Free Trade, Free Capital, and Un-free Labor

There are numerous advantages to free trade, that is to say trade, that recognizes no border restrictions, and hence no tariffs or excise taxes applied to goods being bought and sold from one sovereign nation to another, of which the advantages are that goods are in whole, cheaper to the consumer of such, sometimes substantially cheaper, because the goods, for example, are neither subject to restrictions or added governmental taxes, in addition to the fact that it is a more profitable and vibrant way for corporations to conduct their business, because they are then able to allocate their capital into physical locations that are more favorable overall for their business model.

This means, for better or for worse, we live in a world that is gravitating more and more to a world in which capital is no longer restricted to the country of its origin, but can be freely moved, through a click of a button, or whatever.  Whereas, labor, on the other hand, which is people, are to a large extent, stuck living in the country of their origin, although they can either legally petition for emmigration, which is often a long and arduous process with restrictions, or become a refugee seeking asylum, which typically is a reflection of significant internal upheaval or severe lack of economic opportunity within their country of origin.

The inherent problem that is created when you have free capital and free trade, whereas labor is not free to move, along with environment and regulation laws that vary significantly within nations and principalities is that capital can be deliberated allocated to wherever the laws for that business, favoritism for that business, or lack of invasive interference by government entities, exists.  Not too surprisingly, money talks, and most countries are eager to embrace investment of capital within their nation, for the perceived advantages of having that investment in the first place, or for the enrichment that money provides a select few well placed sources within that country, or for the fact that local labor will be employed, or all of these things.

This means, in a nutshell, that when capital searches for the country that best fits their need and function, that one of the more important considerations of the decision that is reached, is the cost of that labor and the skill of that workforce within that locale.  While this is obviously quite beneficial for those that become employed, especially if the wages are good, but even if they are just adequate, it also means for a certainty, that more expensive labor, by design, is deliberately bypassed.

The most significant reasons why wages for the middle class in America have remained stagnant over the 21st century is because the aspiring middle class are not just competing against other laborers in America, they are also competing against capital equipment reducing their employment opportunities, of which none of this is helped by the weakening of labor unions, and more often than ever they are also competing against world labor rates, and most foreign countries have significantly cheaper price points for their labor than America, with skill-sets that are at a minimum, acceptable.

If, this country continues to permit its capital to freely move from country to country, it will continue to find that those that benefit from such capital movement, directly or indirectly, will do quite well, and the consumers of such that have ready money will also be beneficiaries, but those struggling to achieve basic middle class goals, will struggle, are struggling, and a country without a vibrant middle class, will ultimately degenerate into the massive underclass inevitably serving the favored few.

True Pricing and Subsidies

Just about everybody enjoys a good deal or a good discount, because they intuitively recognize that less money spent on goods or services, means more money left in their own hands, so as to purchase other goods or for savings.  It is, however, one thing for an enterprise on its own to discount something, voluntarily, and an entirely different thing for an enterprise to either be compelled into discounting something by government fiat or to have to compete against similar entities which have been given special governmental privileges in regards to subsidies or tax benefits or both.

Any business that makes it part and parcel of their business that they need or require governmental subsidies or special tax set asides, haven't properly priced in how to run their business in the first place.  While a case can be made, that innovation will necessitate some sort of flexibility in pricing that doesn't take into account the current costs involved, projecting, for instance, that future volume and technological breakthroughs will eventually push the price down to a competitive or worthwhile effort, that can easily be addressed through the proper capitalization of the enterprise to begin with.

For example, for whatever reasons, and almost none are valid or good, the government insists on getting involved in all sorts of business enterprises, supposedly under the guise of the "greater good", so that if the government in its wisdom or stupidity or unfairness, deems that solar panel companies or wind generating companies, and the consumers that utilize these products should be subsidized, or receive tax breaks, you will, quite naturally, see a higher production of these items, but what is often forgotten in all of this activity, is that the true price point and the true cost have been marginalized by these subsidies and tax breaks, so that the payback point, if there is even one, is obfuscated.

Too often the government desires to have its cake and eat it, declaring that subsidies and tax breaks, and favorable treatment to certain enterprises are all necessary, even if there is a short term cost in extra monies spent and inefficiencies, because over the long term, society will benefit.  In case in point, if, companies truly believed that over the long term that their profitability would materially improve by focusing on certain products as compared to other products, they would, if they were sensible, go ahead and do it anyway, with or without subsidies or tax breaks.  The giving of such, merely gives the upstarts an unfair advantage via those that are not privileged to be accorded the same treatment.

In point of fact, if for some reason, a company consistently and constantly sells a certain product for less than its actually true value or real worth to the public, the public will benefit and that particular enterprise will take a negative hit to their bottom line.  The public are not fools, and therefore any product line that is mispriced, or misallocated, will in cases in which that pricing because of subsidies, or tax advantages, or giveaways is thereby priced at less than what comparable products would be priced at -- will see the public naturally consume more of it, so as to take advantage of market imbalances.  When the government makes it their business to affect the natural market forces of pricing for goods, they have, for better or for worse, strongly influenced who the winners and losers are in what is supposed to be a free enterprise system and tilted it accordingly.

The serious price of Incarceration

The United States of America should be both ashamed as well as distressed at the embarrassing rate of incarceration that it has achieved that by far exceeds any other western nation by a substantial margin.  It would be one thing if all this incarceration produced a society in which there was no more crime, no more violence, and essentially peace and tranquility, but that definitely is not the case.  While there is no doubt that certain convicts do indeed need to be incarcerated, that number is a substantially smaller subset of the amount of people, actually incarcerated, in which, the specialty of America, is basically to lock up in particular those of color, those that are poor, and those that are stupid.  As always, if you have money, especially lots of it, your chances of being incarcerated for any length of time is considerably reduced, signifying yet again that America never practices equal justice for all.

There seems to be a substantial disconnect between incarceration and costs, as if Americans somehow believe that if you lock people up and throw away the keys, besides making for a much safer America, it doesn't cost American taxpayers much of anything. Unfortunately, ignorance of the truth does not erase the truth, and incarceration is an incredibly expensive way to treat crime or crime-like activities.  For many citizens, it would be helpful to picture the entire incarceration apparatus which would include but not be limited to the following: the justice department, the prison department, the police department, the infrastructure of all those departments, the pensions of all those departments, the healthcare for all those departments, employee benefits for all those departments, capital costs for all those departments, as well as the food, healthcare, education, and security needed to house the incarcerated people.  All of these things cost taxpayers money, lots of money, and none of these things take into account the human toll of not only how damaging and wasteful it is to incarcerate people in the first place, but the peripheral damage to those that are related or friends of those that are incarcerated.

America believes, or at least the justice system believes, that those that commit crimes should be punished, perhaps so, but certainly not so in every case, but in any event, why would it make much sense to punish the taxpayers also.  In point of fact, what is hidden from taxpayers is the cost to them of all this incarceration, to which, vera.org, produced a pamphlet of the price of incarceration for forty of our States as of January, 2012.  This cost, varies substantially by State and takes into account the total State cost of prisons in which in New York, this averages to be $60,076 per inmate, whereas Kentucky at $14,603 and Indiana at $14,823 per inmate are by far, the most cost efficient.  Incredibly, incarceration costs significantly more than it costs to actually educate children from K-12.

What would be far more rational to do in America, is to start, today, with wholesale changes to what should or should not be a crime that incarcerates people, and instead first take a look at the specific crime, and then compare it to the yearly cost of that incarceration.  That is to say, is it worth incarcerating anyone, for a victimless crime, such as drug usage, or prostitution, or gambling, or the like?  Further, there are many other crimes, such as burglary, larceny, assault, fraud, and so forth, that should not typically be treated with incarceration, but could be dealt with in a variety of ways of which incarceration should be seen as a last choice.

Far too many people believe wrongly that the bad people are being locked up; whereas the inconvenient truth of the matter is that the policing forces of this country spend an inordinate amount of time and money locking up those that are trapped in a world without real opportunity or hope, brought about by the ghettoization of the underclass of this country.

Breakup Facebook

It might seem strange that the U.S. Government should take legal action to break-up the monopoly of a company that only came into existence in 2004, but Facebook, totally dominates the social media landscape in America, and the fact that it has literally gone from nothing to the fourth biggest market capitalization of 376 billion dollars as of October 31,2016, indicates that with no competition in its way, Facebook owns the social media market and consequently grabs a significant chunk of the valuable internet advertising monies that is associated with having invaluable consumer information ready to be processed, analyzed, and mined.

The people that run Facebook are no fools, as they have consistently sought out new talent, new companies, new ways of engaging their social media audience, and new platforms, since their inception, recognizing that in order for Facebook to stay far ahead of the curve, they not only need to be masters of their social media universe, but masters of all the devices that consumers of their product utilize in order to access that social media world.  All this they have done with the aplomb of professionals that are masters of their craft, so that previously innovative and independent companies such as WhatsApp and Instagram have been integrated into the Facebook platform.

While there isn't necessarily anything wrong with Facebook making all of the right moves to maintain their relevancy so as to grow their stock price, so as to impress its investors and Board of Directors, and so as to essentially keep their eyes on acquisitions of all types that will either fit in well with Facebook, or must be purchased with the intent to understand the thinking behind the product, and/or to acquire and to hire the geniuses behind such innovations, Facebook does what it needs to do to either acquire or to buy out any and everything that will be make it bigger and better or alternatively to preclude any competitor from nipping at some point at their heels.

The fact of the matter is that Facebook would not have its current market capitalization if it hadn't been permitted to buy up and acquire so many hi-technology companies over the last few years, so as to maintain its perch as the one source true social media networking site that covers all platforms and all media.  The U.S. Government has an obligation to take monopolies, whether natural or not, and in the interests of competition and fairness, break them up into smaller parts, and/or create the dynamic that will allow true competition.

Facebook should be seen for what it really is, a behemoth, that this government does not apparently understand, as there is an absolute direct correlation between Facebook's market capitalization and the fact that no other company has the sheer amount of pertinent and actionable information on individuals in regards to their likes and dislikes, along with their specific social interactions, than Facebook has, which is an invaluable gold mine to advertisers of all sorts, and thereby Facebook can charge what they want to charge advertisers, because of this singular advantage.

Facebook is the face of social media and that's exactly why they make the moves that they make so as to keep bossing it their way.

FBI and Conviction Rates

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), in general, is rated rather favorably by the public.  Perhaps this is due to the fact that the FBI is not the police, and in theory, concentrates on federal crimes of national interest as opposed to local crimes committed within a community.  In addition to that, the FBI is generally treated rather favorably by television and the movies, as well as by the mass media.  For whatever reason, valid or not, the FBI is often perceived to be of a more professional and experienced nature than your typical law enforcement agency.

Not too surprisingly, the reality of the situation is that the FBI pretty much does things about the same way that most every law enforcement type agency does things in America, which is to "game" the system so as to increase their conviction rates and to thereby demonstrate their effectiveness to the credulous public.  For instance, during the endless reign of J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI, Hoover often claimed that there was no such thing as organized crime, even though, he was well aware that this statement was false.  The reason for such a mindset by the FBI, has more to do with not desiring to confront the deep resources of both organized crime as well as the depth of corruption that organized crime reaches into, to which, by investigating such, the FBI was sure to have to confront powerful vested interests that were held in high respect and authority in their given community.  Instead, similar to most law enforcement agencies, the FBI prefers to commit their resources to convicting the poor, the ill-educated, and the powerless, of which the most typical crime conviction for the FBI is drug related.  The next highest category of crime that the FBI achieves convictions of is white-collar crime, often because the criminal is relatively easy to track with a minimum amount of shoe leather being necessitated, because their dirty white-collar transactions leave their digital footprint on computer devices and the FBI loves to concentrate its resources on the lowest lying fruit of criminal enterprises so as to impress the impressionable.

Then there is the list of FBI's ten most wanted, which to the uninitiated, you might think reflects the ten most wanted and most dangerous fugitives in the entire United States, but in fact, is more a reflection of pure propaganda.  In other words, the FBI wants to sell the illusion that they are an effective law enforcement agency, to which, nothing gives them much more pleasure, on the unsuspecting public, than to see the FBI nail the really bad guys, when, in fact, the ten most wanted is carefully constructed so as to provide the FBI with a high percentage of perpetrators that will be brought to justice by the FBI.  The hammillpost.com states that 470 out of the 500, or 94%, of the most wanted have been apprehended or located since the list was created, as compared to the fact that the national "clearance rate" for murder in America as of 2013 was only 64%. 

 In point of fact, the FBI cares much more about constantly burnishing its own image, as opposed to tackling the most dangerous criminal elements in America, mainly because the FBI fears looking bad and rather than risking opprobrium, the FBI concentrates a significant amount of its efforts on bullying the poor underclass.

The Purposeful Life

It is difficult to get to where you are supposed to go, it is difficult to get to a place of real accomplishment, it is difficult to get anywhere of significance, if you do not have a plan, if you do not put forth concerted concentrated effort, and if you do not have a purpose in your life.  This purpose in your life, can be internally programmed in the sense that you are driven to do well, simply because that is the way that you are, then again, for other people, it is not until they unearth the purpose of life on a universal level, that they are able to ascertain clearly the things that they should be focusing on, and become thereby motivated to accomplish them to the best of their ability.

It is not enough in life to be good for something, or even necessarily to do good for others, although both of these things have their rightful place and are worthy both of our respect and approbation.   What a person of any real sense, of any real curiosity, of any real talent, must do in order to put themselves on the pathway of true eternal success, is to first to figure out, why they are even here in the first place.  If you are oblivious to even asking the question, it is questionable that you could conceivably achieve the mastery of the skills necessary to become all that you should and ultimately must be.  If you do ask the question, but give up finding the answer, or accept answers that do not rest upon solid foundation, perhaps you have opened the door for truth a small amount, but a glimpse or distortion of the way, is not the way.  It is not enough to ask the most important question, why are we here, without devoting yourself completely to receiving the answer and thereupon acting on this answer with dedication, devotion, and purpose.

In today's world, too many people of real merit and worth simply don't care to ask the question, perhaps because they are too busy doing and accomplishing things that mean something to them, or at a minimum, at least occupying their time, energy, and space.  It is not enough to stay busy, it is not enough to be successful, and it is not enough to do things that appear to benefit yourself or others, if you do not understand implicitly why you are doing these things in the first place.  If, on the other hand, you know that "…the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to those with knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all," (Ecclesiastes 9:11), then, this means that you know that a purposeful life can only occur with an acknowledgment that there is something beyond space and time, something far wiser than ourselves and our own thoughts, something that represents truth, justice, peace, and unconditional love, and that something is our Creator.

Those that understand that our earth truly is a testing ground and that our earth truly is a proving ground, will find themselves almost compelled and thereby driven to find their purpose in life, and to subsequently dedicate themselves to fulfilling that purpose, in the conscious recognition that the very first step in our pathway back to God, is to make the world a better place for our having lived upon it.

Homicide Rates and Aggravated Assault

Since, the 1990s the homicide rate in America has come down considerably from the much more violent 1970s through 1990s and while there are a lot of theories about why this is so, it is so.  At the same time, aggravated assault, has followed the same trajectory of peaking in the 1990s and also has steadily declined since then.  The reason that the aggravated assault category of crime is so important, is that because of medical technology, emergency rooms, hospitals  and their medical staff, it is more likely that people suffering from crippling wounds can survive them today than they would have back in the 1990s.  Additionally, murder is the type of category of crime which is fairly straightforward to categorized, since the victim is deceased, and the determination of foul play is usually self-evident.  On the other hand, aggravated assault is far more nebulous, that is to say, prosecutors may easily plea down what appears to be attempted murder to felony aggravated assault just to assure themselves of the conviction, as well as the fact that attempted murder is far trickier to convict a perpetrator of, because it is somewhat problematic depending upon a whole slew of varying circumstances needed to coalesce in order to prove the "intent" of the perpetrator.

In any event, both homicide and aggravated assault have come down at comparable rates over the last 25-odd years, which would imply strongly that there isn't less murder in America, because doctors have all of a sudden, done far more adroit work in keeping victims of violent crime alive, but pretty much is a reflection that less people are being targeted to be killed by criminals in the first place.  That truly is good news, because far too often, statistics can be manipulated in a manner so that one thing is overemphasized or distorted to get across some subjective point.

Of course, the other consideration to take account of, is why have those homicide and aggravated assault rates come down substantially over the last two decades, in which conservatives often want to point out it must be because of our police and prosecution forces combining together to punish and thereby take dangerous criminals off of the streets and incarcerate them, which America has performed at the highest levels in the western world.  There is though, a very strong case that in recognition that the demographics have changed in America over recent decades, in which statista.com shows that it is the age group of 20-24 which represents the highest murder offender percentage rate in America that has brought down violent crime statistics, because the median age in America has increased from 32.9 in 1990 to 37.8 in 2015, signifying that an aging population will have less homicide and aggravated assault crime.  In short, probably the combination of favorable demographics along with more sophisticated and dedicated policing tools have together combined to reduce violent crime, with contributions from a better managed social safety net helping to lead to less violent crime.     

In any event, there is indeed less violent crime in America, probably not because crime doesn't pay, and probably not because people overall are more considerate and caring than they were before, but probably because higher incarceration rates in conjunction with favorable demographics as well as effective social services have reduced violent crime.

The average price of a new vehicle sold is way too high

According to usatoday.com the average price of a new vehicle sold in America was $33,560 in April of 2015, yet according to the Census ACS survey, the median household income in the United States was only $55,775 in 2015.  As you might imagine, households often own more than one vehicle, and depending upon the location of the residence, city, quantity of license drivers, amongst many other factors, governing.com estimated that in 2013 the average household had 1.8 vehicles.  On the surface, this would seem to indicate that average Americans probably spend way too much money on new vehicle purchases.

First off, as in any major purchase, the consumer should take into account their income, their current budget, the length of such a commitment, insurance, and other pertinent factors.  For instance, as written on the fool.com, it is recommended that a good rule of thumb for vehicle purchases should consist of: "A down payment of at least 20%, financing lasting no more than four years, and total cost -- principal, interest, and insurance -- adding up to no more than 10% of a household's gross income." These above principals often abbreviated to "20/4/10 rule" are basically ignored by a substantial portion of the vehicle buying segment of Americans.  Instead, the consumer has been roped into his purchase by two very important things, of which, the first is the consumer is properly taking advantage of historically low loan rates, to which, consumers can get auto loans at under 2%, depending upon credit score, length of loan, amount of loan, income, and so forth.  In any event, consumers with stellar credit are receiving auto loan rates at historic lows and those low rates translate into lower monthly payments.  On the other hand, and by far the biggest elephant in the room, is the fact that auto loans that use to be no longer than five years for a new vehicle, about a decade or so ago, have instead morphed into loans of 72 months (6 years) and even 84 months (7 years), so that now 62 percent of auto loans as estimated by Edmunds in 2014 were for terms greater than 60 months.

What consumers don't seem to comprehend, is that they are often way too focused on trying to get their auto loan monthly payment down to a reasonable level that they believe that they will be able to budget for, so that consequently they often lose focus of the bigger picture, which is the amount of time that they are committing to a vehicle, that they then will have to keep paying on and keep paying on, for a substantially greater length of time.  There is not a valid reason why any consumer should want to sign their name to a vehicle contract that is greater than 60 months, to begin with, because if the numbers aren't right for 60 months, the correct analysis should be therefore to find a vehicle that is cheaper.

Instead of consumers actually doing their homework, before they walk into the auto dealership by realistically adhering to a sensible budget, or adhering to the "20/4/10 rule", they seem to decide way too often, that such and such a price on a monthly basis, seems to be about right, then they way too frequently give up that price to the dealer, who manipulates it up "just a couple dollars" further, extends the loan out another 24 months, and the consumer subsequently ends up signing the deal, in which, they have made a financial commitment for seven long years, making them often upside-down on their loan, and basically playing catch-up on trying to get their equity positive on their new purchase, from day one.

Unfortunately, way too many Americans purchase way more vehicle than they can rightly afford, sacrificing their hard-earn money for something that truth be told, pleasures them little, and pains their financial rear-ends a lot.

Microsoft Office: Buy or subscribe?

Microsoft Office is pretty much ubiquitous in offices and homes all over America, and is the de facto standard for word processing, Excel, and other features of Microsoft Office.  Microsoft is one of the most profitable enterprises ever created, especially profitable, because a lot of what they sell is software as compared to hardware in any of its many forms.  In fiscal year 2015, Microsoft did 93.5 billion dollars in Revenue, and had a staggering 60.5 billion dollar Gross Margin, with an Operating Income of 18.1 billion dollars. When a company of the size, profitability, and market share that Microsoft represents, makes a conscious decision to take their flagship product and begin offering it for rent, lease, or subscription, believe this statement: that they are making this transition to increase their revenue and to increase their gross margin despite how they dress it up as a service or as a consideration for their massive consumer base.

The fact of the matter is to own software means exactly what it implies to mean, which is that you have bought it, you own it, you install it, and the manufacturer of it, will maintain it and support it for a reasonable period of time.  On the other hand, if you subscribe or rent software, you won't own it, although you will be entitled to all of its bells and whistles, all of its improvements, all of its support, all of its many future features, until such a time as your subscription lapses, in which case, you won't be able to utilize it at all or if so, under vastly reduced functionality.  This means that one way of dealing with software is to buy it, know exactly what your cost will be and be done with it, whereas the other method is to lease it, and keep paying and paying and paying.

Of course, Microsoft likes to argue that by purchasing their software outright, that you will over a period of time, have software that as it becomes outdated, will mean that you thereby won't be entitled to having the newest, sweetest, and cutest features of Microsoft Office and other assorted accouterments, but in actuality, most users hardly use all of the many features to their maximum effect in the first place, so they aren't sacrificing much, if anything, and they most certainly will be saving themselves money if they plan to keep the software for any reasonable length of time, especially, if their license agreement, clearly provides them with the option of transferring their software to a new machine.  

There may be valid reasons why a given consumer might want to subscribe to Microsoft Office as opposed to buying the product, but, not too surprisingly, Microsoft knows it isn't going to be able to convince a significant amount of people of those reasons all at once, so it has made it their policy to preinstall Microsoft Office365  on new computers, to which, as this is their subscription product, and not their buy-alone product, the hope is that by easing consumers into the direction of leasing the Office product, or defaulting into a lease, they will increase the consumer percentage of leases of Microsoft Office, and thereby make even more money on a product line that has already accumulated a staggering lifetime of profitability, on the backs of everyday loyal consumers.

Auto Insurance Billing

State governments have made it mandatory for drivers of vehicles, to have auto insurance, which, not too surprisingly, is an added expense that is difficult or problematic for some people to come up with every month, let alone, to make the entire payment in full.  Nowadays, auto insurance policies cover either six months or a full year, to which virtually every auto insurance company gives you the option of paying in full, or paying for your auto insurance, monthly.  For some people, no matter what, the option of paying in full just isn't a viable option for them, which is quite unfortunate, because the difference in how much you pay in a year for auto insurance, depending upon whether you opt for monthly or for yearly, is often highly significant.

Even though auto insurance companies do provide the consumer with a choice as to how they can make their payment, and clearly disclose those options, it is amazing how few people that really need to save money, pay attention to these numbers.  For instance, depending upon the State that you live in and the auto insurance company that you deal with, the savings for the consumer in paying in full can easily exceed a 20% differential in pricing, or even higher.  This amount of money that could be saved is significant, and there simply isn't any investment that would be able to recover those extra monies lost by not paying in full.

This then leads to the real question, which is, because auto insurance is mandatory and by virtue of the fact that you have a vehicle which you drive, demonstrating its material worth to your life, you would think with the potential savings of $200, $300, $500 or even more, depending upon who and what is covered by your auto insurance, that it would behoove you to come up with the money to pay the auto insurance in full, yet so many people do not, because they claim, rightly or not, that they simply do not have the money to do so.  Yet, massive monetary discounts turned down, turn into extra expenses that will hurt the bankroll of people that are struggling thereby month to month.

From an auto insurance perspective, they prefer consumers that pay monthly, because they quite obviously are more profitable consumers for the auto insurer, signifying that when a consumer is given financial options, almost always, one option is clearly more beneficial for the auto insurance company, and therefore these offers are definitely not equal or equivalent to one another, so a consumer should at least, at a minimum, recognize this, and try, if possible to make the better choice.

While commercials try to sell the illusion that your auto insurance company is "like a good neighbor", quite frankly, you should not lose focus on the fact that the auto insurance people, neighborly or not, are in the business of making money, and that, no matter how they dress it up, means that you and they sit on opposite sides of the table.  Consumers that are on tight budgets need to make sure that they aren't paying for extra coverage that they don't really need in the first place, and should endeavor in cases where the monetary differential is large, pay their insurance in full, so as to free up their hard-earned money for other things needed or desired.

"If you want to test a man’s character, give him power"

The above quotation has been attributed to Abraham Lincoln, but probably comes from the hand of Robert Ingersoll, a gifted orator, but no matter its origin, the sentiment of this proverbial wisdom rings very true.  For instance, there are loads of people that speak of injustice, unfairness, and similar ilk, to which through unanticipated and unparalleled events, become persons of power, thereby placing themselves in the very position of being true to their character and often thereby falling far short.  So too, there are men born into a structure which gifts to them power, to which, to those that are given great powers, great things are expected from such a responsibility and they too fall short.

Another way, though, to test this phrase, is to replace the word "power" with "wealth", and although power alongside wealth are often entwined with one another, there are in the scheme of things, many more men with enormous wealth, than those that have enormous power, and while wealth is of itself, a form of power, it isn't the same as having the power to create or destroy others at a moment's whim.

Many people with power or wealth are inclined to believe that they are fair minded, but even within their everyday activities that is belied by the very things and actions that they demonstrate.  However, of far more intrigue, are those that actually are men of good character; caring, selfless, devoted, and moral, to which, something changes within them upon the receiving of power, perhaps previously dormant, but now sufficiently awakened, that quickly evolves into what appears to be a completely different man, gone power mad.  It is this man, who as with a flick of the switch, turns into something that he is not, or perhaps turns into something that he has always been, that fascinates.

The fact that power can change a man, or bring out the worst elements in a man, are very good reasons why governments, personal relationships, businesses, and so forth, should always have checks and balances within them, for it is those checks and balances that help to prevent the evil that one man can do to another, or what one government can do to its people, and instead helps to ensure that the better angels of our nature are not sacrificed at the altar of greed and power.

There are a significant amount of people that enjoy a great orator or a man with a forceful and charismatic personality, to which these great personages seem to resonate within us, because often we seek sense in a senseless world, or order in a world of chaos, but alas that isn't typically what we get in reality, as power when it gets into the wrong hands affects the good sensibilities of too many men. So that, if we are too afraid to confront, or to contradict, or to question, a man that has power, because we fear the consequences of doing so, than that man has too much power in his hands to begin with.

The reason why power tests a man's character is because power has the capacity to get you things without you having to consciously worry about the consequences, but it is those consequences, that truly do reflect your character.

Learning and Vision

America's school kids do quite poorly when compared against other countries in regards to their level of intelligence demonstrated by standardized tests, even though, America spends an incredible amount of money per pupil and is by far the richest country in the world by aggregate GDP.  While there are numerous reasons and theories why America does so poorly, perhaps one of the most compelling reasons comes down to good or corrective vision.

The bottom line is that if you are unable to discern what is written on the blackboard, are unable to read clearly what is it in front of you, you as a student, are dealing with a handicap, especially in comparison to children that have good vision and/or corrective lenses to achieve good vision.  While different States have different directives when it comes to vision, this is an area of healthcare, that if necessary, the Federal government has a compelling interest to step in and rectify.  While it is one thing to verify the health and inoculations of students, there aren't very many things more important though in regards to a child's potential for engagement and success, than good vision.

For instance, a study as reported by the book "Think Like a Freak" which was done in a poor province of China, in Gansu, in which fourth though six graders were tested for the need for eyeglasses and thereby half of those students who needed eyeglasses were given them and other half continued along without them, to which, the result was that "their test scores showed they’d learned 25 to 50 percent more than their uncorrected peers."  According to cbs.nl, the percentage of Americans wearing eyeglasses in 2012 aged 4-12 years was approximately 10%, however, for ages 20-30, that percentage was approximately 40%.  This enormous increase in the need for eyeglasses would strongly imply either one or two things: that as we age our vision gets worse and worse, or that children, because primarily they are children, are typically prescribed glasses well after the time that they actually need them, because adults don't feel that children being so young should need them.

There are many theories and things that are considered each and every year to help improve test scores and learning for our K-12th grade students, but could it be that one of the very best things, fairly easy to accomplish, is to thoroughly check the vision of each student and for those students needing corrective lenses, providing eyeglasses free of charge or heavily subsidized to them, based on the income levels of their parents.  The sheer amount and masses of money that is already thrown at trying to fix test scores that have been stagnant or regressed over the last few decades, needs just about every valid idea, explored and executed.

While there are myriad reasons why students lose interest in a given subject, most of that lost can be attributed to a form of giving up by that student, to which, if you can't see things correctly or easily, this would be a distinct reason why some students do lose their focus at school.

You will Never Know the cost of your Freedom

In 1777, John Adams wrote to his wife the following lamentation on the current status of the fight for our freedom:  "You will never know, how much it cost the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom!"  He wrote this because a mere proclamation of Independence from Great Britain, was not the same as actual independence from Great Britain because to accomplish this massive mission, required stealth, courage, bravery, dedication, outside aid, persistence, and God's grace.

The Founding Fathers along with fellow colonists of this nation, made true their vow and commitment to fight for our freedom, and literally did pledge their lives, their honor, and their fortunes on behalf of this fight for our freedom and consequently for a government that would derive its just powers from the consent of the governed, as opposed to the tyranny and oppression of the British crown. 

The war between the colonists and the British Empire cost the lives and fortunes of many brave men and women, to which, some of those that lost their lives and their fortunes were signatories of our Declaration of Independence.  Some of these signatories lost all of their private fortunes through the confiscation and destruction of their private property by the British, while others suffered imprisonment by the British, yet none of the fifty-six signatories to the Declaration ever brought dishonor to their sacred cause of freedom.

America's Declaration of Independence while signed in 1776, did not mean that all of a sudden the colonists were free, but instead meant that the colonists were willing to fight for that freedom, and this freedom meant the sacrifice of time, money, material, and blood, of which, some paid for the pursuit of that freedom by giving their lives for that cause and by their devotion to that cause.

Once engaged, the battles between the colonists and the British, raged up and down our States, to which, the British had no intention of not bring the States to heel, and the States would not disengage from their fight against the British, despite privations, despite their repeated injuries, despite their repeated injustices, yet continually sacrificed, because they believed wholeheartedly in their cause, which was that each man was born with unalienable rights, and that thereby no legitimate government had the right to counteract or to take these rights from any man.

The freedom that the colonists desired was the freedom of self-determination, and the colonists did not see the validity of paying tribute to those despotic interests that laid across the great Atlantic ocean, no matter for whatever reasons, valid or not.  The colonists had become united in their cause, united in their common defense, united in the belief that they had the right to steer and to guide their own ship, and to thereby make their own place in this world.

These brave colonists took on the greatest naval power of that age, and with pluck, tenacity, outside assistance, some good fortune, and courage were able to break free from the bonds of Great Britain, and thereby establish a republic and a Constitution that we live under until this very day.  The costs that these valiant men and women made on behalf of the United States of America were enormous, and we owe them our eternal tribute, properly paid by living by the true principles of America: of which that we are all created equal, that we are all are entitled to equal justice, that our government is one of checks and balances, and that this government is and shall ever be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, to which when such a government becomes destructive of those things it is the right of the people to abolish or to alter it.

The Concentration of Wealth leads to the Concentration of Power

America likes to talk about how it's a democracy, one person, one vote, no matter how rich or how poor you are and while it's true that some people, typically poor, typically of color, often find it more difficult to actually even register to vote, there aren't prohibited by law from registering or thereby voting.  This would seem to mean, that just based on sheer numbers, in which in America, according to the dailykos.com the bottom 50% of Americans own just 1.1% of the total wealth in America, that those people, more than any other people, would want policies in place in which their democratically elected representatives would help to ease such a wide discrepancy in income, but in fact, over the last two decades, the bottom 50% have seen their wealth eroded from just 3% of total wealth to that 1.1%  as of 2010.

In America, according to thenation.com, "20 People Now Own As Much Wealth as Half of All Americans", as well as "the 400 richest Americans now have more wealth than the bottom 61 percent of the population."  This demonstrates without any doubt whatsoever, that America is a country with a very high concentration of wealth, which still for many Americans, seems to be something that they are okay with, as in theory, America is a capitalistic and meritorious country.  However, something is rotten in the state of America, because with wealth in so few hands, this would indicate beyond a shadow of a doubt that this country is in actuality, unfair, unjust, underhanded, unprincipled, uneven, and fundamentally un-American.

The thing about wealth, for most people that have wealth, is that they often have little or no interest in sacrificing any of the wealth, to the greater good, or even if they set up foundations to, in theory, benefit the masses, these foundations are still whether literally or by proxy, controlled by the wealthy and/or surely in lockstep with what the wealthy desire.  In addition, governments need money to effect their policies and wealthy people have the most money, to which, wealthy people prefer to be able to disburse their funds to as few hands as possible so as to concentrate their wealth only into the pockets of those that can directly or indirectly benefit them and the policies desired.  So too, for governmental employees and policy makers, they prefer not to have to deal with all sorts of intangibles, so instead, the laws are written or interpreted in such a way so as to favor a few at the expense of the many, so that these governmental servants will serve their wealthy benefactors, and, of course, keep the revolving door activated, so that no matter which side they currently reside at, each side benefits in their symbiotic relationship.

Those that have a lot of money aren't interested in a democracy or even a republican form of government, they are interested only in seeing that their wealth is both protected as well as benefiting specifically from governmental policies, which often is accomplished in situations in which government and the wealthy, are essentially combined into a plutocracy, disguised as a democracy.  Those that are employed on the governmental side recognize that in order to remain in power, they must satisfy their constituency, which rather than being the people as a whole, are those that directly or indirectly place them and reward them in their current positions.

Wealth only leaves the hands of the wealthy, when it is disrupted or dissipated, and that only occurs thru losing favor with others of their ilk or supervision, unwanted war, incredible incompetency, or through taxation.  By virtue of concentrating power in the hands of the few and well placed, the wealthy maintain control of their collective taxation fate as well as industry practices, thereby maintaining and sustaining their wealth, at the expense of the people, while making sure to provide to their loyal and dedicated governmental enablers the tributes of money, praise, and respect.

Compare at pricing and Shopping

This is America, and Americans love bargains, love to shop, aren't particularly good at math, and retailers of all various stripes know this.  You might think that the fact that discount stores are ubiquitous, such as TJ Maxx, Marshalls, as well as many others, that people wouldn't need to see a price tag with the words: "compare at" or "retailed at" on the clothing merchandise to understand that the price that they were seeing more often than not represented a fair price, but there is something about "saving" money, there is something about "bargains", there is something about "discounts", that makes certain shoppers salivate at their projected savings and thereby buy more stuff.

For certain people, when looking at tags which state, "compare at" or "retails at", they don't pay any attention to such nonsense, knowing that it's a game played by the retailers to "anchor in" a price within your mind, so that you wrongly believe that you are receiving some sort of privileged discount, instead, they see it as essentially misinformation and misdirection, and thereby decide whether to buy a particular item based on its merits and their view of its intrinsic worth.  However, there is a rather large subset of Americans, that take words such as "compare at" and "retails at" as if these really mean what they believe that they purport to mean, which is, that somebody, somewhere, is purchasing or has purchased this very good or something similar to it at that price, and therefore they are "getting over" on the retailer by purchasing this item from them, at such a massive discount.  Really?

As might be expected, consumers have rights, and retailers have to conform to such rights, so that when posting prices which state "compare at" or "retails at" there are specific rules and regulations that retailers must adhere to.  However, the law is somewhat nebulous, and in a country that offers an attorney at every corner, that isn't too surprising.  Each store seems to have its own set of rules as to what constitutes a sale in regards to regularly priced merchandise and what "compare at" or "retails at" means, to which the retailer as a matter of course posts a sign dealing specifically with this issue; of course, virtually nobody reads the sign, if they even take notice of it.  So too, the Federal Trade Commission weighed in as to what regular pricing should represent which essentially boils down to a good being offered by a given retailer at a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time.   However, missing from this equation is whether the given item at any time, was ever sold at that retail price, or what percentage of that item was sold at that retail price, which is something that the retail store probably knows but obviously doesn't divulge.

If all of this fake discounting or illusions of fantastic bargains was done tongue in cheek, it would be one thing, but in fact, it is part and parcel of the business model of many of these retail stores.  While it is true that bargains and discounts do exist on many items, it is also true, that the percentage of those items and the percentage of true discounts are skewed in such a manner so as to display to the consumer compelling significant savings that aren't truly there.  The fact of the matter is, these stores are profitable, indicating for a certainty that the stores selling the products are well aware of the underlying cost of the products being sold, whereas the consumer dupes herself or is duped into believing far too often that all that glitters is gold.

The 40-Hour Workweek

Most people take it for granted, that a normal work week of full pay without overtime is 40 hours, and thereby conclude that it always has been 40 hours and so forth, but that is a long, long way from the truth.  The truth of the matter is, as society gravitated from being an agricultural-based economy into the industrial revolution and service industry, the rules of the hours necessitated for those laborers working for management were not established at eight hours a day, but were considerably longer, often necessitating 12 hours per day, six days a week.  Not only were the hours long, but the pay for those hours, often was sufficient only for the basic necessities of life, and nothing much more.

Not too surprisingly, those working the long hours, recognized that although each individual was in of himself, essentially powerless to effect change for their labor, recognized though that groups of individuals united in the purpose of achieving both better pay as well as shorter hours, could achieve change.  This meant that even in the late 18th century, in cities such as Philadelphia, then the second biggest city in America, labor strikes by carpenters, for instance, occurred, demanding that the standard day should be reduced from 12 hours a day to just 10 hours a day.  This agitation by labor for reduced working hours was to continue for decades, in which, through starts and stops, through strikes and violence, through voluntary cooperation and court order, the tide slowly began to turn so as to provide more fairness to the common laborer, who seemed entitled in a free nation to appropriate leisure as well as rest time.

In the aftermath, of the devastating civil war, President Grant issued a proclamation in 1868, declaring that for federal workers, eight hour workdays would become the norm, but despite this proclamation, the workaround for this new charge, was to reduce wages to reflect the less hours worked, and the courts while recognizing the validity of the new law, essentially declare it not "obligatory", since wages and hours worked must be "…determined by the inexorable laws of business."  Nevertheless, this proclamation gave new impetus for the labor movement at large to work harder at achieving their goals of “8 hours for work, 8 hours for rest, and 8 hours for what we will.”

In 1914, Henry Ford, Founder of the Ford Motor Company, determined that not only was 48 hours a week, too long for workers to labor diligently, but that reducing the work week to 40 hours a week along with actually increasing pay would be good for both the company as well as the worker.  Ford reasoned that if his laborers made more money that they would thereby spend that money buying the very products that they created, increasing profits, as well as being able to enjoy thereby the fruits of their labor, something that historically had been seen as a "class privilege".  Ford's foresight was instrumental in the continuous push for universal eight hour work days.

In 1938, Roosevelt signed into law the Fair Labor Standards Act, which established both a federally mandated minimum wage as well as setting 44 hours as the standard work week, to which, this was phased out to both a higher minimum wage as well as lowering the standard work week to 40 hours over a period of seven years.  The Fair Labor Standards Act, though amended, is still applicable today, to which, both eight hour days as well as 40-hour work weeks are the baseline standard for American workers.

Don't Call This a Revolution

Most children are taught in school that America fought a revolutionary war to free itself from Great Britain and while on the surface that might seem correct, it wasn't the correct perspective at that time, as we can discern from the reading of our Declaration of Independence.  The Declaration of Independence is America's seminal document, as it was this document that our Founding Fathers risked their lives, their honor, and their fortunes upon, to which, defeat for any or all of these men, would mean ruin, or death.  At the time of our declaration, Great Britain was the superpower, the sole empire of the world, to which the sun never set upon its vast territories, and it was this country that the colonists had the audacity to rise up against.

Jefferson's appeal in our declaration to the opinions of mankind was absolutely sincere, and this appeal was not for revolution, but for the dissolving of our political bands as well as a formal separation from this great empire.  Further to this point, Jefferson went above the divine right of the king, a right which presupposed that the king's right to rule his subjects came via the will of God, to turn that on its head by stating that all men are first created equal, and are subsequently equally endowed with unalienable rights gifted to us by Nature's God, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Jefferson went on to say that to secure these rights; governments are instituted amongst men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that when such a form of government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.  Jefferson then went on to list the usurpations and injuries suffered by the people by the tyranny of the present king, unjustly ruling over the colonists. Jefferson wanted the world to know that the colonists were the ones' wronged and further to the point, Jefferson wanted the world to know that our unalienable rights came not from kings or government, but by our Creator, and those that would subvert or take away such rights had no legitimacy or right to rule.  This meant that our declaration of independence, set forth to the world at large, was a carefully crafted instrument that laid out the unalienable rights of men in which their natural state was life, liberty, and happiness to which governments are instituted amongst men by the consent of these same men to secure those basic civil rights.

The colonists wished to be independent from Great Britain, because Great Britain had demonstrated repeatedly that they were destructive to the unalienable liberties of the colonists, in addition to the fact that Great Britain had demonstrated over a lengthy period of time that they were intractable in such behavior towards the colonists.  This meant that in order to be free from the chains of such oppression and tyranny, that the colonists would have to unite and to fight against the empire of Great Britain, and our Declaration of Independence as signed by the fifty-six signatories to it, was a commitment that these men would, if necessary, sacrifice all so as to become an independent nation or die trying.

Our Declaration of Independence meant war with Great Britain, and the fundamental purpose of that document, was to declare the legitimacy of the colonists position as opposed to the tyranny represented by Great Britain, and the signatories appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world, was an appeal that justice, liberty, and truth would be the foundational blocks forged in the birth of this great new nation.

The Success of Japan v. the Failure of Iraq

Japan was on the losing end of World War II, and besides suffering from that defeat which entailed the fiery destruction of much of residential Tokyo, it also suffered through two atomic bombs dropped onto its country by the United States of America.  You might think that the above would have created massive resentment within Japan of America, but in actuality, to the credit of the Japanese government and the Japanese people, they accepted their defeat with equanimity, as essentially being defeated by a stronger nation which led to their desire to learn from the best, which Japan aptly accomplished.

There are huge economic advantages to being located in the Far East and subsequently being treated by the greatest economic power in the world as a "favored" nation within that sphere.  Additionally, the dismantling of the Japanese military- industrial complex meant that monies, equipment, personnel, and resources that were previously spent in the upkeep of being an imperial power, were now redirected into becoming an economic power, to which, the United States was the partner that helped to provide the necessary resources and capital to jumpstart the Japanese miracle.  So too Japan represented an insular society, with little or no internal division, hard working people, intelligent, educated, and determined to do better, with a young work force and the resiliency to perform at a highly competent rate.  All of this led to the Japanese economic miracle, to which in the decade of the 1960s Japan averaged GDP growth of a staggering 10% a year, eventually to which this island nation with little natural resources became the second largest economy in the world by 1978.  Japan, today, remains very close to America, and would not be the same country if not for its special relationship with America, in conjunction with its dedicated work ethic and consistently high labor productivity rate.

In 2003, America, decided for whatever dubious reasons that Saddam Hussein, President/Dictator of Iraq, must be forcefully removed from office and thereby America with assistance from other coalition forces attacked Iraq and within 45 days, President Bush declared victory by stating, "Mission accomplished".  Despite the United States calling their military operation: "Iraqi Freedom", thirteen years after this military invasion, nobody would consider Iraq to be a free state, let alone a successful state, but most would consider it to be a failed state.  The GDP per capita (constant LCU) for Iraq in 2002 was $3,716,142, whereas in 2014 it was measured at $4,871,914, and while this is an improvement, it's hardly earth shattering, in fact its rather pedestrian, despite the fact that Iraq's oil production is 50% higher than what it was in 2002, and further to the point that Iraq is one of the largest oil producers in the world.

While there are myriad reasons why Iraq is a failed state, one need not look too far to understand that the artificial borders created out of the Ottoman Empire, created tensions, by virtue of the fact that these borders included within the same nation state factions that historically did not get along well with each other, which in particular were the Sunnis, the Shia, and the Kurds.   Any President of any country having to deal with these divisive interests would be hard pressed to have or to bring lasting peace to such a nation, and in this, Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, was no exception.  So too, when occupied by the United States of America, Iraq fared no better, degenerating into local battles between different factions with America often caught within the crossfire.  

Whether Iraq is ungovernable or not, America now knows that Iraq despite its great natural resource of oil, is no Japan, and never will be, indicating that it is foolish to believe that divisive factions with long standing animosities towards each other will somehow or another, unite under the umbrella of American hegemony.

The Decline of America's Labor Participation Rate

While there are all sorts of charts, statistics, numbers, and so forth, purporting to show the health or lack of health of today's economy, one of the most important numbers and chart, is the labor participation rate.  The labor participation rate basically measures the amount of citizens ages 16 and above that are either employed or actively looking for work, as compared against those not employed or not actively looking for work, which wouldinclude retirees, disabled people, students, and those incarcerated.  The current American labor participation rate is 62.9% as of September of 2016, which on the surface seems okay, but well below countries such as the United Kingdom, Russia, Italy, and Canada, while being higher than Germany, Japan, and Mexico.  However, beneath the surface, those numbers don't look nearly so acceptable.

For instance, at the beginning of this century, the labor participation rate in America was 67.3%, demonstrating that the current labor participation rate of 62.9% is a significant and very distressing reduction of around 6.5% of our labor participation rate, from January of 2000.  This equates to literally millions of people that are no longer part of the labor participation rate, and while critics contend that the reasonable explanation behind this decline can be attributed to an aging work force, that answer isn't completely candid or satisfying.  That is to say, looking specifically at the labor participation rate of those aged 25-54, considered to be the "wheelhouse" of employment and then comparing the labor participation rate for that group against three other mature countries, in this case, Japan, Germany, and the United Kingdom, for both male as well as females, the United States has the lowest percentage of labor participation in that group for both male as well as female categories as reported by aei.org for the year 2014.  This signifies in a nutshell that America's labor participation rate once adjusted for demographics ranks behind countries such as Japan and Germany.

As much as America desires to tease the numbers to make it seem that all is well, the truth of the matter is, something is fundamentally wrong, as America's labor participation rate has been in a steady decline for this century, somewhat due to the aging of our population, but also significantly due to the fact that a significant portion of those in their prime earning years of 25-54, have given up on finding work.  So too does this signify that the "puritan work ethic", that Americans have prided themselves on for generations, has effectively been nullified, perhaps, forever.

In point of fact, as less and less Americans are laboring to support in our welfare state more and more Americans that are not, there will come, sooner or later, a reckoning, when the massive deficits that this nation runs must either be paid back or repudiated, which would as a matter of course, demand from the population, significant belt tightening and grit.  For those that do not work, have no desire to work, and won't work, when this event occurs as it surely will, domestic insurrection will occur at unprecedented levels, for idle hands are the devil's workshop.

Dorms didn't use to have their own Phones

Never have so many gone to college as today's students, to which, almost to the person, they have their own cell-phone for their instant communication needs and desires.  This means that for parents, that their access to their collegiate children is as simple as dialing or texting that phone and thereby, "helicopter parents" can easily keep tabs on their children, as much as they so do desire, as well as children being able to easily contact mom and dad for any financial needs or other pressing concerns.  There was a time, however, which would essentially be before the 1970s, in which telephones didn't exist in any of the dorm rooms, whatsoever, and therefore, meant that the usage of a telephone, was reduced to common areas, or at the end of the dormitory hall, or gosh, public pay phones.

In addition, depending upon the physical distance between the parties, the marking of these phone calls was not cheap, it was "long distance" and definitely cost money, which necessitated conversations that stayed on point, rather than meandering, along with the fact that each story of a particular dorm hall had several student rooms in which each student in those rooms was entitled as a courtesy to have equal access to the common hall dorm phone, thereby meaning that conversations, along with being essentially public, could not be conducted forever.

In point of fact, once your child went off to college, most parents except perhaps for the very first week of classes, wouldn't talk to their child any more than once bi-weekly, if even that, and real communication would actually be done utilizing the postal mail, that is actual letter writing, so that pleas for money from parents was often something added to a letter while updating parents on a particular student's progress and as a tax, so to speak, on parents, for receiving information about a student's status.

The upshot of the fact that these young men and women were not available to be hailed by the parents or at the beck and call of their parents, meant, that these young students had to be more adult and more responsible for their behavior.  Not only that, back in the 1960s as well as earlier, the legal drinking age, was eighteen, signifying unlike today, that people that turned eighteen were actually treated as adults rather than being put into some sort of purgatory of neither a juvenile, nor a true adult.  So too this meant in an era in which your best friend could not be your iphone or your tablet and so forth, that students were more likely to make friends by engaging other students in real conversations, and by virtue of the fact that parents were not able to micromanage their children, students became closer with fellow students, as a sensible substitute or replacement for the lack of parental oversight and monitoring.

Therefore, the collegiate students of the 1960s were probably more mature individuals because unlike today's students they actually had to very quickly adapt and learn to stand up on their own two feet; whereas today's collegiate students are too often spoiled to the max, exist in manufactured "safe zones", coddled, and ultimately stuck with the outrageous educational bill for such babying.