Category: Economy

US Army statistics show that, during the Vietnam war, it took the US soldier about 200,000 rounds of 5.56 (.223) ammunition to incapacitate one threat soldier. The near-miss distance by which the average US soldier missed a threat soldier was about 51 cm (about two feet). The waste of ammunition was enormous and expensive.

Currently, all man-portable combat weapons still use cased ammunition. The shells are still mainly made from brass, which is an alloy of copper and zinc, both relatively expensive strategic metals of limited availability. All shells from fired rounds are wasted. In war, they end up somewhere in the environment and they can only be recycled when used under controlled conditions e.g., on a shooting range. The brass shell constitutes about 50% of the value of the .223 round. It also makes up over 50% of the space or volume a round consumes.

It used to be a cardinal rule of business to never discuss politics. Today, many business companies have chosen to alienate half of the country’s consumers/voters by smearing Donald Trump, Conservatives, Constitutionalists, and Republicans, attacking voting integrity laws, pushing for censorship of conservative speech, pushing ESG, and fomenting the toxic culture war waged against the rest of us by the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party, including by pushing the false and racist narrative of systemic racism.

Here is a list of woke businesses whose goods and services you should not buy if you consider yourself a constitutional conservative and a liberty-loving citizen. Buy from businesses that are not on the list, if possible.

Billionaire Bill Bonner warns that someday in the near future America’s entire energy system will collapse. Fuel will not get delivered. Rolling blackouts will sweep the land. Pipes will freeze. Food in the freezer will go bad. And you may shiver in the dark, as you are praying for power to come back on.

Many people believe that government spending of tax money creates an extra stimulus to the economy. This belief is wrong. Here is why: If a person earns e.g. $100 through work in the free market and the government takes away – say – $30 in taxes, the government can now spend the $30 for goods and services in the marketplace, while the earner (taxpayer) can now only spend the remaining $70. At best, the combined effect would be the same as if the earner had been allowed to keep and spend his/her $100. In either case, $100 would have flown into the economy to stimulate it. The part of the $100 that was taxed away and then spent by the government, produces no additional stimulating effect for the economy. . .