|
L:
Doug, among the many things you find perverse in our world, I've heard you
say that one of the most perverse is that the U.S. government has created a
bureau to regulate and suppress three of your favorite things in life.
Doug: Ah,
yes. Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms – the three things you need for a
decent hunting expedition. Or a Class One party. A Class Two party would also
include sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll.
It really is
strange that they have one agency to regulate these three particular things.
Of course, none of them should be regulated at all. Regulating alcohol makes
as much sense as… regulating water.
L: The
government does that, too.
Doug:
These people learn absolutely nothing from their mistakes – ever. To
me, that's proof that the problem isn't intellectual; it's moral. Spiritual.
And I don't mean on the part of the drinkers, smokers, and shooters. The
bluenoses just have to tell others what they can and cannot do;
they're uptight, nosy, unhappy, and small-minded. Not the type you'd want for
a neighbor, but they are nonetheless quite successful at wheedling their way
into political power. These types pushed the U.S. into prohibiting the
manufacture and sale of alcohol from 1919 to 1933, and it was an unmitigated
disaster. It created a crime wave the likes of which had never been seen
before, and not just because peaceful, otherwise law-abiding citizens became criminals
with the stroke of a pen. It created a black market for liquor, and that
spawned many related criminal activities.
L: When
those activities become criminal, the people involved can't take their
differences to the courts, so there's an increase in settling disputes with
violence. And since the goods are traded in the black market, people can't
complain too loudly if the quality is bad. Plus, prices go up, to account for
the cost of evading the law, which attracts new people to enter a life of
crime to cash in on the high margins. Bathtub gin was easy money, like meth
today.
Doug:
Right. Prohibition established the Mafia in the U.S., which became the main
supplier of alcohol. The Mafia didn't really exist in the U.S. before the
Volstead Act initiated the Prohibition Era. It was Prohibition that made
crime profitable as a big business; Al Capone would never have been more than
a small-time hood without it. Prohibition caused destruction and havoc, cost
a lot of money, and affected the moral fabric of society – it was a
total disaster.
L: I've
read that women rarely drank spirits before Prohibition, and almost never in
the company of men, before the speakeasies. Even though I rarely drink any
alcohol at all, I'm not sure this fall from grace is entirely bad – but
it sure does indicate a fundamental change in the fabric of society. All
unintended consequences of busybodying.
Doug: They
never learn. They've declared war, of all the stupid ideas, on various plant
extracts that are unpopular with the neopuritans: cocaine, marijuana, heroin,
etc. It's not a war on all drugs – really dangerous psychiatric drugs
like Ritalin, Prozac, and scores of others are being actively promoted. The
War is really just on recreational drugs – and not even all of them,
just some of them. All these things were legal in the 19th century and were
never serious problems, even when anyone could buy them at the corner drug
store. Sure, some people abused them, just like some do today. But they were
cheap in a free market, and no one had to resort to crime to support his
habit. For what it's worth, alcohol is much more dangerous than marijuana.
Cannabis has demonstrated medicinal uses, but don't try telling that to an
anti-drug crusader.
L: What
do you say to people who ask if drug addiction isn't a terrible thing that
destroys families, etc.?
Doug: It's
true – but mostly only if kids haven't been brought up right to start
with. So a lot of fools want the government to do their job for them. But
depression also destroys lives. Are you going to outlaw that? Overeating is a
deadly vice, so busybodies are working to outlaw that now too, with laws
against fat and salt. These neopuritans, who think they know best for
everybody else, suffer from serious psychological aberrations. I'd say
"So what?" except they insist on imposing their values, by law, on
everyone else.
Tragedy is part
of the human condition. You can't legislate it out of existence. And, as with
Prohibition, the United States' admittedly disastrous War On Alcohol, most of
the bad things we see in relation to drug use today don't come from the drug
use itself, but from people being forced into criminal activity in order to
engage in otherwise peaceful activity.
But as I said, a
hundred years ago, well before the insane War On Some Drugs, most of these
drugs were known and commonly used as medicines, among other things, with no
regulation at all, and the people with problems were few. Sigmund Freud
prescribed cocaine to his patients and used it himself. I'm not advocating
the use of recreational drugs, incidentally, and I generally eschew the
company of users. I'm simply saying it's nobody's business if you indulge.
I could go on,
but I won't. The point is that alcohol is no different and should be
completely unregulated; the market would ensure cheaper, safer, better drinks
and everyone would be better off.
L:
What's your favorite drink? I mean, we all know you like a good glass of
wine, but is there a variety you like?
Doug: The
technology of wine making has become so sophisticated, and widespread, that
any wine above a certain level is quite acceptable today. It's a far cry from
the days – not so long ago – when people crushed grapes barefoot
or thought Mogen David was a special treat at dinner. Hell, things have
changed from when, in college, we used to mix grain alcohol with Welch's
grape juice and think we were living high on the hog. But seriously, above,
say, $15 a bottle, the difference between most wines is largely promotion and
marketing as far as I'm concerned. But to answer the question, everything
being equal, I'll order a Malbec in a red – they're very hearty. And a
Torrontés in a white.
L: And
what about mixed drinks – martinis or manhattans?
Doug: Once
again, I'm not a connoisseur. But I enjoy bourbon on the rocks, when it comes
to the hard stuff. I used to be a fan of Old JTS Brown, mainly because it was
the brand Fast Eddie drank in The Hustler – that movie was made in the
days before paid product placements. But I haven't seen it for many years.
The brand seems to have been killed – probably by some corporate
"suit" who obviously didn't know either good bourbon or the value
of free advertising.
Now the market is
totally dominated by Jack Daniels and Jim Beam, which are perfectly
acceptable products – but the alcoholic equivalents of McDonald's and
Burger King. Of course now there are lots of very expensive small batch
makers as well. But 90% of the cost of the product is taxes, which I resent.
I hope someday Americans again have the guts to go back to rum-running
private stills – all the great NASCAR drivers of the '50s and early
'60s got their start as bootleggers outrunning revenuers on back roads.
L: The
parallels with tobacco are obvious. It's another victimless crime that Big
Brother and all his busybody supporters have decided has got to go.
Doug: Yes,
they're ratcheting up the anti-tobacco rhetoric in the same way these other
substances were demonized before they were made illegal. I generally don't
believe in conspiracy theories, even though everybody and his dog conspires,
simply because it's hard enough to get four people all to agree on what movie
to see, much less how to commit a giant malfeasance. But, clearly, people of
bad will often think alike. And if they see some group of do-gooders has a
new agenda, it's monkey see, monkey do. The anti-smoking hysteria is
worldwide at this point.
L: I'm
not a smoker either, and frankly, I hate the smell of cigarette smoke. But
it's striking to me the way that habit is being rebranded in such a negative
way. The little smoker's booths are bad enough, but making it illegal to
smoke in bars, which are private property where people want to go smoke and
drink – and even in your own house in some places – is taking the
anti-smoking witch-hunt beyond apartheid to persecution.
Doug: It's
actually insane. And a violation of property rights – the owner of the
establishment should make the rules; the customers can abide by them or go
elsewhere. People have become such whipped dogs in accepting government
decrees. There's a cigar bar in Vancouver, right across from the Terminal
City Club. They sell good Cuban cigars, and they have a tastefully appointed
room that's air conditioned, filtered, sealed, etc., set up so people could
smoke cigars without affecting a non-smoker's most delicate sensitivity in
any way. But the Vancouver government has outlawed any smoking in any commercial
establishment. So, here we have a state-of-the-art cigar bar where you're not
allowed to smoke.
It's just
incredible. Stupid and destructive. It's a depressing sign of how degraded
the average person has become that people are not out in the streets with
pitchforks and torches, storming the busybodies' castles. And, of course, the
police enforce any and all laws, like robots.
Back in the
1980s, when I flew the Concorde…
L: They
let you fly one?
Doug:
[Laughs] No, although I did fly a Cuban airliner once. It was a Russian
Antonov-1, which is a gigantic prop plane. I went up to greet the pilot, who
didn't speak very good English, and my Spanish wasn't very good at the time.
He asked if I was a pilot, and I said yes, which was true, albeit for little
Pipers and Cessnas, and he invited me to take over the plane. My friend Ben
Johnson had the same thing happen to him in Russia on a Tupolev jet
airliner… but that would not likely happen on a British Airways
Concorde.
L: No,
I wouldn't think so.
Doug: Anyway,
not only could you smoke on the Concorde in those days, but they actually
passed out a selection of Cuban cigars for you to smoke after your dinner.
L.
Wow...
Doug:
That's a genuine fact. And earlier, back when I was in high school,
stewardesses would pass out free sample packs of cigarettes to all the
passengers who wanted them, courtesy of the cigarette companies.
L:
Things sure have changed…
Doug:
Radically. It seems like all these chimpanzees get a new meme in their heads,
and that becomes the new way it is. Fashion totally overrules principle.
L: It's
like that thing about, first they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak
out because I wasn't a Communist; then they came for the Jews, and I didn't
speak out because I'm not Jewish, etc., then when they came for me, there was
no one left to speak out.
Doug:
Pastor Martin Niemöller, referring to the National Socialists, of whom,
incidentally, he was an early supporter. That's exactly right. First they
came for the smokers…
L: What
would you say to people who don't want to breathe other people's smoke? Isn't
it a violation of their rights when a smoker fills the air with fumes they
don't want to breathe?
Doug: It
might be, but it might not. It's a matter of property rights. If someone
comes into your house and blows smoke in your face, that certainly is a
violation of your rights. But if you're in a restaurant or airplane and the
owners are okay with smoking, no one is violating your rights. You have the
right to leave or fly another airline, but you don't have a right to impose
your personal air quality standards on others, in their places. In these
types of situations, it's not the smoke that's the problem, it's unclear
property rights.
L: Fair
enough. So, what's your favorite cigar?
Doug: Well,
I have to give the nod to the Cubans. I used to argue with my old friend Jose
that the Dominicans were just as good – but he was right. Too bad
they're illegal in the U.S. The best in the world is probably the Trinidad,
and it's also the most expensive at close to $50 a copy, for some models.
Next is the Cohiba, especially the Esplendido and Lancero. During the cigar
boom of the late '90s – and cigar booms always coincide with tops in
the stock market, it's uncanny – Castro idiotically put out a directive
to triple production. Needless to say, quality collapsed; he almost
single-handedly destroyed the industry. But Cubans are now back up to snuff.
I think there's
much more variation in quality and taste in cigars than in liquors. And
marketing also is a major controller of price. Once, when I visited perhaps
the best cigar store in Havana, I mentioned to the manager, who was a real
aficionado, that I really like Cohiba Lanceros but didn't like the $20 price.
He suggested El Rey del Mundo, Grandes de España. As far as I could
tell, it was the same cigar – but at $4 a copy. The cheapest place I
know to buy Cubans is at the Duty Free in Buenos Aires. The most expensive is
anywhere in the UK – including the Duty Free at Heathrow, where they're
over twice the price they are in Buenos Aires.
L:
Well, I'll leave that experiment to those of our readers who share your taste
in this regard. So, what about firearms?
Doug: In
many ways, this is the most egregious, dangerous, and offensive stupidity of
them all.
L: Why?
Doug:
Times were that to be a freeman meant to be a person who could possess
weapons. They were not just a symbol of freedom but the means for securing it
and maintaining it. Only slaves were disarmed – or, for that matter,
allowed themselves to be legally disarmed. But that's exactly the direction
the U.S. is going, and indeed most of the world.
I'm a firm
believer that everyone ought to be able to carry any arm they wish. It's a
matter of your rights as a free and sovereign individual. And guns, the
"great equalizers," put 90-pound girls on a level playing field
with 250-pound men half again as tall.
L:
That's not a level playing field; the guy's a much bigger target!
Doug: So
much the better, if you're the girl and he's just broken into your bedroom.
But my point was that the gun is just a tool. I don't just believe in the
right to own a gun but the right to own and use any weapon – in
self-defense. Self-defense is an essential human right. Without it, society
is not possible. And without tools for self-defense that even the odds
between the strong and the weak, society is reduced to the brutish level of
"might makes right."
L: I
think of guns as "life preservers," myself.
Doug: Just
so – and you can't have a right to your life if you have no right to
defend it. Disarming yourself is simply stupid in a world not inhabited by
angels – unless you think it'd be fun to go up against a bad guy
unarmed. The bad guy is almost certainly going to have a baseball bat or a
knife, if not a gun – and I never want to bring a knife to a gunfight.
L: What
would you say to our European readers or readers from other places with less
tradition of firearms ownership than there is in the U.S.? Many of them think
that governments keep people safe, and that individuals should not have
firearms – or any weapons at all – only the police should have
them.
Doug: I
think that's a ridiculous attitude that flies in the face of history and the
abundantly evident darker side of human nature. I think such people are both
deluded and degraded.
It's striking how
much things have changed on this front as well. As late as the 1930s, the
period of the Indiana Jones movies, which accurately portray the hero as
taking his pistol with him anywhere in the world, even on airplanes. In the
'60s, when I was a kid, I put my rifle and my pistol in the overhead
compartment on a couple of flights in the U.S., and nobody thought twice
about it, including me. If you read Sherlock Holmes stories, which I've
always enjoyed, you'll find that not only was Sherlock Holmes a notorious
smoker of tobacco, but he was also known to indulge in other chemical
substances that are illegal today. And he would often sit at his flat on
Baker Street, shooting his revolver into the mantelpiece to practice his
marksmanship. It wasn't mentioned, but I hope he was wearing ear protection.
L:
Maybe he loaded his own ammo and made some light rounds for practice? He must
have gone through a lot of mantelpieces… and had to replace the masonry
of his chimney often. But that was a different world – many people say
that individuals don't need guns today, that they are an anachronism.
Doug: They
are simply wrong. And fools. In places where it's assumed that almost
everyone has guns in their homes, like West Virginia and Alaska, the crime
rate is very low. In places where guns have been outlawed in recent years,
like Australia, violent crime rates have risen. And in Washington D.C., once
the murder capital of the U.S., the crime rate plummeted after the city's
draconian anti-gun laws were reduced. Of course, that never gets mentioned in
the popular press.
L: I
just looked it up, and the stats I see say that violent crime dropped 46.9%,
and property crime dropped 48.3% in 2007, the year the D.C. gun ban was
struck down by the Supreme Court. (As Heinlein said, an armed society is a
polite society.) But if your argument is moral – that humans have a
right to self-defense – do the statistics matter?
Doug:
You're quite correct, they really don't. It's improper to argue matters like
this with statistics; it's purely a matter of ethics. It's an interesting
observation that as a practical matter, society is better off if gun
ownership is widespread, but that has nothing to do with the moral
imperative: human beings have the right to defend themselves, their loved
ones, and their property. And when you deny that right by law – it may
sound clichéd, but it's true, that when guns are outlawed, only
outlaws will have guns. A system that ensures that only the predators among
us have the best weapons is one that's asking for mass-produced tragedy.
Besides, a free
person should not rely on others to defend him or herself – that's a
kind of dependence and no way to remain free.
And anyway, you
can't rely on the police to be there when you need them. Even as societies are
increasingly disarming themselves, relying more on the state for everything,
the police are becoming more and more of a clique unto themselves. In other
words, the first obligation of police officers is to other cops – their
co-workers. Their second obligation is to their employers – the
government. And their third obligation – and it's a distant third
– is to "serve and protect" society. "Serve and
protect" is increasingly just a PR slogan. So, in today's world, you
actually need a gun more, not less.
It's a happy
coincidence that the moral and the practical are the same. But I find that's
almost always the case.
L: Rand
would argue that the practical is practical because it is moral. So,
what about the third leg of the "right to keep and bear arms"
argument? As the character V put it so well in V for Vendetta, people should not
be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of the people. A
disarmed population is at the mercy of the worst thugs of all: those in
uniform and their masters.
Doug:
That's absolutely right. People have got to recognize that the state is not
their friend. Big Brother is anything but brotherly, and the less those in
power fear the people, the more bold and predatory they and their agents
become. That's another reason to be armed, even if you feel safe where you
live and work.
Not that I'm
suggesting that anyone with a pistol and rifle would be able to stand up to
an army, but it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not
have it.
L: Of
course. An individual, no matter how great a marksman she or he might be,
can't defend a home with a gun against artillery shells. However, there are
more individuals in society than there are members of the army, and if the
people are armed, the balance of power changes substantially.
So, which of
these three arguments is the most important to you? The moral argument (right
to self-defense), the practical argument (gun ownership reduces crime), or
the political argument (a disarmed populace ends up being treated like
cattle)?
Doug: Oh,
there's no question. It's absolutely the moral argument. If you're going to
live with yourself, you have to do what's right. The only question is, what
kind of guns should you own?
L: So,
which ones?
Doug:
Well, different people have different needs and tastes, of course, but
answering this is a little more objective than it would be for alcohol or
tobacco. There's a clearly discernable difference in the utility and quality
of various firearms.
L: That
reminds me of your story about the guy who put the same wine in three
different bottles and invited some experts to a tasting… and they all
imagined all sorts of differences that weren't there. But I think anyone can
tell the difference between a .22 and a .44.
Doug:
[Laughs] That's right. I have an S&W model 29 – three, actually.
L: I
like .44s too, but I've never had one of the famous Model 29s. A Dan Wesson
.44 was my first gun.
Doug: I've
got revolvers, like the .44, but I far prefer autoloaders. And there I like
.45 autos. There have been improvements since John Browning invented the
"1911 .45 Automatic Colt Pistol," but his same design is still in
use, because it's one of the most accurate, rugged, and practical guns ever
made. There's a reason that the 1911 almost always wins combat shooting
contests whenever they're held. Glocks are great too. They're extremely
simple, very reliable, and they work perfectly right out of the box. You can
get them in lots of different models, some very small and concealable. And
because they're about half plastic, they're also very light. Great carry
guns.
L: I
like 1911s too, and so do my older sons. What about a battle rifle, something
suitable for militia use?
Doug: The
FN FAL is the Mercedes of battle rifles, in .308. But in rifles it's tough to
beat the AK-47; the things are indestructible, they work no matter how dirty,
and with the worst ammo. The SKS is almost as good, and half the price. Ruger
ranch rifles in .223, they're really mini M-14s, but rougher. The AR-15,
especially a reworked one, is kind of a "must own" in the U.S. But,
in .223, the best is actually made by Daewoo – they took the best
elements of the AR, basically the lower receiver, and combined it with the
best of the AK, the upper receiver. It's flawless.
But when it comes
to a defensive weapon, nothing can touch a shotgun. A shotgun, along with a
.45 pistol, is the absolute "must have." I'd go for a police model
pump action, with a short barrel but a long ammo tube. Mossberg makes a very
inexpensive but highly serviceable one.
L: I'm
partial to the AR-10, myself, for a battle rifle. I like .308 much better
than the .223 caliber the army has gone to. Sure, you can carry more ammo
with the smaller round, which, I suppose, is an important advantage if you
don't trust your troops to become good marksmen, but I like a round that
carries a little more authority.
Doug:
Well, I agree. But there's such a huge amount to be said on this subject that
we haven't even scratched the surface. If someone wants an instant education,
you can't go wrong getting a copy of Boston's Gun Bible by
our mutual friend Boston T. Party.
L: It
occurs to me that maybe it's not such a random perverseness that these three
things, alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, should be regulated by one agency.
The BATF started out as a branch of the Department of the Treasury, not the
Justice Department. And given the nature of these commodities – they
are all Mad Max-type valuable goods – they have had great importance,
at least historically, to tax collectors.
There's a
demented kind of sense to lumping "ATF" together, from the state's
perspective. Early on in America, you could pay taxes in tobacco – and
marijuana too, by the way – and whiskey was used as money. After the
revolution, there was a shortage of good money in America – people
forget, but America does, in fact, have past experience using worthless IOUs
for money (See
our last CWC for more on this). The
Continental Congress had no gold, so they issued paper promissory notes.
That's where the expression "not worth a continental" comes from.
Whiskey, on the other hand, was so divisible, durable, convenient,
consistent, and of value in itself, that its use as money – and the
government's decision to tax it – sparked a second rebellion, which
George Washington put down by force.
Doug: Yes,
turning crops into whiskey was actually a good way of storing them, in those
relatively primitive days – and that storage only increased the value
of the whiskey. That sad episode is one of the few things that besmirch
Washington's otherwise rather good reputation. But I've read that he only did
it because of Alexander Hamilton, who was secretary of the Treasury at that
time. A momentary lapse of judgment.
L:
Hamilton was a proponent of a single national government as well, which he
was instrumental in foisting on the Americans of the day, instead of the
confederation of thirteen independent states they had fought for. It's said
that Washington could have made himself King George the First – he had
it in the palm of his hand, but he chose not to, and that's worthy of
respect. But anyway, my point is that when it comes to ATF, it always comes
back to money and taxes.
Doug: And
raw power, which draws the worst type of people, those who believe they
should, and can, control others. What makes the anti-tobacco crusade all the
more perverse in this context is that much of the early wealth and power that
made America flourish came from tobacco farming. And, of course, there'd be
no country if American farmers hadn't acquired large numbers of guns and
trained themselves to hunt and protect their families. America, in reality,
was built on alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. It's ironic that the ATF, set up
to regulate them, is notoriously among the most corrupt of agencies. Their misadventure
at Waco back in 1993 is emblematic of their mindset.
L: True
enough. But guns… People trade them, and they do hold value over time,
but I'm not aware of them ever being used as a medium of exchange in any
significant way. Perhaps that's because they are not divisible, convenient,
or consistent. But ammunition is – I've seen ammo used as money on a
small scale – and you can even make change with it.
Doug: Yes,
and perhaps not coincidentally, I think that's the U.S. government's next
angle of attack on this issue. They'll keep pressure up, trying to take
people's guns away, but the Second Amendment has, almost miraculously, slowed
them down a bit lately. So, if they can't grab people's guns directly right
now, I think they'll grab the ammo instead. They'll be indirect. They won't
ban it, but they'll tax it and regulate it to the point where getting
ammunition will be much, much harder and more expensive.
You know, perhaps
it's convenient that they've rolled all these bureaucracies of thugs,
including the drug enforcement thugs, into one Department of Homeland
Security. It'll make it easier to round the bastards up after the next
revolution. They send their minions out into the land so they can bedevil the
little guy…
L:
Maybe they can get spiffy black uniforms with armbands?
Doug:
They're actually moving in that direction. I find it very disturbing that
Homeland Security now has its own 400-acre campus in Washington. Fittingly,
it's on the grounds of the old St. Elizabeth's hospital, the oldest mental
institution in the United States. Once an agency gets its own building
complex and fills it with bureaucrats and thugs, you can never get rid of it,
not until the country collapses. To me, this is a really big nail in the
coffin of what little is left of America.
L: Just
the name itself gives me the heebie-jeebies: Homeland Security. Sounds
like something the Nazis or Soviets would have come up with. A sign of the
endgame approaching?
Doug: It's
not just in the area of personal freedom but the
economy, and the military
situation as well. It all seems to be coming
together at once.
L:
We're not going to see you on the street with a placard saying "THE END
IS NIGH!!" are we, Doug?
Doug: Not
at all my style. But I've got to say that this is one of the things I like
about living in Argentina in general, and Salta in particular, that it's
"ATF-friendly." You can smoke a cigar wherever you want, as long as
the owner of the place is okay with it. You can drink what you want, where
you want to, including out in the street, if you wish, though there's almost
no drunkenness that I can see. There's very little in the way of a police
presence – it isn't needed, isn't wanted – and you can own a gun.
It's unfortunate that you're supposed to register guns with the government,
but it's no big deal to have a gun in Argentina.
One of the nice
things about the place, besides the weather and low cost of living and so
forth that we just discussed in our conversation
on Argentina, is that, especially when you're out in
the provinces, it's like you're stepping back in time. Sociologically, it's
more like what the U.S. was like in maybe the '20s – or at the latest
the '50s. It's just delightful and why I enjoy spending time there. I have
all the benefits of today's technology, I have a vastly higher standard of
living, and I have much more freedom than I do in the U.S. And a big measure
of that freedom is the liberalism regarding alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.
Actually,
although I'm a gun guy, I've never been a hunter. But I'm going bird hunting
– ducks, partridges, doves, and pigeons – next month in Argentina
with six friends from New Zealand who tell me some of the best bird hunting
in the world is over in Santa Fe province.
L: Okay
then. Investment implications?
Doug:
Well, politically incorrect areas always offer opportunities. Tobacco stocks
have high yields. And I don't think government will kill the industry since
it cranks out so much in taxes. Gun manufacturers are also cheap. One of the
more fun trades I made years ago was to short Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream,
which was very overpriced because they were so fashionably lefty, against
long Ruger. My rationale was to be market neutral by being long and short
simultaneously. It was a huge win on both sides of the trade. There are
always things like that popping up, and we try to identify them in The
Casey Report.
Outside of the
financial markets, I don't think you can possibly go wrong setting aside part
of the basement to store a few crates of ammo – .223, 9mm, .45ACP, and
.308. Prices there are probably going to skyrocket, and availability
decreases. The same is true of tobacco, which has always been an alternative
currency. Buying a few cartons of cigarettes every time you're at the Duty
Free or in a low-tax state and salting them away is a no-lose proposition.
L: And
the suppression of All Things Fun is yet another reason to diversify your
assets to friendlier climes.
Doug: Yes,
and perhaps a barometer of sorts. Whether or not you smoke, drink, or like to
shoot, if you can find a place where these increasingly politically incorrect
activities are accepted, you may be on to a good place to diversify into.
L: Got
it. Thanks Doug.
Doug:
You're welcome. Till next time.
Doug Casey
|
