see if things would get done if a public bookkeeper was facilitating the cash supply before I conclude things won’t and we have to eliminate the IOU. Or, I could just plug myself back into the matrix. You notice how what I say sounds a lot like Karl Marx, but I’m not talking about a central bank, a gold standard, a progressive tax and abolishment of private property? Is it possible he was a propagandist working for the communist bankers/industrialists that took over Russia after the Bolshevik revolution? And in fact we live on a giant commune with a scientific cabal as the dictator? And there isn’t a book on the true nature of duplicitous propaganda? What would a free market look like?

I guess if every dollar was a physical bill, and they are owned by a private entity loaning them out with usury, I am calling for the abolishment of that private property.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. – The public cash supply is being rented out by a private entity.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated tax. – All it takes is a progressive tax period to create the controlled opposition R vs. D Communist Party USA.
Karl was a funny guy.

As you probably already know, Limbaugh, like so many similar cardboard cutouts, is a shill. Corporatists like him and his FOX counterparts masquerade as proponents of free markets but really hate competition. They do not want a level playing field. They do not want market forces (supply/demand) to set the price of anything. In a free market with a level playing field, monopolies are very unlikely. Notice that the corporate takeover of “Main Street” accelerated dramatically AFTER the dollar became a pure fiat currency. From auto parts and fast food to gas stations and department stores, big chains have taken over. Since Nixon removed the last of the dollar’s gold backing in 1971, the gap between CEO pay and worker pay has jumped from 25 times to as high as 525 times -depending on the source. Two income-earners are now likely to make less than a single earner with a high school diploma 50 years ago (in real terms of course). Pro athletes and movie stars have also seen their pay keep up with inflation. The masses could not have been so deceived had the dollar remained fixed to something of value. The current system allows for phantom raises year after year. So most people cannot detect that, net of currency debasement, they are actually getting a pay CUT year after year. A revolt would have come very quickly if only people could SEE.

Your speculation on Karl Marx could easily be the case.

Don’t feel alone on that, Marc. I don’t own a gun but I have been SERIOUSLY thinking about it. I don’t live in a big city, nor near enough, but I should still consider taking some kind of precaution. I DO know how to use a gun though, all types. I’ve just never really had the urge to buy one….but I am seriously thinking about that.

I like silver bullets! It keeps those darn lycanthropes away! You do realize that the bankers are lycanthropes don’t you?

My approach to monetary reform is actually vastly different than Still’s. He thinks money can be spent into circulation. This demonstrates a severe lack of understanding the physics of money. I didn’t know Lieberman had an opinion on monetary reform.

I completely understand.
And I understood as much.
My point is that you can embrace and respect the utility of a tool while at the same time not wanting to see it in prevalent use.
Localities across the country have snow plowing budgets due to the mild winter can now be used for other things.
It is as if Bastiat’s shopkeeper’s window was never broken.
I am prepared as you….. but I would rather be golfing as compared to glazing a shopkeeper’s window.