It was Alexander Hamilton's observation (from his earlier life as a clerk in the Bahamas) that businessmen are varmints, and should be constrained. Thus, the Constitutional constraint on who can issue money. Understand that inflation -- which we are experiencing IN SPADES at the present time -- is caused by too much (Federal Reserve) money chasing the same quantity of goods and services. Escalating prices are the consequence, not the cause, of inflation. The problem with inflation is that -- with people like you and me and the ordinary worker who cannot increase his/her income -- inflation ROBS US of purchasing power.

Deflation, on the other hand, affects the profits of the producer of goods or services, which is why businessmen and THEIR bankers hate deflation and will do anything, including causing a Great Depression(!) to avoid deflation. That's what "Too Big to Fail" really means: Business interests are protecting their profits. That's understandable, but, as I said, it's DANGEROUS to the common folk.

If I remember my history correctly, the Federal Reserve was formed in 1913 by bankers, who were forever messing up by creating one "panic" after another, the latest being in 1907, and so decided to pull a fast one by creating a system that would protect THE BANKS, no matter what. Congress went along with this scheme, of course, realizing, as usual, where THEIR bread was buttered. But, as a consequence, the Constitution which states that ONLY the U.S. government can issue money, was subverted.

A friend wrote that it cost him and and his wife $1,000 a day to visit NYC. Amazing! It makes me wonder if anyone but me realizes what that means. It's not that prices are high, but that the value of the dollar is being debased by the Fed printing presses running day and night.  That's what "quantitative easing" means. All of it signifies that we're in an enormous hole, and, to get out, we continue digging! And, as to the palaver that claims, "Wealth creates jobs", the opposite is actually true. JOBS CREATE WEALTH! Henry Ford demonstrated this a century ago by paying his large work force enough money to buy his cars, thus making him one of the wealthiest men in the US.  FDR knew this, so he created the CCC, WPA, etc. to get us out of the Depression, rather than continue digging by promoting wealth.

I did my financial review and budget for the new year. We're better than OK, I'm pleased to report. However, that's in part to a failing U.S. economic system that rewards old people (who VOTE) with a Social Security cost-of-living increase, while the poor (many of whom are DISENFRANCHISED) get poorer. In fact, my wife and I, who worked a combined 100 years and contributed to Social Security all those years and are thus entitled to benefits, now receive 50% more in benefits than the "poverty level" for a WORKING family of four. Is that an unfair system or what?

I've been lucky: My father taught me one particularly invaluable lesson. He used to say, "If you spend more than you take in, you go broke!" I paid attention, so, no matter the ups and downs of my working life, I never spent more than I earned. The only debts I incurred were small mortgages on houses we lived in. While we worked, I had an IRA and my wife had a 401K. Then, more luck: My mother-in-law left us a small inheritance with which I paid off the mortgage on our current house, and an act of kindness on my part led a friend to leave us her house when she died, and recently the V.A. awarded me disability compensation for my ALS. I'm truly risk-averse, so our investments are conservative, and we lost nothing, not a dime, in the current meltdown. As I said, I paid attention to my dad's lesson.

On 1/18/11, soon after the Tucson shooting in which, during a public meeting, U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and eighteen other people were shot and six of those shot died, I sent a friend an e-mail, part of which read as follows --

"Here's the question: What is the APPLICABLE reality?

"The best illustration of this quandary, to my way of thinking, is in Akira Kurosawa's classic 1950 film: "Rashamon." In it, four witnesses to a murder have told a judge what happened, and they've related four DIFFERENT versions of the event! We're left to ponder which tale, if any, is true -- the point being that SUBJECTIVITY inevitably colors reality. Thus, the conclusion (drawn by none other than Albert Einstein) that reality is an ILLUSION.

"Consolation for this admittedly distressing conclusion lies in the meaning of the last minute or so of Kurusawa's film -- which few people will fathom or even remember. After hearing about the trial and still uncertain of the truth, two main characters, taking shelter from rain, come upon an abandoned, squalling baby. One of them rescues the infant and takes it home with him. This suggests that the solution to the discomfort of uncertain reality lies in the redemptive power of LOVE -- Jesus's (and other's) message and very TRUE."

Well, that's what I wrote, but I don't kid myself that, if people understood my point, it would actually make a difference. There are simply too many ways to be UNthinking. Case in point: Shortly after after the Tucson massacre, Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post wrote an article that appeared in the Albuquerque Journal. Here's my response:

"Ruth Marcus --

"Your comment in today's column: "Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people..." is disingenuous, at best. Bullets FIRED FROM GUNS kill people!

"Guns ARE the problem. To avoid stating the OBVIOUS is cowardly -- or just plain stupid."

OK, that's what I wrote then, but what does that have to do with Newtown, CT? Well, the connection lies in the end of another Kurosawa classic: "The Seven Samurai" (1954). In it, there's one especially expert swordsman, who, at the end, throws down his sword in resignation. What's he resigned to? That there's no glory in fighting any longer NOW THAT THE MUSKET HAS BEEN INTRODUCED AS A WEAPON..

When I was little, my mother wouldn't let me have a cap pistol, fearing I would learn to like guns. Later, in the Army, training to be an infantry rifleman, I learned to fire the M-1
rifle, which was loud, had a helluva kick, smelled lousy -- and could kill at 1,000 yds. And, when a Intelligence Lieutenant told us we'd be killing "gooks," I vowed NOT to go to Korea as a rifleman, but found a way to get into Special Services. I, like Kurosawa's samurai, saw no glory in fighting with a gun that can kill at 1,000 yds.

A final thought: I watched a PBS Special on the Newtown massacre. In it, someone said, "This time, it's different." NO, IT'S NOT! As I wrote to Ruth Marcus two years ago: "Guns ARE the problem. To avoid stating the OBVIOUS is cowardly -- or just plain stupid." Insanity has been part of the human condition forever (it's been called "mental illness" for only about 100 years), but what's different is the ability to MASSACRE -- an act of extreme insanity.