The Age of Entitlement

Dear Reader,

In today's missive I want to touch on the topic of entitlements. Not just the material facts of the "Entitlement Economies"—but the roots and consequences of an economic model increasingly dominated by state-sponsored subsidies.

As background, the idea for today's musings came to me after receiving an email from a fellow with whom I have a faint business connection. Based on the dripping tone of his email, he appears to have come to the conclusion that our several-times-removed relations means I should be vigilant for opportunities to bow and scrape at his feet.

It's not that he is a bad fellow; rather, it seems he's the sort who conflates wealth with privilege. And something far more destructive… entitlement.

As I suspect it will take a bit of musing to do justice to the topic, I'll get right down to business, listening as I do to one of my favorite (somewhat) oldies but goodies from the catalogue of dramatic music, Eminem's Lose Yourself, the theme song from his rather well-done biopic, 8 Mile.

The Age of Entitlement

My dear friend, business partner, and now neighbor here at La Estancia, Doug Casey, regularly stresses the importance of starting any discussion by defining the important terms. As we'll be discussing the matter of entitlement today, let's kick things off with the definition from Merriam-Webster:

Entitlement

• The condition of having a right to have, do, or get something

• The feeling or belief that you deserve to be given something (such as special privileges)

• A type of financial help provided by the government for members of a particular group

In its morally correct form, a person is perfectly justified in feeling entitled when they have a clear contract providing them a specific right.

For example, if you as an employee have a contract with your employer that specifies the terms of your employment and you don't break the terms of that contract, you are legally and morally entitled to receiving the benefits therein specified.

Of course, things are not always quite so black and white. For instance, those of you dear readers living in the US who have spent a lifetime paying into the Social Security system may be justified in feeling entitled, upon attaining the requisite age, to the promised income stream. Yet, given that everyone has ready access to a large number of analyses exposing the viability of Social Security as poor fiction, should you really feel entitled? Or just hopelessly gullible?

But I drift. Yanking the tiller back toward the general compass point I am tacking toward, I would like to start by briefly touching upon some of the classes of people that believe themselves entitled.

And not just entitled to a single payday or a specific benefit, but rather, they appear to feel permanently entitled.

I will then try to round up all the characters into a larger corral where we can explore the consequences of the growing entitlement classes.

The Warped Wealthy. That sound is my fingers furiously tapping out a caveat that most of the financially successful individuals I know—in particular, those whose wealth resulted from hard work and taking big personal risks—are down to earth and appreciate everything their wealth allows to them. They know how much work it takes to amass significant net worth and further understand that, short of winning the lottery, the average person with average aspirations and an average tolerance for work is unlikely to achieve true financial freedom, and they are empathetic toward them.

That said, I have come across any number of wealthy individuals who enjoy nothing more than lording their good fortune over the rest of humanity. More often than not, the wealthy who fall into this subset made their fortunes by being in the right place at the right time, for example dot-com millionaires or members of the lucky-sperm club.

In an earlier derivation of my life, I spent a fair amount of time hanging out with captains of Wall Street, the sort with houses in the Hamptons and whose hairs are coiffed in scented salons by people named Oscar at $400 a go. In many cases, the source of their wealth could be traced back to university connections that landed them in the upper echelon of the equivalent of a pyramid scheme where, with hardly having to lift a finger, a fraction of a fraction of billions of dollars in transactions flowed daily into their Savile Row-stitched pockets.

Regardless, the warped wealthy not only expect full value for money, they want everyone their shadow falls upon to be diffident and to cater to their every whim. Failure to show proper appreciation that you are in their company will, as sure as night follows day, get you a dismissive sniff or, if it's a bad hair day, a proper dressing down.

While I begrudge no one their wealth, per above, when someone begins to conflate wealth with entitlement, I have a problem.

Politicians. When living in Louisiana years ago, I was invited to a cocktail party where I was introduced to a somewhat overweight and sweaty individual wearing the only suit in the room. Making small talk, I inquired as to the nature of his work, and he proudly announced that he was an aspiring politician (at which point, I made my polite apologies to attend to urgent business on the other side of the room). Yet, if the sweaty schlep actually managed to attract a sufficient number of votes, he would have been promptly promoted to a class of individuals entitled to a long list of benefits. Including—should he rise high enough within the political machine—ready access to private jets and a lifelong pension.

On a lower level, while lifelong pensions have all but disappeared in the private sector, by virtue of just showing up at the office each day for a few years, many bureaucrats become entitled to the equivalent of tenure and, upon concluding their "public service," a comfortable pension.

Yuppies. A travel industry professional once shared with me what is apparently common knowledge among his peers: Yuppies are the worst travelers. I have personally witnessed the truth of that statement many times over, most noticeably when a flight is canceled or a hotel overbooked, inconveniencing a yuppie in the process.

At which point, I find it entertaining to observe the yuppie's antics as they attempt to argue the plane back on schedule, or to browbeat the hotel manager into coming up with a suitable room.

In my opinion, this sense of yuppie entitlement comes from the near certainty that never before in the history of the world has there been a generation that has had things as soft and sweet as the yuppies/baby boomers.

Sure, there was something of a blip during the Vietnam era, but other than that we've had a lifetime of prosperity. And with the exception of Vietnam and out-of-sight-therefore-out-of-mind sport wars that other generations have been willing to fight, peace.

We got to go to college if we were so inclined, and we were ensured gainful employment whether we went to college or not. Unfortunately, a large number of yuppies don't fully appreciate what an historical rarity such a long period of peace and prosperity is. They will be in for a rough awakening as Pax Yuppie is rapidly coming to an end. Their future expectations, understandably based on past experiences, are likely to be disappointed.

Even so, for the time being, they continue to feel entitled to a life path free of serious bumps, though the unnerving sound of footsteps approaching down the empty hallway scratch at the edge of their collective consciousness.

Old People. Over the last century, responsibility for the care and feeding of the elderly has been steadily transferred from families to society at large. This alteration of the social contract, though likely springing from good intentions, is manifested in the widespread attitude that the state should provide at least a baseline level of support for the elderly, even if the state can't actually afford it.

This sense of entitlement is underscored each election day when the oldsters turn out in droves to reward politicians who confirm them in their benefits, and punish those that even hint at curtailing same.

The Poor. Like the elderly, over the past century the social contract was redrafted to include a long list of benefits for individuals who steadily fail to achieve a certain income threshold. Collectively, the number of programs and their reach is staggering. To provide just one example, upwards of 50 million people in the United States are now entitled to purchase their daily bread using debit cards linked to the public treasury. The chart here presents a picture of entitlements gone wild.

"Special" Groups. At the risk of offending a wide swath of dear readers, I would bring your attention to your fellow citizens who use their specialness to demand special rights and entitlements. To name just a few…

• Minorities. For example, though at its peak only 8% of American families owned slaves and the practice was terminated by constitutional amendment almost 150 years ago, many descendants of the slaves continue to believe they suffer transgenerational trauma and are entitled to government remediation programs without end.
  
  The forms these entitlements to minorities take varies from cold cash to preferential treatment in college admissions and a broad rainbow of other perks. Why, here's a story now about a group of university graduate students consisting largely of people "of color" who apparently believe that their special status entitles them to be able to submit university-level work riddled with grammatical errors, protesting that being graded on grammar contributed to a "'toxic' racial climate."

• Sexual Orientation. A fairly large subset of the populace seem to want to define themselves based on their sexual preference. Live and let live, I say. But why it is that this entitles them to special treatment is something of a mystery to me.

• Soldiers. In the absence of the draft, no one has to sign up for military duty, yet upwards of 180,000 do each year. And once they're no longer needed or decide to follow other pursuits, they remain entitled to certain benefits for life. Not particularly large benefits, mind you, but special hospitals and a variety of programs to provide support.
  
  Then there's the top brass who are cosseted in a system of institutional sycophancy replete with nervous salutes from the rank and file, and wining and dining by members of the military-industrial complex. The generals feel entitled to their billion-dollar toys and, mostly, they get them.

Pretty Much Everyone Else. Unlike earlier eras when stubborn self-reliance was a highly valued character trait, these days the vast majority of people in the US and other developed countries expect the government to provide benefits and services to cure all that ails.

Off the top of my head, a few examples:

• The government's exertions to keep our borrowing affordable by suppressing interest rates.
• The provision of free education and subsidies for college.
• Large departments dedicated to ensuring the safety of everything from cars to drugs to food.
• And, increasingly, widespread medical coverage, including cheap medicine.

I could go on and on, because the list of entitlements is nearly endless. Mind you, I'm not taking a position on the merits of specific programs, simply pointing out that they exist and have grown endemic. Taken collectively, they foster a culture of entitlement.

Though the woman in this rather disturbing video is obviously drugged out of her mind, I hereby nominate her as poster model for the Age of Entitlement. That by virtue of the fact that she vehemently believes it is her God-given right to be served Chicken McNuggets at 10:30 in the morning and, when disappointed, almost literally turns into a crazed zombie. (Once again making me appreciate the simpler life here in the Argentine outback.)

Truth & Consequences

If you accept as truth that we now live in an Age of Entitlement—an era whose hallmarks are widespread yet ultimately unaffordable and, therefore, undeliverable promises, benefits, services, etc.—then it behooves us to fill another gourd of maté and imagine where it all leads.

Before we engage in that exercise, however, it may be worthwhile to review a few supportive data sets, tidily organized into easily grasped charts.

First up is a look in the rearview mirror, compliments of KPCB, using data from the White House Office of Management and Budget. Note that the data have been properly corrected for inflation.

Next, we look into the future with the following from our own Bud Conrad, showing the projected growth in US federal spending, broken down to highlight the impact of key entitlement programs.

The important thing to note about Bud's chart is not the mountain of projected spending on the far right side of the chart. At upwards of $30 trillion a year, that's just not going to happen—at least not in dollars with anything close to the same purchasing power they have today.

What is important is:

• These projections are prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, an organization with a long history of wide misses to the upside on even its short-term forecasts, let alone those dealing with decades in the future.

• Even using the CBO's conservative laughable projections, by the end of this decade—just seven short years from now—entitlement-driven federal spending will top $5 trillion per year… roughly twice the amount the feds currently shake the public down for each year. As bad as today's $1 trillion-plus deficits are, they're only going to get worse in the years just ahead.

In the simplest of terms, the wall that the US government is speeding toward isn't over some distant horizon. It's looming straight ahead.

Finally, I present the following chart from a solid article by Charles Hugh Smith titled Have We Reached Peak Entitlements? The chart, using data from the Fed, shows the nearly exponential growth in federal transfer payments in recent decades, revealing as truth that we are entering the hyperbolic phase in this Age of Entitlement.

I could present additional charts and data in support of my thesis, but I think the charts above—along with your own well-honed common sense—allow us to move on.

And I would like to do so by quickly stating the obvious about an economy—any economy—experiencing the sort of dramatic increase in private demand for public money (and costly services) we are now witnessing.

Namely, that as the percentage of the population demanding—and receiving—government largess and services grows, the burden on the government's mules (otherwise known as taxpayers) must rise as well.

Unfortunately for the revenue-starved government, layering on new taxes and tariffs has relatively little elasticity. Cross over a certain invisible line and, as is the case here in Argentina, people begin taking active measures to look after themselves by finding creative ways around paying up. Or they simply pack up and move to (tax) friendlier jurisdictions.

That's not to say that the feds won't tighten the tax screws—that's a given. Probably starting with a value-added tax (VAT), as that provides a stealthy way to shear the sheep without most of the sheep taking notice.

There has been much talk about the Fed "tapering" its quantitative easing, but given the limited elasticity in raising revenues just mentioned, the only real option remaining is for the government and its flunkies at the central bank to continue paying the bills using quantitative easing at more or less the current level. Maybe slightly less for a time, but as it's all but impossible to dial back the bulk of the entitlements—or, given the demographics involved, do much to retard their speedy growth—we can reasonably expect the quantitative easing to accelerate over time.

And that, dear reader, can lead to only one end: a collapse in the US dollar, with a cascading effect on all the fiat currencies.

That this will happen can be seen in the charts just above, which taken together clearly show that the growth in entitlements and the attendant federal spending is completely locked in. So who, exactly, is going to step up to the Treasury window and take the place of the Fed in buying all the paper the US government needs to move to keep the entitlements flowing?

The answer is no one—at least not at today's low interest rates. And as we have often discussed, even a return to historically normal rates in the US will produce an unmitigated disaster. To head that off, the Fed will ultimately have to go "all in" on quantitative easing. As it does, the dollar will begin to falter and then fail.

Should that occur—or, better stated, when that occurs—the reset button on the entire federal entitlement system will be pressed, and the Age of Entitlement will have to wind down. It is impossible to say with any certainty how things will unfold at that point, and having a military government moved into place in the hope of keeping the peace is not out of the question, but when the dust settles, the world will be a substantively different place.

Can the Entitlement Train Wreck Be Avoided?

In an attempt to answer that question, I now return to the groups singled out at the beginning of these musings and try to anticipate how they might react to any proposed policy changes that might discomfit them or require a reduction in their entitlements.

The Wealthy. Should the wealthy—those with feelings of entitlement or not—come to the conclusion that they're going to be called upon to carry ever more water for rest of the citizenry, they will react just as they always have. Namely, by hiring the best tax lawyers and accountants possible and exploiting every available loophole (and there are always loopholes). And/or they'll vote with their feet—moving themselves and, if push comes to shove, their businesses to friendlier shores.

That they will come under attack is a certainty. Just recently, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), among other "world" organizations, has begun calling for a big increase in the top tax rate (back to 70% in the US) and even a "one-time" tax on assets held by the wealthy. Here's one commentary from the Wall Street Journal, on the tax-the-rich initiatives now gaining momentum here, there, and everywhere.

The Politicians. In an attempt to remain in power and to protect their own entitlements, the politicians can be expected to strike an increasingly populist tone—it's always been that way. Earlier this week President Obama once again played the entitlement card… this from the Guardian:

"Barack Obama warned that a 'relentless, decades-long trend' of growing inequality and social immobility posed a fundamental threat to the American dream on Wednesday, throwing his support behind a grassroots movement to address chronically low wages across the US.

"Attempting to regain the political momentum after a calamitous two months in which his healthcare reforms were plagued by website failures, the president said reversing the growing gap between rich and poor was 'the defining challenge of our time'."

In time, pushed by the entitled masses to do more than just talk, expect the politicians to take off the gloves and begin instituting every manner of harebrained scheme to milk any group of taxpayers lacking the numbers required to provide political cover come election time.

The Yuppies. Given that this demographic group is now heading toward the pasture and have been scared stiff by the slow-motion collapse under way, they're going to do everything in their power to ensure their entitlements stay intact. Which is to say they won't show up to vote for any party that pledges, upon being elected, to cut said entitlements. Ironically, they will be voting for the very politicians who, as a core reelection strategy, will demonize them and seek to clean them out of a good percentage of whatever net worth remains to them.

Old People. Old people vote in droves, and so they count to the politicians… at least for the time being, which means there will be no serious attempt to reduce the massive entitlements they now enjoy.

The Poor. Given the proven political efficacy of populist appeals, the odds of any (successful) politician thumping the podium in favor of cutting welfare, reducing food stamps or school lunch programs, etc., is approximately zilch. Far more likely is that the politicians will try to shove the financial implications of additional entitlements onto the backs of businesses. Which, in turn, will result in those businesses buying robots and deploying software to reduce their workforce.

Meanwhile, encouraged by the politicians, the nation's poor will be emboldened in demanding more… or else. For the record, the official poverty level in the United States, which is defined as being the amount of money needed to buy a "minimally adequate" basket of goods and services according to the living standards of the 1960s, is currently set at $11,720 annually for a single person, $14,937 for a two-person family, and $23,492 for a family of four.

The latest data show that about 46 million US citizens fall below those levels, the largest number since records first began being kept over 50 years ago. Tellingly, that's a 36% increase since 2000.

So, who makes up the "poor" in the United States? According to a report by the Congressional Research Service, it breaks down as follows…

"The incidence of poverty among African Americans and Hispanics exceeds that of whites by several times. In 2012, 27.2% of blacks (10.9 million) and 25.6% of Hispanics (13.6 million) had incomes below poverty, compared to 9.7% of non-Hispanic whites (18.9 million) and 11.7% of Asians (1.9 million).

"Although blacks represent only 12.9% of the total population, they make up 23.5% of the poor population; Hispanics, who represent 17.1% of the population, account for 29.3% of the poor. Poverty rates for all groups mentioned above were statistically unchanged from 2011 to 2012, as were the total numbers estimated as poor."

Bringing us to… Minorities. For obvious reasons, the minority population now reflexively votes against the party of Lincoln. In the last presidential contest, a whopping 83% of minority voters cast their votes for the Democrats. This sort of political base is to be catered to, and so it will be. No cuts in entitlements here.

Sexual Orientation. Likewise, those who favor being defined by their sexual preference prefer the Democrats by approximately a 3-to-1 margin. Given the Democrats are fully on board with populist, progressive legislation, expect no demands from this subset for reduced entitlements.

Soldiers. Cut military benefits? Weaken the military's ability to respond? You must be joking! No one on either side of the political aisle would be stupid enough to advocate either. In time, I suspect the military budget will come under pressure—but only until someone in the military-industrial complex finds an excuse for a new war or, failing that, conjures up an imminent threat that must be countered.

In other words, there is no popular or political will to do anything other than maintain the status quo in this Age of Entitlement. Given that stark truth, all we as individuals can do at this point is sit back and watch the slow-motion train wreck unfold—which, for the record, I'll be doing from afar.

While you will have to make your own decisions about how to best protect yourself, given that my personal view is that this will all end in a spectacular collapse of the fiat currencies, I plan on continuing to allocate a reasonable percentage of the family portfolio to things tangible… precious metals, energy, operating businesses, unleveraged real estate, and investments in the securities of companies with business models that profit from rising prices of tangibles.

That many of these assets are currently on sale is only to the better.

If you, too, are interested in paying pennies today for dollars tomorrow, check out BIG GOLD, our least expensive yet highly valuable advisory service dedicated to identifying the most undervalued large precious metals companies. As these companies have sold off sharply over the last little while, they now offer an exceptional opportunity to profit. Details on your fully guaranteed subscription to BIG GOLD can be found by clicking here now.

Quotes from Garrett

A fellow owner here in La Estancia de Cafayate, Jack D., recently sent me info on a very interesting character from history, Garet Garrett, the long-serving economics writer for the Saturday Evening Post and author of numerous books on topics related to economics.

Once I started learning more about Garrett, I was surprised I had never heard about him before, or more to the point, that his name had been allowed to fade from present consciousness.

While you can and should read more about him in Jeffrey Tucker's excellent piece on the Mises.org site, here are a couple of excerpts from Tucker's article, as well as a small sampling of quotes from Garrett himself.

"This [his current anonymity] is a tragedy because both his nonfiction and his novels display a most rare talent and offer more than a mere condemnation of the New Deal government. He not only wrote in opposition to war; his entire oeuvre offers a sparkling vision of peace under free markets as well. Whereas many intellectuals on the Right and Left regard the peaceful, bourgeois society as something of a bore—with the middle class amassing wealth and spending it on fripperies—Garrett saw peace and freedom as the essential precondition for the real drama of human life that revolves around creation, association, love, courage, and the full range of human vices and virtues that transform society in spectacular ways."

"Garrett was not a trained economist but his knowledge of economic forces was so profound that he wrote the first full and widely circulated explanation, in line with the Austrian School tradition, of the 1929 stock market crash. The Bubble that Broke the World (1932) placed the blame on an overextension of credit made possible by the Federal Reserve; this created, said Garrett, a false prosperity that led to a correction. This book alone is proof that his journalism continued through the Depression and war, always with a decidedly and even radically libertarian cast."

And some Garrett quotes from the BrainyQuote website…

"The New Deal's enmity for that system of free and competitive private enterprise which we call capitalism was fundamental."

"The spectacle of a great, solvent government paying a fictitious price for gold it did not want and did not need and doing it on purpose to debase the value of its own paper currency was one to astonish the world."

"There was endless controversy as to whether the acts of the New Deal did actually move recovery or retard it, and nothing final could ever come of that bitter debate because it is forever impossible to prove what might have happened in place of what did."

"To the revolutionary [read 'Roosevelt's brand of socialism'] mind the American vista must have been almost as incredible as Genghis Khan's first view of China—so rich, so soft, so unaware."

"If the great Government of the United States were a private corporation no bank would take its name on a piece of paper, because it has cynically repudiated the words engraved upon its bonds."

In any event, I thought you'd be as interested in meeting Garet Garrett as I was, so, thanks to Jack D., consider yourself introduced.

On the topic of brainy quotes, Doug Casey's newest book, Right on the Money, will be released on December 12. As with his Totally Incorrect, it contains a wide-ranging collection of commentaries that are not only highly entertaining, but offer extremely useful insights into the world we live in. For more information and to preorder your copy, click here now—you’ll be happy you did.

Friday Funnies

Skateboarders vs. Keystone Kops

What happens when hundreds of "illegal" skateboarders hold their annual run on the streets of Manhattan, and the forewarned police do their (lame) best to stop them? This Bennie Hill-style video of what follows is priceless.

Flowers, Anyone?

Receptionist: Hello, Welcome to Obama Flowers. My name is Trina. How can I help you?

Customer: Hello, I received an email from Professional Flowers stating that my flower order has been canceled and I should go to your exchange to reorder it. I tried your website, but it seems like it is not working. So I am calling the 800 number.

Receptionist: Yes, I am sorry about the website. It should be fixed by the end of November. But I can help you.

Customer: Thanks. I ordered a "Spring Bouquet" for our anniversary, and wanted it delivered to my wife.

Receptionist, interrupting: Sir, "Spring Bouquets" do not meet our minimum standards, I will be happy to provide you with red roses.

Customer: But I have always ordered "Spring Bouquets"— done it for years, my wife likes them.

Receptionist: Roses are better, sir; I am sure your wife will love them.

Customer: Well, how much are they?

Receptionist: It depends, sir. Do you want our Bronze, Silver, Gold, or Platinum package?

Customer: What's the difference?

Receptionist: 6, 12, 18, or 24 red roses.

Customer: The Silver package may be okay. How much is it?

Receptionist: It depends, sir. What is your monthly income?

Customer: What does that have to do with anything?

Receptionist: I need that to determine your government flower subsidy, then I can determine how much your out-of-pocket cost will be. But if your income is below our minimums for a subsidy, then I can refer you to our Flower Aid department.

Customer: Flower Aid?

Receptionist: Yes, flowers are a right. Everyone has a right to flowers. So, if you can't afford them, then the government will supply them free of charge.

Customer: Who said they were a right?

Receptionist: Congress passed it, the president signed it, and the Supreme Court found it constitutional.

Customer: Whoa… I don't remember seeing anything in the Constitution regarding flowers as a right.

Receptionist: It is not really a right in the Constitution, but Obama Flowers is constitutional because the Supreme Court ruled it a "tax." Taxes are constitutional. But we feel it is a right.

Customer: I don't believe this…

Receptionist: It's the law of the land, sir. Now, we anticipated most people would go for the Silver package, so what is your monthly income, sir?

Customer: Forget it, I think I will forgo the flowers this year.

Receptionist: In that case, sir, I will still need your monthly income.

Customer: Why?

Receptionist: To determine what your "non-participation" cost would be.

Customer: WHAT? You can't charge me for NOT buying flowers!

Receptionist: It's the law of the land, sir, approved by the Supreme Court. It's $9.50 or 1% of your monthly income—

Customer: This is ridiculous. I'll pay the $9.50.

Receptionist: Sir, it is the $9.50 or 1% of your monthly income, whichever is greater.

Customer: ARE YOU KIDDING ME? What a ripoff!!

Receptionist: Actually, sir, it is a good deal. Next year it will be 2%.

Customer: Look, I'm going to call my congressman to find out what's going on here. This is ridiculous. I'm not going to pay it.

Receptionist: Sorry to hear that, sir. That's why I had the NSA track this call and obtain the make and model of the cell phone you are using.

Customer: Why does the NSA need to know what kind of CELL PHONE I AM USING?

Receptionist: So they get your GPS coordinates, sir.

(Doorbell rings, followed immediately by a loud knock on the door)

Receptionist: That would be the IRS, sir. Thanks for calling Obama Flowers, have a nice day... and God bless America.

More Climate Craziness

This article from Wattsupwiththat.com is not technically funny… but it is laughable. It appears that the latest dictates coming from on high—i.e., the United Nations—put the US and other developed countries on the hook for trillions of dollars to be distributed to developing nations (read "Swiss bank accounts of Third World politicians") as compensation for any further storm damage they may suffer.

Actually, the last laugh will be on the developing-world politicians when they finally figure out the developed nations are flat broke and won't be able to come up with the money by any other way than running a big counterfeiting operation.

And That's It for This Week

My apologies for going on so long (again!) this week. When I sit down to write, the time slips away and next thing I know, I'm looking back on 15 pages of meandering musings. I do appreciate that you took the time to read to this point and sincerely hope you found the journey worth taking. And with that, I am going to head to the exit by thanking you once more for being a subscriber. Have a great weekend!

David Galland
Managing Director
Casey Research