The value of our money

 

According to Kitco, the current spot price of gold is (at the time of writing) US $3,339.30.  Six months before, on November 25, 2024, it was $2.627.50.  That's a difference of $711.80, or a rise of 27% in the spot gold price over a period of six months.  Does that mean that gold is actually worth more, intrinsically?  No.  It means that the dollars normally used to buy and sell gold are worth that much less today than they were in November 2024.  Gold hasn't gotten stronger - the dollar has become that much weaker.

There are many reasons to which the weakness of the dollar is usually attributed, but basically it's because there are too many dollars in circulation.  It's a basic rule of inflation.  Increase the money supply, and the price of goods purchased with that money rises, because there are more units of money chasing the same quantity of production.  Milton Friedman explains.

Here's the US M2 money supply over the past ten years, from 2015 to 2025, according to US Federal Reserve data.  Click the image for a larger view.

As you can see, the problem has been growing for a long time (decades, in fact).  The weakness of the dollar isn't "President Trump's fault", as his political opponents would love to have us believe:  it's the fault of all our administrations over the past half-century or so, as they've printed money (or allowed the Federal Reserve to print money) like there's no tomorrow.  All those years of neglect and politically correct economic turning-a-blind-eye are now coming home to roost.  In particular, the Biden administration's dollar-printing policies are now hitting the market, and making things much worse.  See the Milton Friedman video above for the "delayed effect" of money printing.

This leads to a difficult question for you and I as we husband our rapidly depreciating dollars.  Should we save them?  If we can't get an interest rate equal to or higher than the actual rate of inflation (not the politically correct, watered-down "official" figures, but the reality, which is a lot higher - see, for example, ShadowStats or the Chapwood Index), then holding onto cash means that we're holding on to a diminishing asset.  The more we hold, and the longer we hold it, the less it's worth.  On the other hand, we have to hold at least some cash, because we've got to buy the necessities of life.

If we try to invest our cash in something of value today that will hold its value tomorrow, we again hit the dilemma that we have to be able to use our assets.  If we're hungry, we can have all the gold coins we like in our safe, and all the blue-ribbon investments on the Stock Exchange that we like, but we can't eat any of them.  If the price of car tires is going to go up by at least 50% over the next year due to tariffs and other issues, is it perhaps worth buying a set of replacement tires now, so that by the time we need them, we no longer have to find 50% more cash to buy them?  What about food supplies?  If we set aside long-term emergency food supplies, buying what we actually like to eat rather than tasteless emergency rations nobody enjoys, then in a pinch we can at least eat our food reserves when our monetary reserves are no longer large enough to buy everything we need.

There are no easy answers to these dilemmas, but we need to be thinking about them, and carefully watching the prices of what we buy every day, every week, every month.  Each of us will have to make our own decisions about inflation-proofing our assets.  For example, I'm in the process of buying a set of tires for each of our vehicles, because I expect their price to increase substantially over the next few months.  If the price doesn't change, I won't have lost much except the "opportunity cost" of not having that money available to do other things.  If the price shoots up, I'll have gained substantially.  If the price drops . . . hey, who am I kidding?  Price drops?  Yeah, right!  Deflation is not a likely prospect right now.

What else might we need that may end up in short supply and/or at much higher prices?  Brake pads?  Computers?  Ammunition?  Cosmetics?  Medications?  Each of us will have our own "essential lists", and we need to consider them in the light of inflation.  If we fill them today at current prices, and they cost a lot more tomorrow, we'll come out ahead in the long run.

Food for thought.

Peter

Looks like Microsoft is trying to force Windows users to adopt its AI model

 

If you don't like Big Electronic Brother breathing down your neck, second-guessing what you want and delivering its perspective on your requests, and generally invading your privacy, it begins to look more and more as if Windows 11 is no longer your operating system of choice.  What's more, your favorite Web browsers and search engines are getting more invasive too.  The Register reports:

Microsoft customers are claiming the Windows giant's Copilot AI service sometimes ignores commands to disable the thing, and thus turns itself back on like a zombie risen from the dead.

. . .

The bug reporter also pointed to a post on Reddit describing how Windows Copilot had re-enabled itself on a PC after being disabled through a Group Policy Object setting.

In the ensuing discussion, an individual posting under the name kyote42 suggests this may be the result of a change in the way Microsoft implements Copilot on Windows 11.

"The GPO setting that disabled icon isn't valid anymore for the new app version of Copilot," kyote42 wrote. "Depending on your flavor of Windows 11, there are some steps outlined in the article, 'Remove or prevent installation of the Copilot app.'"

. . .

Avoiding AI has become something of a challenge with other vendors, too. With the arrival of iOS 18.3.2 in March, Apple customers found that the update re-enabled Apple Intelligence, the iBiz's AI suite, for those who had previously tried to snuff it out.

Google now forces AI Overviews on search users, whether they want it or not.

Meta AI, the chatbot service integrated with Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp can't be turned off either, though there are some partially effective ways to limit it. Meta recently said it will be harvesting public social media posts of Europeans for AI training unless they opt-out.

Mozilla has taken a more nuanced approach. The public benefit biz has been shipping an AI Chatbot sidebar since Firefox 133 and presently requires the user to activate the sidebar and configure it with an AI model. Nonetheless, a pull request to remove the feature from the Zen browser, which is a fork of Firefox, suggests even that a kinder, gentler approach is unwelcome in some quarters.

DuckDuckGo allows users to choose to avoid AI or not. It offers the subdomain noai.duckduckgo.com to load its search engine without an AI chatbot icon and its standard domain duckduckgo.com to load a page with AI.

But overall, the creeping AI encroachment is getting harder and harder to avoid. It might have something to do with the billions these super-corporations have sunk into the technology.

There's more at the link.

I'm afraid we no longer have any guarantee of privacy or confidentiality with any information we have online, or even on our own computers.  Sooner or later Big Software Brother (or an over-inquisitive hacker or bot network) will come snooping around, and get hold of it.  Being an old-fashioned sort of geezer, who values his privacy, I find this infuriating, but there's nothing I can do about it.

I do my best by tightly restricting which browsers I use, and making sure that the one for general Web browsing is locked down as tightly as I can manage (to the point that some Web sites won't allow me to enter because I'm blocking so much of the glurge they're trying to send my way).  However, such precautions can't guarantee privacy or online safety.  The best advice I can offer is, don't go to Web sites where such invasive attacks are likely (such as online pr0n, gambling, dating sites, etc.), and if you feel you absolutely have to go there, have a computer reserved for such social media only.  Don't ever use it for other tasks or for sensitive work.

Meanwhile, I'm glad I left the Microsoft Windows universe behind several years ago.  I've had far fewer problems using Apple Mac computers, and many of my friends and colleagues observe the same.

Peter

The first female LOACH driver for a very special unit

 

I'm sure most of my readers have heard of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne), commonly known as the 160th SOAR.  They fly in support of all Army Special Forces, and sometimes help out Navy and Marines SF as well.  They're a very specialized outfit with one heck of a reputation among "those that know".

Lindsey Chrismon flew with the 160th, and was the first female pilot of the AH-6 "Little Bird".  First used during the Vietnam War (during which it was christened the LOACH, for "Light Observation Helicopter"), the 160th is today the only unit still flying them (in a greatly updated version, of course).  Capt. Chrismon also flew the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter.  In the video below, she tells her story.  It's filled with interesting details and bits and pieces of information.  It's an hour and a half long, but I suggest it's worth taking the time to watch it, even in segments as and when you can manage it.

Grateful thanks to Capt. Chrismon for her service, and for a very interesting narrative.

Peter

A political opportunity knocks!

 

I note with glee that more and more Democratic Party politicians are heading for El Salvador to protest the detention of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.  Some of them apparently want to meet with him.

I have a suggestion for the El Salvador government.

1. Return Mr. Garcia to his former place of incarceration, CECOT, reportedly one of the toughest, hardest-line prisons in the world.
2. Allow all Democratic Party politicians who want to visit Mr. Garcia to enter CECOT too.
3. After they're inside, inform them that this will be an extended visit.  To ensure that they have plenty of time to talk to him, they'll be confined in a typical CECOT cell, complete with regular CECOT attire, and fed on prison food, and kept there for as long as possible.

We wouldn't want to impose an undue financial burden on the El Salvador government, so I'm sure President Trump and/or Elon Musk will be glad to bankroll their stay at a suitable rate per diem.

I think it's a great idea!  How about you, dear readers?

Peter

I wonder what van that was?

 

I'm sure most readers have noted a news report that two Mexican nationals were arrested in Colorado after being found driving a van with 180 "boxes", each containing 1,000 rounds of NATO 7.62x51mm (i.e. .308 Winchester) ammunition.  That's 180,000 rounds of ammo - rather more than the average range or hunting trip requires!

The photographs accompanying the article weren't clear on what type of van they were driving.  For example:

I've bought ammo online for years, and had it delivered to my home.  1,000 rounds of 7.62x51mm. military ball ammo weighs 27-28 pounds, plus packaging:  call it 30 pounds per box, to be on the safe side.  That means the total cargo load in that van was about 5,400 pounds, or 2.7 US tons, plus the weight of driver, passenger(s), fuel and other baggage - probably well over 6,000 pounds in total.

I'm not aware of any standard commercial van (i.e. not a truck with a box fitted) that is rated to carry that weight of cargo.  AFAIK, even the heaviest commercial vans can manage up to two tons, but not more - at least, not without affecting their handling and making them unsafe to drive in certain conditions.

So, what were our two budding ammo merchants driving, and where were they headed?  I can only assume they were taking the ammo to cartel customers in Mexico.  Was it linked (i.e. for use in belt-fed machine-guns) or loose (i.e. for loading into magazines)?  Interested minds are curious.

Just an idle thought . . .

Peter

Optics for fighting firearms: what's best?

 

I've had a few questions on that subject from readers in recent weeks, enough that I figured it was worth devoting an entire blog post to the subject.  However, I'm not an expert on the subject, so allow me to introduce you to someone who is.

Mike Branson was with Swampfox Optics for several years, and then moved on to Gideon Optics, where he works today.  He's acknowledged by many in the firearms industry as highly knowledgeable in the field of fighting optics, and has recorded several very useful videos on the subject.

Let's start with an interview he did with Ian McCullum of Forgotten Weapons at last year's SHOT Show about the differences between cheap and expensive red dot sights.

At the same event, Mike described Low-Power Variable Optics (LPVO's), which are a step up from red dot sights, and what to look for in an LPVO.

How do you choose between optics and reticles?  Mike explains below.

While choosing one's optic, what sight should one use?  Dot, circle-dot, or a more complex reticle?  Red or green?  There are many options.

Finally, how cheap can you - or should you - go in the price of your optic?  It depends on its expected use.

There you have it - about as comprehensive an overview of fighting optics as I think you'll find anywhere.  Sure, there are more specialized videos and documents out there, but many of them are classified materials, and others are so specialized they'd be over our heads.  Thanks to Mike Branson for producing a very clear summary of the most important information, helping ordinary folks like you and I find what we need.  I've bought from him at both Swampfox Optics and Gideon Optics, and I'm a very satisfied customer.  (No, I'm not shilling for him, nor is this an advertisement for his company:  he's not even aware that I'm writing this article.  He's just a good guy whom my wife and I are pleased to call our friend.)

Peter

"China Is In Economic Dire Straits And They're No Longer Able To Hide It"

 

Following on from our discussion of China's economy last Thursday, Zero Hedge has just published this article:

China Is In Economic Dire Straits

And They're No Longer Able To Hide It

I won't excerpt it here, but I do recommend clicking over there to read it for yourself.  It sheds a different light on the tariffs issue.  Of course, China's not the only country with crippling economic problems:  read our previous article this morning for a look at the situation in the USA.

Food for thought.

Peter

The parlous state of the US and world economies

 

I'd like to start by making clear that I'm not blaming President Trump for the current state of the economy.  He inherited it from the Biden administration, which left us - and him - with an economy that's basically broken in almost every important aspect.  Inflation, debt, production . . . every one of those areas is very seriously damaged and very unhealthy.  The President's "tariff wars" are an attempt to return to a level playing field, giving us the opportunity to realign and "reset" our economy . . . but they may be too late to have the desired effect, at least in full.  As we've said in these pages many times before, when things are this bad, they take on a life, a momentum, of their own.  A slide down the slippery slope can get out of control all too easily.

Quoth The Raven, a source we've also referenced in these pages before, is not very positive about the future.  Here's an excerpt from his recent article, "It Really Feels Like We're Out Of Time".

The question becomes: what kind of economic foundation does the country have to fall back on? Or put differently — if people want out of the US dollar, what will serve as the bottom for investors selling dollar-denominated assets?

First, people need to realize this is a decades-long trade now beginning to unwind, as Larry McDonald explained perfectly on a podcast a day or two ago. This kind of dollar-denominated unwind hasn’t happened often, precisely because of the US’s reserve currency status. Economic commentators have noted that this kind of behavior is usually seen in emerging markets — so why is it happening here? Could it be the beginning of a prolonged global shift away from the dollar and the U.S.?

And, if so, we have to start looking inward. I’ve been arguing for years that the US is on an unsustainable fiscal trajectory — $37 trillion in debt, and debt-to-GDP over 120%. That used to be a fringe concern. But now, just a year or two after the Biden administration redlined the spending machine with zero care for the nation’s fiscal trajectory, it’s something the rest of the world is starting to focus on. DOGE is making progress with government cuts with the March deficit tumbling, but will it be enough?

And the more people dig into the U.S. economic data, the worse things may look. Economists I follow have long argued that the US has exported dollars and lived a higher-than-earned quality of life thanks to the privilege of printing the world’s reserve currency. To me, when I see people using “buy now, pay later” services for fast food, I get the message loud and clear: we’ve passed peak decadence — and we’re on the downhill side of the bell curve. Said another way, we’re ****ing broke.

While housing may not tank the global economy this time, I do think it’s going to fall significantly. A realtor friend recently forwarded a note from their CEO saying the market is turning into a “buyer’s market.” This is code for “shit is going to hit the fan soon”.

Even Zillow is now predicting a housing bear market. Zillow now expects home values to fall by 1.9% in 2025, reversing its earlier prediction of a slight gain. Despite the market’s unpredictability, mortgage rates are projected to settle around 6.5% by year-end, assuming no major disruptions. The forecast also anticipates a rise in existing home sales, driven by more listings and motivated sellers. As inventory increases and borrowing remains costly, buyers are gaining leverage, and sellers are slashing prices at record levels to stay competitive.

Credit card debt and delinquencies are climbing toward Great Recession highs. Private credit in many industries hasn’t been marked down properly and is being questioned. Regional banks, touted on CNBC as high-yield dividend plays, are tied up in all sorts of illiquid, backward positions. And the auto market? Look into the subprime lenders and tell me this thing isn’t about to blow.

Wherever you look, the US economy looks shaky — not euphoric. And that’s the danger: once we’re on shaky ground, sentiment shifts. Investors move to cash and de-leverage at the first sign of trouble. Every full-blown panic in the last hundred years started with a spark. I can’t help but think that trying to recalibrate global trade — especially while running the largest trade deficits in our history — could be that spark.

It feels like we’ve run out of runway ... Just like one plus one will always equal two, these economic truths will bear out. And while I’ve been wrong on timing, I no longer feel these outcomes are far off in the future.

There's more at the link.

QTR also recommends watching this video from Peter Schiff, and endorses what he has to say.  Mr. Schiff is, of course, a "gold bug" - that's his business - but he also addresses a great deal of what we see around us in national and world economies.

00:00 Introduction and Market Overview
01:00 Interview with Peter Schiff
04:41 Gold Market Analysis and Predictions
12:59 Impact of Tariffs and Stagflation Concerns
17:42 Fed's Dilemma: Rate Hikes and Market Reactions
18:19 Gold as an Economic Indicator
19:07 Impending Financial Crisis and Global Impact
20:06 US Sovereign Debt and Global Confidence
20:46 Global Economic Liberation from US Dependency
21:32 Long-term Shift to Gold
22:38 Historical Perspective on Gold and the Dollar
25:06 Repatriation of Gold Reserves
26:02 Investment Opportunities Beyond Gold
29:43 Bitcoin vs. Gold
31:10 Future Economic Outlook: Stagflation and Beyond
33:07 Conclusion

Nobody knows what to expect in the short to medium term, because so much depends on the actions and reactions of many players in the market.  Nevertheless, the potential for serious, severe disruption appears greater than at any time in the recent past.  I can only suggest to my readers that they take that into account when making financial decisions, and keep as much in reserve as possible against a "rainy day".  After all, when Warren Buffett, one of the savviest and most respected investors in American financial history, is holding on to a "cash buffer" of well north of $300 billion, he certainly has a reason for it - and reading the thoughts above, I daresay we can all figure out what that reason might be.

Peter

Memes that made me laugh 258

 

Gathered from around the Internet over the past week.  Click any image for a larger view.

Sunday morning music will be delayed

 

Sorry - after a long and very stormy evening (rain, wind, hail, thunderstorms and not-too-distant tornadoes), I got to bed late, and overslept.  I'll try to put up a music post later today.

Peter

And so say most of us!

 

Found on Gab:

Precisely!

Peter

How about this for your kids on Easter Sunday?

 

I shudder to think of the calorie content of this monster.

I'm wondering how long (and how many stomach upsets, bowel overloads, cholesterol spikes and heart attacks) it would take to eat that whole thing.  I think I'll pass!

Peter

An intriguing coincidence - or more than that?

 

Many people today have little or no religious faith.  Regular readers will know that I'm a Christian, and believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.  If you don't, that's your right to choose.

A recent post over at DiveMedic's place made me do a double-take.

Nuclear power is the power of the stars. The Chernobyl reactor melted down in 1986. The area, even aquafers with a formation period measured in decades, was heavily contaminated with radionuclides, in some cases more than 100,000 times higher than background radiation.

There is a connection to that in the Christian bible. Let me explain:

The third angel sounded his trumpet, and a great star, blazing like a torch, fell from the sky on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water—  the name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters turned bitter, and many people died from the waters that had become bitter.

The Ukrainian word for the common wormwood plant (Artemisia vulgaris) is “Чорнобиль” (chornóbyl).

Striking, isn’t it?

There's more at the link.

I might add that DiveMedic is not Christian - he proclaims himself to be atheist - but he can still recognize the similarities between history and that text from Revelation.  It becomes even more interesting when one realizes that the Chernobyl reactors are right in the middle of the ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia.

Coincidence? Yes, I think most of us will buy that.  More than coincidence?  Who can say for sure?

Makes you think, doesn't it?

Peter

China and tariffs: a Chinese and an informed American perspective

 

First, from the Director of China's Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, Xia Baolong, via X:

"The U.S. isn’t after our tariffs but our very survival. The US has repeatedly contained and suppressed Hong Kong … and this will eventually backfire on itself."

"Let those peasants in the United States wail in front of the 5,000 years of Chinese civilization."

Wail?  Well, I suppose a lot of modern music (?) sounds like that . . .

Next, from Larry Lambert, who has inside knowledge of China after years of dealing with its businessmen and officials, and speaks with authority:

Beijing thought the American leaders they made rich would protect them forever. They believed these corporate puppet masters would never let the US stand up to China. Along came Donald Trump, who owes them nothing.

The numbers don’t lie

• US exports to China: $143.5B
• Chinese imports to US: $438.9B

They flood our markets while closing or restricting THEIR markets.

Trump said: NO MORE.

Meanwhile, countries like India, Vietnam, and Bangladesh are celebrating. They’re ready to take China’s place and open their markets to the U.S. – and Trump’s willing to deal.

Chinese exporters are PANICKING

• Abandoning shipments mid-voyage
• Factory orders FROZEN
• Container volume is down 90%

And this is just the beginning. China can’t replace the U.S. market that made it rich.

Reports flooding in:

• Factories shutting down
• Amazon canceling orders
• Stores closing
• Warehouses overflowing

The house of cards is falling. CNN gives you nothing but Chinese propaganda.

CRUCIAL FACT: America buys 3X more than Japan (China’s next biggest customer).

Without us, they’re FINISHED. And they were already on the ropes.

Will this affect US consumers? Sure, briefly. For a few months, you might struggle to find cheap plastic junk.

But other countries will step up. And TRILLIONS in new investment are flowing into America, while countless factories LEAVE China.

The bottom line: China picked a fight it can’t win. While America adjusts, the CCP will face the consequences of its refusal to open its markets or abandon aggression against its neighbors. The decoupling is underway.

Rather different picture from what the mainstream media is telling us, isn't it?  Who do you believe?  After decades of enduring their lies and propaganda, I certainly don't believe the media . . .

If I were Taiwan, I'd be mobilizing my defense forces and preparing for invasion.  Xi desperately needs a cause to take his people's minds off their economic woes.  A war, a forced "reunification" with Taiwan, would do nicely for that - particularly because President Trump hasn't yet had time to undo the damage done to our armed forces by the previous administration.

Peter

"This is a Get ‘Er Done NOW! frontal assault on 40 years of accumulated Crap"

 

That's how Chiefio sees President Trump's tariffs.

We had a system of all sorts of countries with tariff barriers against US goods and not very motivated to “negotiate” along with a few players who had strong merchantilist trade barriers (not just tariffs but “standards” that often were a bit bizarre and currency manipulation and more) and you want to both “condition the battle field” while you find out “how strong an opponent will each one be?”.

So Trump throws a Tariff Firebomb into Global Trade and watches who runs where. Who has strength and who is an easy play. And he gets his answers.

. . .

This wasn’t any failure, and it isn’t a “back track” as it is only a 90 Day “Pause”. It was firing an opening salvo, and seeing where the enemy response came from. Who wanted to surrender, and who wanted to fight ... I’d count that as a “win” for shaping the battle field and choosing the grounds for the battle.

Clearly Trump has read his Tsun Su and his Clausewitz.

. . .

This is a Get ‘Er Done NOW! frontal assault on 40 years of accumulated Crap up to and including election rigging and assassinations (or attempts of same that failed…) and all to be completed in 2 years. There WILL be dozens of eggs broken, hundreds of bits of Fine China in the China Shop trampled into fragments, and a LOT of casualties in the troops.

We, the MAGA folks, are JUST FINE with that. The faster the better.

Blow up the Federal Government, we can always start over. DESTROY “the Rules Based World Order” it wasn’t working all that well anyway what with “color revolutions” and “Faux Democracy” and all. SHUT DOWN trade with China if that’s what it takes, as long as it returns jobs and manufacturing to the USA. Throw Economic “Hand Grenades” if that’s what it takes. We’re here for you if you need us.

Unfortunately, to me, it looks like the UK and EU “leadership” are corrupt and “slimy weasels” in all this, leading their countries to ruin, and China are a bunch of CCP Liars & Cheats who can not be trusted. So Trump is pissing in their coffee? OK… Can I join in? ;-)

We’ll know in 90 days if this works.

In the mean time: IF I can’t buy cheap Chinese plastic crap for 10 ¢ and have to pay 20 ¢ to get it from some other socialist hell hole, I really do not care. IF my neighbor gets a job at the new Plastic Crap Factory in the USA, well, we’ll have a back yard BBQ and I’ll buy the beer.

There's more at the link.

That sounds about right to me.  Ever since the demise of the gold standard, international trade has been denominated in increasingly devalued currency, and economic strength has reflected that.  Most countries imposed far higher tariffs on imported goods to protect their own economies.  That resulted in the USA accepting their goods at low rates, while our exports to them were charged higher rates.  That meant, in turn, that most of our factories migrated overseas, where corporations could pay lower salaries to their workers, send their production to the USA at minimal cost, and reap the benefits for their shareholders and executives.  The working stiffs who used to produce those goods here?  Who cared about them?  They could always apply for unemployment and food stamps . . .

I think President Trump sees very clearly that if we don't tackle this problem right now, we're economically doomed.  It's almost on the brink of our national bankruptcy already.  We simply can't go on accumulating massive deficits every year, adding them to an already effectively unpayable total debt.  Let's face it - a US national debt of (at the time of writing) $36.7 trillion is impossible to pay off.  There isn't that much money in the world!  We've got to deal with it now, or it will overwhelm us.  President Trump understands full well that we cannot go on importing goods and exporting dollars, while having our own exports of goods hobbled by high tariffs on the receiving end.  It's got to stop, and it's got to stop now.

All those complaining about what it's doing to the stock market are wearing economic blinkers.  They're not looking at the wider picture - only their own profits.  If the stock market crashes, it'll be an economic blow, but we've weathered such before and will do again.  If we as a nation become bankrupt, that's an order of magnitude worse than a stock market crash, because millions of people will be out of work with almost no notice.  The federal government doesn't have any spare cash to dole out in unemployment insurance, food assistance or other aid:  and if it "prints dollars" to pay such bills (as has been done all too often in the past), those dollars will be worthless because there's no economy to back them up.  What costs a dollar today will cost ten tomorrow, and a hundred the day after that.  If you're in doubt, examine Weimar Germany, or Venezuela, or Zimbabwe, or any of a large number of other nations that suffered economic catastrophe that way.

We've got to stop the rot.  It's almost too late to do so.  Tariffs are a bitter pill to swallow, for US consumers as much as for foreign countries and companies that export goods to us, but it's medicine we must take - or face the consequences.

Peter

So much for prepping!

 

Stephan Pastis aces it again.  Click the image to be taken to a larger version of the cartoon at the "Pearls Before Swine" Web page.

It's funny, of course, but it's also something to keep in mind when we talk about preparing for emergencies.  We can make all the plans we like, and stockpile goods and materials to our heart's content, but in the end, if something nasty happens, we'll just have to deal with it on the fly.  It may destroy all our preps, and disrupt all our plans.  We have to be flexible enough to "roll with the punches", adapt our plans, and do whatever is needed to get through the situation.  It may not even be possible to do that . . . in a critical situation, survival is not a guaranteed outcome.

Anyone who tells you to "buy this" or "build that" to be sure of survival is talking through his or her hat.  By all means, prepare yourself and your supplies for emergencies;  but flexibility, adaptability, good health and fitness are going to be much more important than most people realize.

Food for thought.

Peter

Good question!

 

With all the talk about bringing manufacturing back to the USA, Zero Hedge asks:  "Can The Work Ethic Make A Return?"

For generations now, we’ve been told that intelligence and skill are disproportionately distributed in the upper tiers of the U.S. class structure.

Personally, I don’t believe it. It is more likely the opposite: the people who struggle for a living, working two and three jobs to pay the bills, have more skills than most people in the upper third of the income distribution who have never had to worry about paying the bills.

Talk to any serious person in any midsize company today and they will tell you of their struggles. The regulations and taxes are vexing but it is the labor problems day-to-day that really inhibit their operations and progress. It is exceedingly difficult to find workers who will do what they are supposed to do in a timely way, with attention to detail, and without constant hand-holding and praise.

This decline of the American work ethic traces to the educational institutions in part, but also to the reality that most young people in the top half of income earners have never worked a day in their lives until after having earned their credentials.

They are clueless about what it means to embrace a hard job and stick with it until they are done. They resent the authority structures in the workplace and attempt to game the system in the same way that they gamed school for 16-plus years.

It’s one thing to develop skills for survival in classrooms, and a radically different thing to have skills for a new world of manufacturing. Shop classes in high school are mostly gone (only 6 percent of students take them versus 20 percent in the 1980s) and two-thirds of teens eschew remunerative employment completely, simply because it is not necessary. It’s been generations since most people knew anything of farm life, to say nothing of factory life.

Trump is seeking to solve a half-century-old problem in four years.

There's more at the link.

I can only be grateful to my parents for teaching me (the hard way) that money had to be earned.  It started out, as soon as we kids were old enough to do simple household tasks, by linking it to so-called "pocket money".  We were promised five cents for every year of our age, and were given household jobs according to our capabilities.  Mine were mowing the lawn, cleaning up after the dog, washing the car, and so on.  If we didn't do any of those jobs on schedule, as required, we were "fined" five cents from that week's pocket-money.  If we failed to perform them three times in a week, we lost all that week's pocket money.  We soon found out that begging and pleading didn't work, and if we slacked off and half-did our work, in the eyes of our parents that was as good (or as bad) as not doing it at all.  We learned.

Also, when we wanted something expensive (such as a bicycle, or a tape recorder when we hit our teens - and yes, my first tape recorder was a well-worn used reel-to-reel unit, because cassette tapes were new-fangled and expensive), we had to come up with at least 50% of its price.  We could earn that by doing extra chores for our parents, or (in our teens) by looking for part-time work.  (My first part-time job was working at a local pet store during school vacations.  I got to clean out all of the cages and boxes - a s***ty job, literally!  When I grew older I became a part-time shop assistant at an upmarket store in town, dressed in stiffly starched shirt and tie, waiting on customers and behaving very deferentially.)  By such means I always managed to raise half of the money I needed to buy something, and my parents kicked in the rest - but only after I'd earned their support.  Again, we learned.

By the time I entered the armed forces, I'd learned that one got somewhere by working hard and showing willing.  The military knocked the opinionated asshole out of me (although some unkind people might suggest I've retained a touch of that here and there . . . ).  It set me up for the rest of my life.

When I look at teenagers today, in most of the Western world they seem bored, opinionated and self-serving.  "I don't WANNA!" is their battle cry.  Talking to small business owners in the area, they all complain that attracting willing young workers is a constant battle.  If they recruit two people, it's because they know one of them is going to have to be fired, so they have to hire two to keep one.  It's expensive and time-consuming for them - two commodities that no small business can afford.  Drug and alcohol abuse, laziness and poor time management round out the complaints.

What say you, readers?  Do you think today's youngsters, with all their problems and issues, will be willing and/or able to make the transition to modern manufacturing work?  If not, what will that mean for President Trump's drive to bring business back home?

Another thought.  I wasn't kidding when I said that military service made a man out of me, taking an opinionated, self-centered brat youngster and knocking the stuffing out of him.  I wonder whether bringing back conscription might not be a good thing, from that perspective - but I have to admit that too many youngsters today would expect to be feather-bedded, and would complain bitterly about any perceived insult or "dissing" from a drill instructor.  (I remember my DI's well . . . I think they'd suffer apoplexy if they had to deal with today's youth!)  Good idea, or not worth the hassle?

Peter

Why D.O.G.E. is so hard for the left to stop

 

I've been somewhat surprised that the progressive left has filed so few lawsuits opposing the existence, mandate and mission of D.O.G.E. as a whole.  After a few initial lawsuits before it was even legally established, the focus has switched almost completely to complaints on the periphery, rather than trying to stop D.O.G.E. from doing its job altogether.

This article explains why that's the case.

Originally created under the Obama administration to improve government software, the USDS has been rebranded as the United States DOGE Service. This move, as Renz points out, is not merely a name change but a strategic repurposing to align with new priorities.

"Trump did NOT actually create a new agency," Renz noted. "Instead, what he did was repurpose an existing agency - the USDS - into something more useful." This strategy allowed Trump to bypass the need for Congressional approval while ensuring the initiative's legality.

. . .

The executive order is grounded in existing laws, notably 44 USCS Chapter 36, which focuses on developing technology for the government. By leveraging this legal framework, Trump ensured that the DOGE Service's focus on efficiency and IT evaluation remains within the agency's original mandate.

. . .

The executive order mandates the establishment of DOGE teams within every administrative branch agency. These teams, comprising a lead, lawyer, HR person, and engineer, will work under the USDS (DOGE) umbrella to identify waste and improve efficiency.

Renz emphasized the strategic brilliance of this approach: "Looking at the software and how things are managed is a great way to find out where there is waste - particularly when part of the mandate is to ensure efficiency."

. . .

While Renz expressed reservations about the extent of executive branch authority, he commended the strategic execution of the DOGE initiative. "This order was very well done," he stated, adding, "Trump and Musk have really done a good job strategically here."

There's more at the link.

The article made a few things clear to me:

1. President Trump could not have dreamed up this strategy in a week or two.  Even before the election, he must have had people working on ways and means to achieve what he wanted;  and I've no doubt Elon Musk assigned some of his brightest and best personnel to assist in that effort.  The months between election and inauguration must have been at fever pitch, getting all the political and legal ducks in a row to allow the new Administration to get down to it from Day One.
2. It's now clear why President Trump refused the offer of General Services Administration (GSA) funding and assistance during the transition period.  If the GSA had known what he was planning to do, they would undoubtedly have shared that with the rest of the Biden administration, and given Democratic Party lawyers and fixers a head start on figuring out how to block D.O.G.E. and other initiatives.  By keeping things in-house and rejecting official "advisers" or "consultants", President Trump kept his cards very close to his chest, ensuring that D.O.G.E. could "hit the ground running" and shock everybody with the speed at which it moved.
3. Legally, this whole thing was brilliant.  Of course President Trump would have expected "lawfare", with Democrats launching lawsuit after lawsuit to stop him implementing his agenda.  However, by simply using an existing and entirely legal framework to insert D.O.G.E. into the executive function, he bypassed or blocked almost every legal avenue to challenge it.  If it was legal for President Obama's USDS to do what it did, then D.O.G.E. (using precisely the same legal framework and justification) was unchallengeable.  I don't know what lawyers came up with that approach, but it was spectacularly effective.

I think this transition from the Biden to the Trump administrations is going to be studied by political scientists for years to come.  It's a textbook case of how to avoid, evade or nullify efforts to stymie the handover of power.  I can only hope that the Democratic Party doesn't learn from it, and try to do the same when their turn comes (as it undoubtedly will) to assume power once more.  Sadly, I fear that hope is in vain . . .

Peter

Commercial opportunity, or national security threat?

 

I had to shake my head at this headline:

Chinese Shipping Company Wants to

Lease the Former U.S. Base at Adak

According to the report:

The head of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command supports reactivating the naval airbase at Adak, a remote Cold War station in the Aleutian Islands - but the U.S. military isn't the only interested party, according to Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK). An unnamed Chinese shipping company has also reached out to the current landowner to express interest in negotiating a lease, Sullivan said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday.

Adak was a key naval base throughout the Cold War, providing a logistics and surveillance hub near Russia's eastern shores. After the Base Realignment and Closure Commission process in the mid-1990s, it was shut down, and it ceased operations in 1997. The land is now held by the native Aleut Corporation.   

. . .

The U.S. military still holds occasional exercises at Adak, and talk of reviving the base has circulated since at least 2021 ... Adak would be a natural location for an enhanced U.S. deterrent presence, Sen. Sullivan said Thursday ... "But you know who checks in with them once a year?" Sullivan asked. "It's a Chinese shipping company that is, certainly, in my view, a front company for the [Chinese military]. So how embarrassing would it be to the Pentagon or the Navy . . . if somehow they signed [a] 100 year lease with a quote 'Chinese shipping company' that always is out there looking at Adak?"

There's more at the link.

I've seen that move many times before in Africa, first from the former Soviet Union, and more recently from China.  They may know that an overtly military presence would attract unwelcome Western opposition, but a "purely commercial endeavor" might be overlooked.  There are many places around the world where a foreign company has leased a port, or established a mine, or built a factory, only for it to become a center for economic exploitation (as bad as colonialism ever was), or an espionage center, or a major presence that destabilizes an entire region.  China is doing that across the Pacific Ocean at present, trying to buy influence with the tiny island nations there by offering buckets of money to build up a port (for "fishing", of course), or establish a major airport to "improve communications".  In the event of things getting heated on the geopolitical front, those would become military bases - perhaps whether the host country liked it or not.  Fly in a few planeloads of heavily armed troops without any advance notice or warning, and no tiny island nation will be able to withstand them.  The fuss would be over in less than a few hours.

China wouldn't do that on Adak, of course:  it's US territory.  However, as a base to monitor submarine traffic, and send trawlers into one of the world's great fishing and crabbing grounds, and generally cause difficulties for Alaska and the West Coast, it has tremendous potential.  If they make the financial offer attractive enough, even a patriotic tribe like the Aleuts would find it very hard to resist temptation.

Peter

Memes that made me laugh 257

 

Gathered from around the Internet over the past week.  Click any image for a larger view.

Talk about being asleep at the wheel!

 

According to D.O.G.E. yesterday:

This is absolutely mind-boggling.  Claims for unemployment from people not yet born???  How could even one of those applications have passed initial scrutiny, let alone been paid?

What's worse is that this is just one instance of a government department failing the most basic test of competency and thoroughness in doing its duty.  How can we, the taxpayers and voters of America, trust our government in future when we keep getting this drumroll of departments, agencies and individuals who have signally failed in their task and squandered our posterity?

I won't be satisfied until every government employee who should have caught these applications, but didn't, has been fired;  and until everyone who made such spurious claims has been charged and convicted of the relevant crimes.  It would be nice if the government would also refund taxpayers the amount of tax dollars that have been wasted . . . but I guess that's the definition of a "sunk cost".  We won't see that money again.

Peter

Busy for the next few days

 

Today sees the start of our annual invitation-only Foolzcon, named initially because it was held as close as possible to April Fools Day.  Old NFO began it several years ago, and it's grown into a long weekend filled with friends, food and frolics.  We generally have a lot of fun together.

We'll have two houseguests over Foolzcon, plus our own participation in the festivities, so blogging will be light until Monday.  I'll try to put up a post here and there, but they may appear at unusual times for me.  It all depends on what we're doing, and where and with whom we're doing it.  If you get bored, amuse yourselves with the blogs listed in the sidebar.

Peter

It's not just a military conflict in the Middle East

 

Matthew Bracken, former SEAL, author and astute observer of the world around us, reminds us that the staggering cost of a potential war with Iran over that country's nuclear program is not just military.

In the event of a kinetic war against Iran, all petroleum tankers will be blocked from leaving the Persian Gulf, not only Iranian ships. Iran has hundreds of mobile truck-mounted anti-ship cruise missiles hidden in rugged mountainous terrain on a wide arc north of Oman and controlling the Strait of Hormuz. This arc is 300 miles wide and 100 miles deep. Iranian missile forces may well act under standing orders to attack all shipping once an American attack on Iran begins. Even a total decapitation strike against Iranian communications will not prevent these standing orders from being carried out. Iran will be determined to share their pain across the region and around the world.

Iranian anti-ship missile forces will not fire all their rockets at the beginning of this conflict. Instead, missile teams will have separate standing orders. Teams will be instructed to scout for shipping and fire at anything in the strait on different timelines after the war begins. Their goal will be to prevent the resumption of shipping for weeks or even months. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards in charge of these missiles will not care about the pain being inflicted upon civilians in Teheran. They will follow their orders with the dedication of Japanese holdouts in the Pacific ... To root out hundreds of these mobile anti-ship missiles “the hard way” using infantry troops would require a land invasion greater than Normandy and Okinawa combined.

. . .

The ongoing missile war in the Red Sea gives us some hints about what to expect. Yes, the U.S. military can kick the hell out of the Houthis in Yemen, but this is no real test when compared to what we will face if we go to war with Iran ... In my opinion, any military planners who assume we can destroy a wide range of strategic military targets inside Iran, from their nuclear to their ballistic missile programs, without suffering an extreme economic blowback, is a damn fool.

There's more at the link.

If the USA goes to war with Iran, it'll inevitably involve Israel, and probably at least half of the nations in the Persian Gulf area will take sides and join in.  That, plus Iranian countermeasures, will pose a severe threat to a very large part of the world's oil supply.  Half to three-quarters of the oil consumed in China, Japan and South Korea (to say nothing of other Asian nations) comes from the Persian Gulf.  If that supply is interrupted the economic costs to those countries, and to all other countries that rely on their industrial production, would be incalculable.

I agree that we have to rein in the fanatical religious government in Iran . . . but doing so in a way that inflicts minimum damage, destruction and disruption on the rest of the world will be far from easy, and probably very costly.  Here in the USA, we'll certainly feel the heat from it.

Peter

A Malibu liberal loses his California cool

 

From Francesco on X, after the Los Angeles fires.  A tip o' the hat to the anonymous reader who sent me the link.

Look at me. I’m a Malibu Liberal. 

I believe in climate justice. Can you believe I actually said those words?! I’ve posted those words. I’ve whispered them into quartz. I ate kelp-based protein and offset my flights to Tulum through an app made by annoying Stanford kids. I composted at scale. I did all of the things. 

Our home was solar-powered, LEED-certified, AND tastefully non-invasive—except for the footprint, which was enormous. But it was *intentional*. And even though it cost a fortune, I STILL did all of the things. We marched. We meditated. I once cried over a Greta Thunberg speech in my Range Rover outside Nobu. But nature doesn’t care about ANY of that. It just burns—helped along, of course, by decades of political incompetence.

And when it burned, the city sent not one, not two, but THREE lesbian fire chiefs with not a single hose between them. Look, DEI is important, I get that. But not when the hillside’s ON FIRE. The mayor showed up three days later from Africa, only to take a selfie and mispronounce “Malibu.” And I’m all for representation, but that [REDACTED]. 

We lost EVERYTHING! And when we tried to rebuild, we met the final boss: Democrat bureaucracy. Six months for a soil report. A year for coastal variances. Our rebuild “disrespected the ridgeline.” Whatever that means. I met with the Architectural Review Board while on mushrooms and I still don’t know if that meeting was real.

Our contractor was approved, then unapproved, then deported. We got a violation for sandbagging our own driveway. We’ve spent $120,000 just to *not* live in our house. I asked a councilwoman for help. She sent me back a workbook titled ‘Rethinking Home’ and a notice from the county asking us not to disturb owl mating zones while our lives are literally ash.

So **** it.

**** the permits.

**** the endangered sand beetle.

**** the Architectural Review Board.

**** the Democrats.

Where is my MAGA hat.

One can only sympathize, and suggest Francesco moves to someplace that treats him like a human being!  Of course, he'd have to leave his liberal California values behind, or he might get rather short shrift in his new location . . .

Peter

House of Worship security teams: a useful link

 

John Farnam advises that a new policy development aid is available for churches and other houses of worship that want to establish their own security teams.  (In this violent day and age, I fully support such initiatives.)

When such teams are appointed, organized, and charged with various duties, a competent, comprehensive, written policy quickly becomes an acute necessity for safety, competency, and legal reasons.

My esteemed friend and colleague, Manny Kapelsohn has now composed, and is marketing, such a written policy.  I assisted in the final editing.

Manny is simultaneously a renowned attorney and firearms trainer, and the two of us have conducted countess training programs together.  Manny also regularly provides professional expert assistance to litigants in deadly-force cases, both criminal and civil, renders critical trial testimony routinely, and is one of the very few who is genuinely qualified to compose such a document.

This “House of Worship Firearms and Use of Force Policy Bundle” (Policy, Comments, etc) document is now available at:

www.peregrinecorporation.com

On the website, click “Products.”

Upon checkout, enter the discount code “FARNAM25.”

Individual users will, of course, need to tweak this policy document in order for it to specifically apply to their particular situation.  The final version they intend to implement will naturally need to be reviewed and approved by their own attorney before being placed in force.

There's more at the link.

Yes, this is passing on an advertisement, I suppose:  but I trust John Farnam implicitly.  He's one of the best defensive firearm instructors around, and has been for decades.  If he says this policy guide is so good, I'm going to take him at his word:  and knowing how many houses of worship struggle to define what their security team is, what its duties should be, and how it should operate in the legal constraints that apply to their area, I think such a guide can only benefit all of us.

If your church or house of worship has, or is considering setting up, a security team, I suggest you mention Mr. Farnam's article and the link above to your pastor or church administrator.  I think they'll find it useful.

Peter

An important reality is in danger of being forgotten

 

When it comes to the use of handguns in self-defense, the current fashion is to go for high-capacity 9mm pistols.  They're ubiquitous, and for good reason:  the recoil is manageable for most shooters, there are plenty of rounds on tap (up to 17 or 18 in many examples), and if a quality hollowpoint round is used, they offer adequate terminal performance.  Even compact examples, holding only 6-8 rounds, offer slightly greater power than the traditional .38 Special snub-nose revolver, and greater speed and ease of reloading.  All in all, very useful weapons.

However, there's another aspect to it, and that is the age-old topic of "stopping power".  We've pointed out before that there's no such thing, at least in theory, because one can't measure in any meaningful way how many rounds are required to stop an attacker.  If he's merely out for a quick score, and meets spirited opposition, even one round that misses him might be enough to make him turn around and run for his life.  On the other hand, if he's hopped-up on drugs, he might not feel half a dozen or more torso shots, and carry on attacking until his body finally shuts down.  I've personally witnessed an assailant who'd been shot multiple times in the chest (including one round that went right through his heart), but he still lived long enough to reach the defender and open his skull with a machete.  Both died on the scene.  Can one call that a "successful" defense, in that it stopped the criminal attacker, but did not save the life of the defender?  I can't.

On the other hand, there's a time-honored and generally accepted rule in defensive shooting that tells us the bigger and heavier a round is, the more likely it is to stop an attacker.  It dates back to the days of the Civil War and the Wild West, where "manly" revolvers were in .44 or .45 caliber, while "lesser" pistols were in .36 caliber or even below.  In general terms, one or two solid lead slugs to the chest from a .44 or .45 did the job, whereas it often took more of the smaller .36 rounds to achieve the same result.

Modern bullet technology has improved the performance of smaller cartridges like the .38 Special or 9mm, but it has also improved the performance of larger-caliber rounds.  In general terms, based on actual street performance, the bigger stuff still stops attackers faster and more effectively than the smaller stuff.  Of course, any round that shuts down the attacker's central nervous system is likely to achieve a very quick stop indeed, but that takes a shooter who's fast enough and accurate enough to do that on demand.  Most of us aren't that good, so a more powerful impact is a distinct advantage when dealing with a hopped-up or fanatical attacker who has no intention of stopping, no matter what.

(As one measure of that:  ask hospital emergency room nurses and surgeons how many shooting victims survive hits - even multiple hits - by 9mm or .38 Special handguns, versus how many live through hits from .40, .44 or .45 weapons.  When I was a prison chaplain, the medical staff there told me there were any number of convicts with scars from the smaller cartridges, but very few showing scars from bigger ones.  That's because those struck by bigger, harder-hitting bullets survived less often.)

That's been borne out over the past few years by videos of police and defensive shootings all over the world.  We see how, time and again, those with smaller-caliber firearms (like 9mm pistols) fire half a dozen to a dozen rounds in order to stop an attacker.  One or two rounds just won't do the job, because they're not hitting a vital target.  In civil war situations, where attackers roam in mobs and attack in large numbers, the higher magazine capacity of a 9mm is valuable - but only if each round stops one attacker.  If you put ten rounds into the first attacker, you may stop him, but then you've used more than half your pistol's magazine and other attackers are still coming towards you.  You're in trouble.

Therefore, choose your defensive handguns in the light of what enemy(ies) you may face.  If you suspect you may have to drive anywhere near, say, an Antifa or BLM demonstration, you might want to carry large quantities of ammunition with you, but you might also (and, to my mind, should) carry a more powerful weapon than a mere handgun.  An AR15 or similar defensive rifle can provide far greater stopping power, and far greater practical accuracy, than a 9mm pistol.

If you have no choice but to rely on a handgun, it's worth relying on one powerful enough to get the job done.  Most days I carry a 9mm or .38 Special handgun in a pocket, because it's the most easily concealed weapon, and because I'm in a relatively low-crime environment.  If I were in a more progressive-left city with legions of aggrieved activists, something with higher capacity might be needed.  However, given the realities of so-called "stopping power", and my experience with it in a civil war and unrest environment over many years in Africa, I'd probably choose something with greater power, like a 10mm, .44 or .45 handgun.

Some smaller "heavy" cartridges offer the advantage that a handgun chambered for them can hold almost as many rounds as a 9mm pistol.  Looking at my gun safe, a 9mm Glock 17's magazine holds 17 rounds, whereas a .40 S&W Glock 22 holds 15, and a 10mm S&W M&P also holds 15 (the latter round being considerably more powerful than a .45 ACP, while we're at it).  A heavier, harder-hitting cartridge does not have to imply lack of magazine capacity.  Even that may not be an issue, depending on one's choice of firearm.  A .45 ACP Glock 21 will hold 13 rounds, still a useful number.  All of the rounds mentioned in this paragraph will deliver a harder punch than a smaller cartridge, and are likely to cause greater pain and disruption to the person hit by them.  There's a lot to be said for that.

So, by all means, if you can only manage the recoil of a 9mm pistol, go with that option.  It's not a bad choice, and will serve you well if you put the bullets where they're supposed to go.  That takes training and practice.  However, if you can handle the recoil of a more powerful round and shoot it accurately, there are good reasons to consider a handgun using them.  If I'm visiting a city where crime and other hazards to my health are more likely to be encountered, I'm very likely to pick a large-caliber firearm.  (To take just one example, a .38 Special snub-nose revolver can be dropped into the average trouser pocket very easily, but a .44 Special Charter Arms Bulldog is almost as light and not much bigger.  Given a pocket big enough to conceal it - and there's nothing stopping us from adding cloth to an internal pocket to enlarge it - it makes a handy choice, and using a round like Buffalo Bore's .44 Special full wadcutter, I have every confidence in its stopping power at close range.)

Thoughts to consider in this violent, criminal day and age . . .

Peter

Driving electric vehicles through floodwaters

 

In recent days, watching TV news footage of motorists driving through very high floodwaters (sometimes halfway up the vehicle's doors), I was struck by the number of electric vehicles (EV's) - both pure electric and hybrid - among those picking their way through the water and debris.  As a former sector officer for civil defense in another city and country, I was trained to look for hazards that might not be immediately obvious, and this seems to me to be precisely that:  a hazard waiting to turn into a very serious situation.

In general, it's deemed safe to drive an EV through floodwater, because the battery packs are sealed and the motor and drivetrain are well insulated.  Sources confirming that include (but are not limited to):

Can EVs Drive Through Floods?

Can I drive an EV through floods?

EVs in flood water

However, that's in theory.  In practice, floodwaters contain hazards that often can't be seen or avoided:  thick tree branches, potholes, stones and chunks of tarmac that have been washed away from where they were before and deposited in the traffic lane, and so on.  If a vehicle hits them beneath the water, they can inflict severe damage, particularly on formerly sealed and/or insulated electrical components.

If an EV's battery casing is cracked, or the insulation of its motor and/or drivetrain is torn away, it can deliver a really severe electric shock to all those nearby - most particularly its occupants, who in a flood situation may be wearing wet clothing, sitting on wet seats, and have their feet in water over the floorboards.  Talk about an electric chair waiting to go off!

There's also the unfortunate reality that damaged EV battery packs can erupt in flames with little or no warning, and burn at a very high intensity.  If one is stuck inside a car when the battery starts to burn beneath one's seat, one may not be able to get out before being burned - perhaps very badly.  Look at how fast the battery fire erupts in these video clips:

There have been videos on social media allegedly showing vehicles striking loose paving stones or other obstructions, puncturing their battery packs, and bursting into flames.  However, I could only find this YouTube short illustrating that, which I can't embed.  Click over there to watch it for yourself.

Bottom line:  if you drive an EV of any sort, please be very careful about driving through floodwater.  Under normal circumstances your battery and drivetrain should be fine, but a flood is, by definition, not a normal circumstance!  You can't see obstacles that might damage your vehicle severely.  I'd hate to have electrically shocked and lightly toasted blog readers . . .

Peter