Personal Consumption and wealth

America is the world's biggest economy, so then it isn't a surprise, that no country in the world expends more money in aggregate on personal consumption, of which this includes things such as food, clothing, housing, energy, healthcare and schooling.  What perhaps does represent a surprise is that the percentage of personal consumption expended at 70% in America is significantly higher than as reported by the-american-interest.com of which British personal consumption is at 65%, Germany is at 55%, and Japan rests at 52%.  This difference in the percentage rate of personal consumption clearly indicates that America is an outlier.

The basic narrative when it comes to personal consumption is that the higher the consumption, the wealthier that people must be from having spent that money, but that isn't necessarily the case.  Actually, the goods that are purchased by consumers must first be produced by businesses, so that, it can be successfully argued that the higher amount of spending made by consumers for goods is actually the transfer of the people's money in aggregate to the producers and distributors of those goods itself. 

So that countries with a higher personal consumption rate percentage, does not signify how much money that the average citizen actually has in savings or wealth, but it is actually a reflection of how much money is being extracted from those consumers in order for them to maintain the living standards that they so desire.  Further to the point, in countries in which monetary credit is relatively easy to secure, than personal consumption percentages will have a tendency to rise, because consumers will often borrow funds today in order to have goods that they desire today, thereby putting off the paying of such bills, until tomorrow.

This means that the real wealth of a nation, is poorly reflected by how much money is being spent on personal consumption, instead it is much more meaningful  to know how much money is being spent on business investment so as to increase productivity and to provide more product for the buck while also creating necessary innovation in order to stay ahead of the curve, because when products get better, or last longer, or do more things, than the dollars being spent for such goods, go further than they did before.  So that, higher personal expenditures can also be a reflection that the innovations of the goods being purchased or utilized, have fallen short of efficiencies, signifying that more income from consumers is being spent just to keep their collective heads above water.

This means that when healthcare costs go up, or when school tuition and its associated costs continue to rise, or basically when spending money in which the consumer purchases more product than they actually really need or that it is worth, than personal consumption will as a matter of fact, rise, but the collective wealth of those individuals will drop. 

While it is true that personal consumption is a reflection of having money or the access to money, the more that one spends does not truly indicate though that one's wealth has increased, for rather it typically reflects the necessity of personal consumption just to maintain one's status or place in society, so that the richest people spend the smallest percentage of their value on personal consumption, and put aside the balance of their money in savings or investment, whereas the poorest and struggling middle class spend as much as they take in, which signifies that America's higher personal consumption percentage vis-a-vis other countries, is based actually on the fact that many Americans have no savings at all, and therefore spend everything that they have in order to survive.

Personal Consumption Expenditures and the Middle Class

According to fred.stlouisfed.org, in the 3rd Quarter of 2017, personal consumption expenditures as a percentage of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) stood at 68.866%, which signifies that more than two-thirds of our economic growth comes from the consumers of products here in the United States.  This percentage of personal consumption expenditure has inexorably grown over the decades, as demonstrated by the fact that in the 3rd quarter of 1963, it was at 59.818%.  However, there is a fundamental difference between such expenditures back in 1963 and expenditures today, which is that the sheer amount of indebtedness of Americans has skyrocketed since then, and there most definitely comes the point when such debt reaches its limits and has a material effect upon further expenditures, and/or becomes so large as to become unstable for consumers in being able to stay current on such debt and therefore to continue successfully servicing such debt into the foreseeable future.

While one can certainly say that Americans like to shop and to spend, the problem is that the wealth of this nation is so extreme, signifying that the most basic issue when it comes to our Gross Domestic Product is that while the poor would love to spend much more money on goods and services, they don't have much money or borrowing power to spend, and whereas the rich have plenty of money to spend, there are only so many houses, cars, and other assorted goods that they desire to purchase, before setting aside the bulk of their wealth into investments and thereby making more money from having money; this, then, leaves the middle class, which Pew Research Center indicated in a recent study from 2000 through 2014, that the middle-income households declined by 4% during this period, yet, their overall indebtedness for such middle-income households increased.  Never have so many had so much debt through mortgages, credit card loans, automobile loans, and student loans, so that as reported by the fool.com, "As of 2013, the debt burden of the average middle-class household stood at 122% of annual household income."  This sort of indebtedness in an era of historically low interest rates for debt, signifies that should interest rates normalize or increase over the coming months and years, in which governmental officials have indicated that they will, that those suffering from such debt, will have even more of a debt load burden to contend with, which, logically would mean, that a drop in personal consumption expenditures would occur, creating or exacerbating a recessionary environment, made even worse if those issuing such loans were to withdraw or withhold the punch bowl of even further debt.

The middle class of this nation is the fulcrum upon which continuous growth and prosperity lie, and this middle class is suffering from a reduction in numbers, an economic stagnation or regression in wages, and a personal debt level at historic or near-historic highs, signifying that if the middle class is "tapped out" that national personal consumption expenditures must fall.  This so does indicate that the distribution of wealth, and the collective income of nations, most definitely makes a difference to the overall prosperity of a nation, and when such distribution puts more and more money into the hands of the superrich, eviscerates the middle class, and leaves the poor as a permanent underclass to be a lifelong burden upon the government, than the end result can only be ruinous, for the middle class truly is the engine that keeps growth going in this country on a positive basis, and when they no longer have the wherewithal to do more, it will collapse.

Equal Protection of the Laws

The United States has a written Constitution, of which, each of the respective departments of the Constitution, that is the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial, must in order to be a member in good standing, take an oath that specifically stipulates without equivocation that they will support this Constitution.  After the civil war, in order to protect those that were never enfranchised and those that had been previously enslaved and treated as chattel property, Constitutional amendments were ratified and passed, making these people, citizens of these United States, entitled to all privileges and immunities as a citizen, so as to not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law, as well as being entitled to equal protection of the law.

Those words, made It absolutely clear, that no longer would the United States countenance those that were of a different color, or of a different racial classification, or of a different religious persuasion, or of a former condition of servitude, to be treated as something other than the only class of citizenship legally permitted within the United States, which is the exact same class of citizenship that all are members of, from the highest of the high, to the lowest of the low.  Not only that, but sham juries and targeted enforcement of the laws would no longer be permitted for all are entitled to the due process of the law, equally and fairly applied.

This then was the theory, but for a certainty, in effect, the 13th through the 15th Amendments, were ignored judicially after the Civil War, or if paid attention to, were most definitely selectively applied only to certain persons, under specific conditions, and not to others, and as for equal protection of the law, this was completely nullified for certain undesirable races or people.  This meant in effect, that for certain, specific people, they were still responsible for their obedience and conformance to all of this country's laws, and therefore would be subject to penalty for failure of adherence to them, while on the other hand, they would deliberately be denied access and the full protection of the law. 

Unfortunately, this type of selective enforcement of the law as well as this lack of protection of the law for certain people and specific situations still exists in America, today.  This is a country that has a Constitutional duty to provide all citizens with due process of the law in addition to the equal protection of the law, but instead specifically favors chosen people over others.  In the nearly, one hundred and fifty years, since the passage of these Constitutional amendments, the only really basic change in their application to people of today, is rather than the lack of due process of the law and the inequality of the law, being deliberately and selectively enforced specifically against blacks and other minorities in order to keep them down,  we find that instead in today's more progressive world, that the dividing line is much more enlightened, recognizing that it isn't any longer politically correct to indiscriminately just attack minorities of color, but rather by adapting its ways of being more inclusive, the dividing line is now between the elite rich and powerful, against the masses of socioeconomic poor.

So that, the privileged people, recognizing that they are severely outnumbered, in which, for instance, just three individuals in America have as much wealth as the bottom 50% of Americans, signifies that it doesn't matter what the Constitution says; it only matters that those that are not quiescent, those that are not subservient, and those that are not obedient, be controlled in such a manner that any incipient uprising is dealt with in a manner that makes the statement: "not here, not now, not ever."

Banks and Profits

The business of banking doesn't seem very complicated at all, in fact, it seems quite straightforward and easy to understand, for banks make money in three basic ways: one is by charging the difference between the interest rate for money deposited within their institution and a higher interest rate for loans to consumers, businesses, and the issuance of mortgages; another way banks make money is the various fees that banks charged for accounts that fall below mandated minimums, bounced checks, ATM machines,  and assorted other violations; and finally banks make money on their branded credit and debit cards by charging vendors that utilize credit and debit cards a fee for the privilege of using this alternative form of money instruments as well as interest charges to consumers for unpaid balances on those accounts.

Based on the above, one might think, that banks might make some money, but because of competition, fixed costs for opening up branches, bad loans, and so on and so forth, that the margin of money made and the money to be made would be fairly modest, akin perhaps to a grocery store, that has a profit margin of about 1%.  That certainly makes sense, since true competition necessitates charging fees and interest rates that are not onerous to one's consumers of such, in addition to the fact that there are viable alternatives that consumers can utilize instead, as in other banks or credit unions.

However, in point of fact, banks make tremendous amounts of money, not all of the time, but often enough, in which,  four banks have total assets of over $1 trillion dollars each, which are JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup.  In addition, in 2015, JP Morgan Chase had profits of $24.4 billion dollars, Bank of America had profits of $15.9 billion dollars, Wells Fargo had profits of $22.9 billion dollars, and Citigroup had profits of $17.2 billion dollars.  None of these banking institutions, could possibly be as large as they are, nor could they have these gargantuan profits it wasn't for the change of banking laws begun in the 1980s, that allowed interstate banking, so that whereas before banks were specific within a given State, now they were permitted to have branches in virtually every State of the union.  This has meant that banks have grown considerably bigger than they were previously and that money has become more and more concentrated into fewer and fewer banking hands.

A reasonable conclusion in regards to the merger of banks and their consolidation would be that these massive institutions would be more efficient than local banks and credit unions, and therefore the consumers of banking would be the beneficiaries of more competitive interest rates and lower fees, but that hasn't been the case whatsoever for most people.  Instead, the power and strength of these banking behemoths have placed them in the driver's seat of being in the situation so that when times are good they mint money hand over fist, and when times are bad, the Federal government bails them out, because they are "too big to fail," which instead of sending a signal that these humongous banking institutions need to be broken apart or nationalized, they are instead effectively subsidized.

Further to the point, banks are in the business of making money on the loaning of money, in which this type of business should be strictly regulated, perhaps akin to insurance companies or to utility companies, or, even better, in accordance with the nature of credit unions, which are non-profits, created to serve as conduits of loans to their members on a local basis, not on a national basis, so as to thereby keep the money circulating within that given community. 

Banks today,  make far too much money and have far too much power, so that, they cheat the consumers of such, by charging more interest and fees than they need to, because their sheer size and ubiquity, permits these massive banks to behave as a collective cartel, and therefore to effectively exploit the masses, over and over again.

What is the Federal Reserve Bank?

Most people have heard of the Federal Reserve Bank or the "Fed" as it is known, or at least are vaguely aware of such a bank, but many people do not truly know much about the Federal Reserve Bank.  First off, there is the deception in its name, in which, the natural inclination is to assume that the Federal Reserve Bank must be the United States National bank, but it is not, despite the fact that the word "Federal" matches up exactly to our national government, known as the Federal government.  In addition, the word "Reserve" within the context of the Fed would imply a place serving as a depository of money, and hence having monetary reserves.  The last word, "Bank", is pretty much self-explanatory, as banks are where the money is at, and money is loaned out by banks to individuals as well as to companies.  In addition, our physical money, such as dollar bills, state on the front of the bill that it is a "Federal Reserve Note", in which underneath that it reads "United States of America," followed by "This note is legal tender for all debts public and private."  So clearly, the Federal Reserve Bank has authorization to print or have printed Federal Reserve Notes which are the legal tender, or the coin of the realm, which signifies that this represents money in our financial system, in which, it is assumed that the Fed is actually the United States National bank which it is not.

In point of fact, our Constitution states in Article 1, Section 8, "The Congress shall have Power… To coin Money, regulate the value thereof…"  This Constitutional power would seem to imply that the Federal Reserve Bank is operating under the aegis of Congress, but again, it really is not, for the Fed, is actually a private, or stockholder held, consortium of regional member banks, in which, the purpose of those banks that make up the Fed, is to make money for those banks, which essentially means to make money off of the American public by setting interest rates, and monetary policy for this country.  Even though the President of the United States is the person that appoints the Fed Chair, the Fed is functionally independent of the President of the United States, as well as functionally independent of Congress, which means that the Fed members can neither be controlled by the President or Congress, nor can they be fired by the President or Congress, so the Fed, is definitely not the United States National Bank, it is in fact, a coalition of private banks, that have issued securities through a stock exchange, of which these securities or stocks are publically held.

As everybody knows, money is a form of power, the fact that American has ceded its power to an alliance of banks that act as the government's central bank but is not controlled by the government, and therefore not controlled by the people of this country is a grand disservice to the people.  In addition, the Federal government on behalf of the people of this great nation, own an incredible amount of real assets, such as land federally owned throughout America, mineral rights on land as well as offshore, buildings and infrastructure of all shapes and sizes, and the collective intelligence of all those that are directly employed by the federal government.  All of these combined, are the true collateral and value of America, and consequently, these assets and collateral should form the very basis of a true national bank of the United States, which further to the point, could create currency back by mineral assets, such as a combination of oil, natural gas, coal, silver, and gold, so that the money would not be fiat money, which is exactly what the money that is currently utilized in America, is classified as. 

The fact is that the Federal Reserve bank, that acts as the central bank of the United States, essentially takes tribute from the Federal government, that is the people of America, by charging whatever usury rate that they so desire as a charge against government borrowed money, which is an unconscionable scam upon the people, for Federal Reserve Notes are backed by nothing, as it is merely a medium of exchange, thereby profiting off of the labor of the people, and exploiting people by virtue of the fact that those that have essentially a monopoly on the creation and legality of money, are the masters of those that do not.

Mortgage crisis redux

The housing crisis that nearly brought down our financial edifice in the period of 2007-2009, never actually disappeared, for today's sheer amount of mortgage debt is about to surpass the heights of quarter 2 of 2008, in which mortgage debt at that time was as reported by the federalreserve.gov a total of $14,736,703 trillion dollars, and as of quarter 2 of 2017, is currently at $14,589,985 trillion dollars, or just 1% below its previous peak, in which no doubt, that peak will be surpassed sometime within the next six months.  This would signify, that all those mortgages that were created earlier in this millennium via "liar" loans, or when pricing for homes was sky-high and pundits were stating that housing prices never go down, have somehow in some form come back home to roost, for our current mortgage debt is virtually the same.

To get a perspective of how high this mortgage debt is, $1 trillion dollars in mortgage debt was not first succeeded until quarter 3 of 1977, and by 2001, statista.com, reported a mortgage debt of $7.48 trillion dollars, so when the mortgage debt nearly doubled again in a scant seven years, that should have been a clarion call that not all was right in regards to mortgage lending, and while this number, did moderate and come down somewhat during the financial crisis, it never dropped below $13.31 trillion dollars, which equates to a correction of only about 10%, which would basically imply that the remaining 90% of all mortgages are healthy, or healthy enough.

In point of fact, this stunning growth in mortgage debt, indicates that the financial institutions that lend the money, do so, knowing that by selling their loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which are government sponsored agencies, that having done so, that the maintenance and responsibility that these loans remain current and viable are no longer their essential responsibility, but those agencies, which are, backed by the American government, and the taxpayers of this nation.

This means that a prudent down payment of 20% in order to procure a home, is no longer de rigueur in mortgage lending, instead conventional loans are initiated at 3% down for qualified buyers, FHA loans at 3.5% down, and VA loans can require no down payment at all.  In fact, as reported by the latimes.com, "The typical down payment for 60% of first-time home buyers is 6% or less."  So that, when homes are consistently purchased with down payments which are consistently low, mortgages are thereby created which are significantly higher in the amount of money due to the originator or owner of it, and the more money borrowed, equates to more money "earned" so banks and other lending institutions have an incentive to lend out as much as they can, in order to meet their sales and profit goals.

The main problems with purchasing houses with little money down, is that it encourages buyers of housing to purchase more "house" than their financial resources would be prudent to actually buy, as well as the more leverage that any investment has, equates to more risk, and while it is true, that leverage can make people money, so too, leverage can bankrupt and ruin people just as well.

In an era of so-called "full employment" and of an economic "recovery" of nine years and counting, recognize that economic cycles are a part of American life, so that, when the next recession comes, as it will, those that lose their jobs, or can't pay their bills, or have to relocate, or aren't able to budget their money, will find that having a mortgage that they no longer can afford to pay for, will create incredible havoc for them, and once again, our banking institutions, and our country's financial well-being, will be rocked.

The Lack of labor unions and the lack of commitment to labor hours go together

There are State labor laws as well as Federal labor laws, so what laws are applicable for the protection and benefit of workers, is dependent upon the actual State that you live in, though on a Federal basis, there are minimums in regards to pay rate and overtime rates that have been set by law, that must therefore be adhered to, such as the minimum wage per hour, though that has exceptions to it, as well as overtime, which also has exceptions to it.  Over and above the pay rate structure, as well as rules in regards to overtime and hours worked per week, before overtime is applied, are the actual hours that a given worker is entitled to have on a weekly basis, in which, unless a worker is categorized as, for example, those with a H-2B visa, then such employees in absence of a written contract that stipulates a minimum amount of hours due to them, or are hired as exempt employees at a certain pay rate per week, aren't guaranteed work hours by any sort of governmental fiat, but instead are under the aegis of the company policy of the company that they work for, so that those that are in low-wage jobs, work under conditions in which there typically is no formal commitment made by the employer for total hours to be worked, weekly.

That is to say, when one is employed at a fast food company, in which, there is no labor union, and pay has been set at a certain rate, the hours that one works in total, the hours that one works on a given day, and the scheduling of working hours, are all made essentially at the discretion of the company, itself, so that if  one can barely survive, when they work forty hours a week, the fact, that this present job, will not guarantee a certain amount of hours, unless written into their policy, such as forty hours, means that in all likelihood, forty hours probably won't be worked in a week, and  the shortfall may be substantially more than that.  Adding further injury to the employment situation, while companies may well take into consideration, responsibilities one may have in regards to school, family life, such as children and their care, commute time, and various other factors, for the most part, as the employer, they will dictate to their employees,  what hours that one is required to work, which may be provided to employees, two weeks in advance, or literally a day or two in advance, and it is therefore that employee's responsibility to work those hours, though, most companies allow its employees to trade shifts with other employees, even through the usage of apps to aid such, with managerial approval.

The fact that as an employee one does not have a set guarantee of at least minimum hours, though you might be promised a minimum, nor does one have a set working schedule that is consistent and under the employee's control or input, though some companies are much more consistent than others, makes it difficult to not only take care of one's personal life and other responsibilities, but also difficult to secure another job with another company, because one's availability to one company or another, will be impacted by one's lack of control over the scheduling of one's work hours. 

All of these things come forth from the fact, that labor laws, as currently written, do not empower employees to receive a minimum amount of hours, or a consistent work schedule, which instead are left to the discretion of the employer. This effectively signifies that without the power and unity of labor unions, one person is not going to be able to effect change, because the employer will simply terminate that person, without consequences.  While minimum wage laws have their place, there should also be a requirement from employers of a minimum amount of hourly work employees receive weekly, as well as consistency in the scheduling of work hours, that is agreed upon, by both parties.  In order for these things to occur, labor unions are necessary, for in numbers there is strength, and according to bls.gov, there are 2.6 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum wage, in which employees besides getting short shrift from the wages paid, aren't even guaranteed minimum hours of work, as well as their scheduling of their work hours, being controlled by their employer, so that, unless unionized, this won't change.

Temporary Employment

Most people, in order to make money, have to work, of which, typically the most desirable format of such work, is to be hired directly by their employer so as to get an employment package which usually consists of a combination of healthcare benefits, vacation time, sick time, personal days, holidays, scheduled performance reviews, stock options, 401K matching, as well as benefits that accrue to employees for length of service, such as additional vacation time.  This means, for the most part, that direct employees of a company are considered to be part and parcel of the company itself, and are protected more completely by State as well as Federal labor laws.

Then, on the other hand, there are temporary employees, in which, the most basic understanding of such, is that seasonal conditions, may require companies to ramp up employment for a period of time, such as the Christmas season, so as to be able to have the manpower to get goods out in a timely manner, of which, those that are hired on as a temporary employee, recognize this, and hence, the situation is fairly straightforward.  In addition, companies that are on a growth spurt may find it more beneficial to hire temporary employees, because they aren't sure how long their accelerated growth rate will last, in which they find the convenience of a temporary employee to be more advantageous for them.

So what exactly is a temporary employee?  As the name suggests, a temporary employee, is primarily, someone that is hired to work for a given company, on a temporary basis, not on a perceived permanent basis.  Additionally, the hiring of temps is typically done through a recognized third party staffing agency such as Manpower or Kelly Services and similar.  In most cases, the company hiring on the temp, has a great deal of flexibility in regards to the length of term of such a contract outsourced, as well as typically not being responsible for the payment of healthcare, vacation, sick leave, or other fringe benefits that a regular employee of the firm would receive.  Whether the temp worker, receives any benefits whatsoever, will be determined by the temp agency that has placed that person, and their policies, but it is fair to say, that the benefits that temp agencies offer to those that are placed by them, are minimal, at best.

While it does make sense for some people, that are trying to make a little extra money but cannot make a long-term commitment as an employee, to desire to be a temp, most people, find their way to a temp agency by virtue of their present inability to find gainful employment in a field that they are qualified for in the first place, and seek temp jobs, to hold them over, until such a time as they can secure themselves full-time employment, and while it is also true, that many temp agencies, permit companies to hire on temps directly, after a given period of time, and/or for a fee, many companies aren't actually looking to do so when they hired on a temp, for the work is either seasonal, or basically transitory in nature.

It would be one thing if temporary employees were in aggregate, to average a higher wage than regular employees, because they have so little peripheral benefits attached to them, such as healthcare, but it is an entirely different thing when temporary employees actually earns less, as the economist.com reports: "… temps earn 20-25% less per hour than their permanent counterparts in similar roles."  That statistic though shouldn't be seen as too surprising since, the staffing agency, when placing a temp, typically marks up the hourly rate no lower than 20%, but often this is significantly higher, indicating, that in the temp world, besides the lack of benefits, besides the lower pay, and besides the temporary nature of the employment, there still is real money that is being made, but it's not really the actual person doing that work getting that money, rather in many cases, it’s the agency itself, that makes out quite well on another man's sweat labor.

OPEC and cartels

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was founded and formulated by Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, and Venezuela, with the intention to join together so as to control the international pricing of oil, which meant in effect to not undercut each other in the global markets and to therefore make more money over the lifespan of their natural resource by, if necessary, setting quotas on the production and sale of their oil to foreign markets.  Since, the formal inception of OPEC in 1960, another nine countries have been added, but a careful look at the members of OPEC, indicate that there is only one country, that is the master of OPEC, and that country is Saudi Arabia which by far has the most influence upon its policies, because it is Saudi Arabia which pumps out more than twice as much oil as any other nation, and consistently exports the most oil in the world.

When it comes to cartels, which are considered to be illegal in America, it is first important to understand that a cartel is basically defined as a group of companies that get together in order to set prices and quotas so as to artificially sell their product at a higher price than what these products would sell for if these companies were actually competing against each other.  Although, OPEC does not like to be called a cartel, their pricing coordination and quota agreements, per their formal meetings, belies that.

Yet, logically, there are two basic reasons why OPEC is not a true cartel, of which, the first one is that a careful look at the member states within OPEC, indicates that not a single one of these nations, is a military powerhouse, though Saudi Arabia has consistently spent an inordinate amount of monies on their military budget year after year, but the purpose of those expenditures is to create the impression that it cannot be conquered domestically, nor by any other middle eastern nation, as well as giving it the ability to threaten other middle eastern states, up to a point, for Saudi Arabia does not wish for any of its proposed military actions to be met with overt objection by the western world, in particular, the United States.  For, if OPEC was truly a cartel, it OPEC truly controlled oil resources and oil prices, in a world in which nations must have oil in order to survive and will fight wars for it, than all of OPEC would be under the hands of the western nations in conjunction with China and Russia, because they have the collective might to assert their will, if they so wanted to.

This leads to the second reason why OPEC is not a true cartel, which is the fact that two out of the three major producers of oil, that is, Russia and the United States, are not members of OPEC, and therefore are not members of that cartel.  In fact, half of the top ten producers of oil, are non-OPEC members, signifying that when people within America as well as other countries rail against OPEC in regards to their price fixing and such, they somehow fail to recognize that in reality the price of oil isn't controlled by OPEC, though it has its influence upon it, but is actually controlled by no single entity, of which, it is essentially the market forces in conjunction with the major international oil gas producers such as Exxon/Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Total S.A, amongst other super-major oil companies that maintain, heavily influence, and control the pricing of oil, so that, while the press may inveigh against the rising price of oil, when it does rise, and blame it all on OPEC, the truth of the matter is, OPEC has a lot less pricing power and a lot less power in general to dictate much of anything to the world, for the consequences of their missteps would be rather tragic for those nation-states.

The Rise of the Machines

America declared its independence in 1776, of which, at the time of that declaration, the wealth of the nation, was primarily in the ownership of land, because America, itself, made its money from the development of agricultural products, and its ownership of livestock, of which the percentage of those that were highly educated was relatively small, and essentially limited to clergy, lawyers, and doctors.

As the industrial revolution came into play and built upon itself, America began to more and more to effectively utilize tools and devices that allowed first Americans to get more from the soil that they owned, and later to build machines in the infrastructures purposely constructed to manufacture such, so as to not only to utilize these instruments within those communities but also to sell and produce such to help in the development of emerging cities around America, leading to railroads being created in order to more easily transport materials over land, and by doing so, effectively shortening the distance between one industrial center to the next, of the trading of goods and raw materials from one center to another, and thereby creating the rise of the middle class, as those that became expert and useful in the usage, management, and maintenance of machines, the sales of goods, and the trading of such, were compensated for the importance of their contribution.

The jobs created from this industrial revolution, necessitated training, specialization, and skill, of which the more that these skills and machines worked efficiently together, the more productivity was created, and therefore the more goods that could be created at shorter build times, of less cost, and of far more goods than had previously been created by hand labor, so that the material assets of countries increased markedly by the usage, strength, and skill of those working with machines, creating a new wealth of nations.

So too, improvements to these tools were done continuously, in which each new improvement, increased the productivity of the machines to the point that over time, the contribution from mankind became less of true brawn in order to control the machines, but instead the utilization of the mind, in order to envision what else and how much more that could be done to make the manufacture of goods even more efficient and cost effective, for those manufacturers that were the most competent, increased their market share and often their profits, which were then re-invested into the facility to do even more.

All of this effectively over a relatively short period of time, changed what use to be an agrarian society, the norm of the time, into a far more sophisticated society, that needed its people to be literate, as well as to live in communities and cities of close proximity to one another in order to more efficiently take advantage of the benefits of industrial revolution, and from this, the creation of all kinds of jobs, that didn't exist, when one's life was built around working in and about agrarian fields.

So too life inexorably changed for most people, from lives previously lived in a manner in which each day was pretty much the same day, of which, the goal of those days were simply finding enough to eat, having clean water, and shelter to sleep, akin to lives barely living above the status of a beast; to today's world, in which, all the accouterments that so many take for granted, such as indoor plumbing, electricity, ready access to food and clean water, and the ability to easily travel from one place to another is commonplace.     

All this is to the credit of mankind, which has mastered its environment, built upon ideas previously created, and diligently advanced civilization, not primarily by utilizing sweat labor from human hands, nor by utilizing beasts of burden, but instead by focusing man's mind so as to invent and create machines, that under man's guidance can seemingly do it all.  Yet, mankind must remember that these same machines are here to serve mankind, and never should it be, that mankind must serve those machines, for if that does indeed happen, for some or for all, the descent of mankind will begin and to its utter destruction will be its tale.

Exports and Employment

Trade between different countries and different cultures has been around for millenniums, in which, the basic theory, stipulates that one of the main reasons that countries trade with each other, is that one country may lack a natural resource such as oil, or even the ability to grow or produce food items efficiently, whereas another country has a comparative advantage over another country in the production of certain goods, because they have cheaper labor, better natural resources, and/or better tools, so that the invisible hand of commerce creates an equilibrium between the demand and the supply of goods, globally, creating a more efficient world of which, consumers of such, as well as nation-states, are able to reap the benefits of more goods, available for a cheaper cost and price-point than if the world was non-globalized.

Of course, it doesn't take a genius to recognize, that the true value of goods, especially over the long term, may not be determined correctly by people, let alone countries, for within the general give and take of trade, it is not always a win-win scenario, but more often one country or one people receives far more in its trading value than the other party, depending upon many factors, including the sophistication of the parties involved; for detailed information, analytics,  and intelligence,  is of immense value, in comprehending the appropriate value of a given trade.

So too, not all markets, are fairly balanced, that is to say, within a country, domestic manufacturers can be and have been undercut by foreign imports into their country, in which the domestic manufacturers cannot possibly compete, not because they are incompetent or inefficient within their domain, but mainly because they do not have the sophistication of tools, or the cheaper labor, or the tax advantages, or the subsidies that have been created by the foreign competitors in order to undercut their pricing, and thereby, take their market share away.  While, the domestic consumers of such foreign products, may indeed be able to purchase goods at a lower price-point, there are unintended consequences for this happening, in the sense that domestic labor will now suffer reduced employment in that field, and hence will require more governmental unemployment as well as other social services aid, in addition to the fact that domestic industries that are decimated by foreign imports, can often result in bankruptcies, and  fundamental changes in capital investments domestically, that will reduce the diversity and breadth of such investments in countries, that now will rely almost exclusively upon certain foreign goods to sustain their needs, without having a voice on those practices within those countries.

Additionally, part of the reason why exports are so important to manufacturers in the first place, is that when monies are not allocated fairly to the greater society as a whole, than the very people that live within that society, are unable to purchase goods domestically, not because they have no desire to do so, but primarily because they do not have the necessary monies to do so.  This creates a dangerous feedback loop in which the manufacturers of such; care more about profits and new markets through export, than helping to create employment domestically and thereby ameliorating domestic labor situations, instead of leaving that trouble to government agencies and government departments to address.  This then creates a mindset within manufacturers that they must have access to foreign markets in order to maintain their growth and profitability so that such exporting is the only perceived way that they can compensate for having domestic markets that are unable to purchase all that they have to sell at a fair price, in which because of these exports, the importers of such, find that some of their domestic institutions and employment are adversely impacted.

Unemployment: A True waste of Natural Resources

Governments all over the world, decry the waste of natural resources, but typically when complaining of such, they aren't referencing human resources, but material ones, such as water, food, and oil, amongst many others, but the real natural resource that is wasted the most, are human beings, of which there are far too many that are underutilized, underemployed, ill-educated, and ignored; in which many are placated by providing them with subsidies and benefits in order to survive but not to actually thrive.

The fact of the matter is that things get done because people and the tools that they utilize, labor.  That is to say, in any viable country of real worth, it is the people that are the engines of growth, and countries that have taken the resources of young minds, developed them properly in school, have reaped the benefits of having done so, especially because we have been wise enough to piggy-backed upon knowledge and the materials created by past humans and societies, and have built well upon it.

However, for true success, at its highest level, societies need to look upon themselves as being one big team, and if certain players, do not participate, cannot participate, or won't ever participate, than their lack of effort and their lack of desire to do so, drags down the overall effect of the team.  While it is great to have "superstar" people that can invest, work industrially, and come up with all sorts of wonderful devices, even the greatest superstar needs some sort of supporting cast, and those that are simply "deadweights" will drag down economic growth considerably.

If you think about it logically, it almost never makes sense, to provide over the long term to able body and able minded people, food and shelter, without creating a pathway that insists upon these people actually laboring for themselves at some point as real assets to their community.  So too, to have certain portions of the population to be so ill-educated that they are functional illiterate in the 21st century, for a country as rich as America, is beyond disgraceful, for a mind that is not developed, is truly a mind that has been wasted.

Sure, no doubt, people can be trained for certain professions, of which there are an oversupply of people already doing these things, but if you take a look around, there are always, things to be done, that will make this world and society better, for streets need to be cleaned, communities need to be safe, roads and infrastructures need to be repaired and properly maintained, so too, students need tutors, children need guidance, senior citizens need assistance, so basically it can be said, there is always work to be done, that is simply lacking for sweat labor, organization, and materials.

An idle mind, and a not fully developed mind are a waste of a great resource, so too, people that are capable of doing some sort of productive work, but do not do so, is also a waste, and the tricks that government plays by providing material assistance to those that are idle, underemployed, and unemployed are the wrongheadedness of believing that taking from some to feed and house others, resolves problems, whereas in actuality, it just papers over them, and to a large degree, does so poorly and inefficiently.  

The object of the exercise is in the absence of free enterprise providing the necessary opportunities and training for gainful employment, is for the government to step in and provide public work projects, training, and education that will create jobs and develop minds, so that we can utilize the entire body of America in a way that is fitting for a country that professes itself as the land of opportunity.

"Those who own the country ought to govern it" -- John Jay

John Jay was one of the eminent founders of this great nation, and this country's first Supreme Court Chief Justice, so his quotation most definitely should not be looked upon as something that was said, "tongue in cheek", but should be seen for what it really represents, that those that own the resources of this country, such as the property and industry owners, should be the ones that govern this country, for they are the ones that have invested their money and thereby their sweat equity into it, and therefore, it is strongly implied that those that do not own this country, by having no property, or industry equity, should not have a real voice in our government, for they are not the owners of it.

Now, just because the foregoing was said, doesn’t mean that this was the way that all founders thought, or even the way that America developed and became the great nation that it is, today.  However, take a look around, and read the signs, for there are as reported by forbes.com, 540 billionaires in America, of which, the President is, himself, a billionaire, and his cabinet, in aggregate is the richest cabinet ever assembled, with at least four cabinet members, having a minimum net worth of $100 million and on up to a worth considerably higher.

In America, its largest mega-corporation is Wal-Mart, with annual sales of almost $500 billion, with Berkshire Hathaway, Apple, and ExxonMobil, all having sales of $200 billion and above, in which, these companies have proved time and time again, that whatever that they want they get from the government in regards to tax set asides, labor union busting, favorable treatment in all of its many forms, tax holidays and the parking of tax monies into tax havens, and so on and so forth.  Yet, as large as these mega-corporations are, they are far smaller than the $700 billion annual defense budget passed recently by both houses, of which, it's unknown how many additional billions above this are also military-industrial defense related but because of security reasons, are considered classified information, and therefore not disclosed to the American public. 

All of the above, means, that despite their being democratic elections for our representative government, that somehow, whether the people elected to office  are Democratic or Republican, they aren't truly representatives of the people at large, for often they are instead part and parcel  of those that own this country to begin with,  for the rich having been getting richer in this country, and the very rich are so rich, that as reported by forbes.com, "…the individuals on The Forbes 400 hold more wealth than the bottom 64% of the country," this in a nation of 325,369,973 peoples, and just 400 people have more worth than over 207,000,000 Americans, combined.

It isn't a question as to whether those that own the country, govern it, for the proof is in the eating of the pudding, and the sheer massive divide between those that have it all, and the mass of the population that struggle day-by-day indicates clearly that the effective owners of this country govern it, exactly the way that they want to, for their interest isn't in seeing a more equal distribution of income in America, though they might talk and talk about such a thing, but instead their interest is in stringing along the American public with the song and dance that this is a country of meritocracy, of which, some are more successful than others, but the playing field is level and fair.

That may be the talk, but the truth is fairly obvious, the few own it, the few rule it, and the masses are just the hired help.

It's time for a real Baseball World Series

There are thirty Major League Baseball teams, of which, twenty-nine of them are located in America, with the sole exception, being Toronto, which is in Canada.  In the history of the MLB there has never been a team in Mexico, and the only other city outside of America, that has ever had a MLB team, was Montreal whose team was moved to Washington, DC in 2005.  The biggest event of the MLB season is when the respective pennant winners take on each other in a best of seven game series, known as the World Series.  The problem though, is in all honesty, this World Series isn't really a "world" series, but essentially an American series, with the sole non-American team, being Toronto, even though there are many other countries that do play baseball, other than America.

American baseball has done a fairly good job of being more inclusive, so beginning  in 2006 they created something called the World Baseball Classic, which is a baseball tournament involving sixteen different nations that is played during baseball's spring training, but the WBC, for the most part, is really itself just another glorified exhibition, of which, its primary purpose is to increase the viewership and popularity of baseball worldwide, but despite there being a country that is declared the champion of such, that country should not be considered to be a true world champion; in addition to the important fact that MLB consists of teams based in cities that play against each other, and those individual teams are really the foundation of who is or is not the true champion.

The country that takes most seriously baseball other than America, as well as having players that have transferred successfully to America, would be Japan, in which baseball is quite popular in Japan, and their season runs along the same basic timeline as America.  It would seem that the first test of who is the real world champion would be a contest between the best team in America v. the best team in Japan.  While logically, one would think, the games should be played just after the champion is declared in each of the respective countries, there is an alternative timeframe that the games could be scheduled, which would be during the All-Star break, in which the current All-Star break is four days, specifically, Monday through Thursday.

A good suggestion would be that the current champion's schedule be modified, so as to not have a scheduled game on Sunday nor on Friday of the All-Star break, giving that team a total of six days off, in which, they could then play a best out of five game series with the Japanese champion, of which, the first two games would be held in one country, with a one day break, and then the next three games would be held in the other country, in which the team that wins three games would be declared the "world champion".  Sure, this would mean that the current champion would not have a representative at the All-star game, but the All-star game is essentially just an exhibition itself, whereas this international baseball contest would have real meaning for true baseball fans. 

Currently, the "world" champion is simply the best in America, why not test their mettle against another country's team and see what happens in a contest of real worth.

Necessities and Necessities

In life, there are certain necessities needed to live, such as clean water, air, shelter, food, and assorted other basic needs that go with these, in which all these things are basically necessary to sustain physical life, which fortunately are in relative robust abundance in America, but these things though they are necessities, aren't the other necessities that a modern society must command.  That is to say, humans are far more advanced than mere animals, therefore because they have a mind, and hence the freedom to think, they recognize that there are necessities that exceed mere physical needs and have a lot in common with opportunity, fairness, and advancement.

America, for instance, is the richest nation in the world, yet, many parts of America, do not display that richness and that wealth, whatsoever, for there are numerous communities in which the people living there, suffer through dilapidated housing, no hospitals, forlorn schools and illiteracy, no job opportunities except of the minimum wage variety, minimal safety, unreliable transportation, exploitation, idleness, and are basically treated rather shabbily by the governmental safety net.

While these people, for the most part, have their physical needs met, in the sense that they are able to find food, water, and shelter, their unalienable rights to a real life, to unfettered liberty, and an opportunity to pursue happiness have been decimated.   This means, that in any country as successful as America has become, it indeed has an integral duty to see that all citizens of its country, are accorded real opportunity on a fair basis, to be true beneficiaries of its success, rather than, treated as if they don't really matter and are a nuisance to the state in all of its many guises.

America likes to measure its poverty rate, from a strictly economic standpoint, that is to say, if your income is a certain amount and your family is a certain size, than you are eligible for this or that augmented assistance, and while that indeed has its place, real poverty encompasses far more than just money, it has a lot more to do with making sure that each citizen of America, has a truly fair opportunity to be actually educated, creating therefore the foundation of fundamental knowledge as well as moral structure which will produce far more good and viable citizens for this great land, rather than to cast aside certain citizens, and then try to placate them for life, by giving them access to food stamps, or housing subsidies, as if those are the essential and only necessities of real life.

Life is for the living, and those that live, to really live, must, especially in this age of the mind, educate their children, and while America spends an inordinate amount of money on the educational infrastructure, huge swaths of Americans, are effectively functionally illiterate, ignored, and forsaken.  These people, and there are millions of them, need opportunity, and they need gainful employment, for without these things, they aren't really living, they are instead just one day closer to dying.   It isn't good enough to simply try to paper over everything with money or bureaucratic social systems, for those that are most oppressed amongst us, deserve better, they deserve their fair chance at the American dream.

On the creation of new countries

There are about two hundred nations, or de facto sovereign states, in the world, of which, most are internationally recognized as separate nations, whereas others such as Taiwan, with a population of just over 23 million peoples is considered by China to be "an inalienable part of China" and therefore a province of China, though twenty-two nations recognize Taiwan (Republic of China) as the legitimate government of China, instead.  Then there is the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) which is a self-declared state recognized only by Turkey.

The creation of new countries and the recognition of such is complicated, often involving bloody and long civil wars, in which the divisions that create the desire for a new nation state, are based typically on differences in regards to religion and/or ethnic identification, in which the opposing sides are not able to successfully come to a state of accommodation with one another, for a lot of reasons, which often involve justice and legislative laws having being constructed in a manner in which one group, is strongly favored over another, so much so, that the minority or the group that is out of power, has little or no say within their country, so that they are at best, treated as second class citizens, and at worse, purposely hunted down and killed by military forces  or paramilitary forces and/or forcefully displaced in a trail of tears.

So too, the separation of peoples so as to create a new independent country, can work out to benefit of both nations, as for instance, the United States and Great Britain, which is no doubt, the best example of such, whereas the division into different nations, such as North and South Korea, in which the peoples of each nation are essentially ethnologically the same, are separated fundamentally by ideological differences.  Then, there are peoples within nations that are without a country, such as the Palestinians in the Middle East, of which, after the creation of the state of Israel, in which essentially the Palestinians were displaced, they have not been able to create their own nation state, so that having no state, they have no democratic vote, and hence no real power of self determination.

It is important to recognize, first and foremost, that people that clearly identify with a specific religion, or a specific ethnicity, that live within a country that provides them with little or no power of voice or vote, have effectively been denied a basic human right, which is liberty.  This then leads to the rather reasonable call, especially when the situation is one of long standing, and appears to be intractable, that these people should and deserve to be free from the constraints that keep them in bondage to the country that they reside in, so that, there should be, a viable forum, that adjudicates these matters in a fair and equitable way, and in situations in which certain countries have a direct and vested interest in the outcome, those countries should recuse themselves from such decision making, rather than being a barrier to progress and fairness. 

Every person wants to feel that their homeland really is their homeland, because for those that do not have a country, they are effectively categorized as to be the orphans and bastards of humanity.

Incarcerated at Hard Labor

In America, most people aren't really that familiar with our justice system, let alone, the rules and regulations for incarceration, so things such as being convicted and then given as one's sentence "hard labor", seems to be something that used to happen back in the day, or is a myth, or really doesn't exist in America at the present time.  Right?  Yet, if you take a look at our Constitution the very seeds for hard labor are written into the 13th Amendment, which states: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted…" though this is somewhat mitigated by the 8th Amendment, which reads: "… nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Yet, it's hard to take much encouragement from the 8th Amendment, for the death penalty, still exists in certain States of America, so cruelty, legally, seems rather subjective.

In actual fact, hard labor, is a condition that some must suffer under for being duly convicted in a court of law for their crime, which, to a certain degree, makes some sort of sense, for many Americans, believe that incarceration should have some degree of punishment attached to it, that is to say, inmates shouldn't be permitted to just lounge around all day, but should be mandated to labor, or to learn, or to do something of merit each day, which seems to be, fair and reasonable. 

The problem, though, with hard labor, is that there should be a clear and precise definition of what hard labor actually means in effect, and there should be a hard line as to what the authorities are or are not allowed to do against recalcitrant inmates compelled to hard labor, and what that labor is or isn't allowed to be In the first place.  For instance, as might be expected, prisons are primarily run in a manner that the outside world, that is, the general public, doesn't have a real good idea of what is actually happening inside of the prison, and those that supervise our prison institutions, for the most part, aren't going to make the safety and treatment of prisoners their top or primary concern, which means, in effect, that hard labor, can and will look or degenerate into a modern-type of slavery.

This means, that those subject to hard labor, that are cleared by medical professionals to work out in the fields, and don't do so, will be punished for it, not by corporal punishment, though, doubtless this does occur, instead, they will lose prison privileges such as visitation rights and will be subject to solitary confinement for their disobedience, amongst other possible punishments or privations.  Those that do actually labor, as part of their term of imprisonment, typically won't get paid for it, and for the most part won't be protected by any of our numerous labor laws, because they aren't legally employees of the incarceration facility, which gives the incarceration authorities pretty much carte blanche to do whatever that they may with these prisoners, especially since they are the ones in control of that narrative.

While there is something to be said for making those that are incarcerated, to perform some sort of labor, even hard labor, these convicts, though, are still human beings, and no legitimate governing authority, should be permitted to abuse or mistreat them as if they were animals, or chattel property.  Those days should be long pass, and should never be revisited again.  The state in all of its many forms, has a responsibility to under all of its circumstances, to treat people, even incarcerated people, as fellow human beings, still entitled to all of their basic human rights, to do less, then, is cruel and it isn't right.

American Household Debt

As reported by thenewyorkfed.org: "As of September 30, 2017, total household indebtedness was $12.96 trillion."  This is the highest household indebtedness in the history of the United States, even higher than its previous peak in Quarter 3 of 2008, in which the only possible mitigating factors to take away from this debt level, is that on an average total debt per indebted household, today's average at $134,642.86 is lower than 2008's average of $142,122.44, in addition to the fact that though inflation has been low over the last decade, the value of money still has declined.  The reason then that the aggregate indebtedness number presently is higher, even though the average household debt is lower, is because there are more households in America than there were a decade ago.

This above household indebtedness is calculated by the amount of debt that the average household has for credit card loans, student loans, auto loans, and mortgage loans, in which as reported by studentloanhero.com, the average credit card rate for those that are assessed interest is 13.61% APR, the average mortgage rate is 4.10% APR, and the average auto loan rate is 4.79% for a new car.  In regards to the interest rate charges for mortgages and auto loans, these continue to be at or near historic lows, though the future trend, based on the desire of the Federal Reserve to want to "normalize rates" is for these to go up in the near future.  As for credit card rates, creditcards.com reported that as of November, 2017, the "national average APR stayed put at 16.15 percent," so that rate has already begun its move up.

The problem of debt for households that have it, are manifold, starting with the sheer amount of debt that must be paid in a timely manner per the conditions of such a debt, regardless of circumstances, so that losing one's job, ill health, incarceration, divorce, car repair, and other unexpected expenses or events, can take a given household that was doing just fine, and turn things upside down in just a manner of weeks, perhaps never to recover ever again.  Additionally, for loans that are not fixed, in which, the present trend is for interest rate charges to go up over time, higher interest rates, mean higher minimum payments that are necessary in order to stay current on a given loan.  So that, if it is a struggle to maintain one's debt today, higher interest rates, will make that struggle far, far worse.

In addition, take a look at the categories of basic debt in which people need the following things: a house or place to live in, which is mortgage debt, a car or vehicle to drive in, which is auto loan debt, higher education to get ahead in life, which is student debt, and things such as food, clothing, and healthcare, which often need credit cards to procure, which is credit card debt.  The main reason why there is so much debt in America is not really because Americans on average are such spendthrifts, but fundamentally because Americans on average do not earn enough income that enables them to earn a living and live, without going into debt.

The most basic problem of debt, is the service of that debt, that is to say, with the exception of some credit card teaser rates, which set a 0% interest for a period of 12 months or so, all debt, costs the consumer money, that is to say, to borrow money now, will cost the consumer money over not only the short term but over the long term, until such debt is fully discharged, if it ever is fully discharged.  So that $100,000 borrowed today for a mortgage, for instance, at 4.1%, will cost over that thirty year span $173,951, not $100,000, and if that mortgage rate is 6.0%, the cost would over that thirty year period be $215,838, so the rate of interest that a borrower has to pay, is a very significant factor, along with the fact that whenever money is borrowed, the borrower must pay in total, more money to the lender than they borrowed in the first place.

This very high average household debt, represents on a fundamental level, that the borrowers of the money, do not currently have the funds to purchase the things that they need, so they borrow money to do so, in which, a significant portion of these people will not ever fully and successfully discharge their debt, but will essentially, like the Federal government and its national debt, continue to kick the can down the road, until such a time as they cannot.

American declining Savings Rate

The main reason why people go to work is to make money in order to make a living, pay bills, and to have some money set aside for future needs and events.  In today's society, pundits like to point out how the unemployment rate has come down significantly since the "Great Recession" so that in October, 2017, it had dropped to just 4.1%, which is considered to be an unemployment rate that is even below the natural rate of unemployment, but the proof is in the eating of the pudding, and despite low unemployment rates, the savings rate in America, is far below historic norms.

In 1960, as reported by nerdwallet.com, America's personal savings rate per that year was 10%, in which, personal savings is defined as a given person's income less personal outlays and less personal taxes, of which the amount remaining is for investments and such, designated as savings, and this number is calculated as a percentage against that personal income.   This means, for example, a person that earns $40,000 but has outlays of personal expenses and taxes of $36,000, leaves that person with $4,000 as their disposable personal income, equating to a savings rate of 10%.  It was not until 1979, that America's personal savings rate dropped below double digits when it was just barely below such at 9.8%, while also in 1983 it slipped to 9.4%, this left 1984 as being the last year of a double-digital personal savings rate at 10.7%, in which, since then in over twenty years, it has not hit 10% or better, and in the new millennium its highest rate was 7.6% in 2012, with the 2016 rate being just 4.9%.

All of these above numbers are the averaged American savings rate, in which, obviously, there are people that exceed that average and those that do not.  Businessinsider.com then broke down American income groups into five equal quintiles, in which the bottom two quintiles had an average savings rate of a paltry 0.12%, or virtually nothing.  The middle quintile had an average savings rate of 11.1%, whereas the fifth quintile had an average savings rate of 23.6%, in which the top 5% savings rate was 37.2%, and the top 1% savings rate was an astonishing 51.2%, in which, remember, the savings rate is a person's income less personal outlays and personal taxes, of which, in the decades of the 1950s through the 1970s the highest personal tax rate for high income earners was around 70%, signifying that today's superrich don't pay close to that amount in taxes, let alone expenses, allowing them to easily accumulate more and more money.

The reason that the savings rate matters so much, is that when one retires, or is unable to work anymore, or to find gainful employment, than that person must live off of their Social Security benefits, or their 401K, or their pension, or any of those equivalencies, along with any monies that has been saved up.  When you have 40% of the population that have saved essentially nothing, then you have a massive social problem of a significant amount of people that will not be able to make ends meet without permanent governmental assistance.  Yet, clearly, there is money that is being made in America, and clearly there is money being saved in America, but that money has since 1985 been more and more concentrated within the rich and the wealthy.

The decline of the American savings rate from double-digit growth, to today's single digit stagnation, despite unemployment being low, signifies that the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer, while the divide between the two is getting larger.  In addition, the fact that the bottom two quintiles of Americans have no savings whatsoever, indicates, that the middle class is being inexorably decimated, with more and more people each year becoming essentially wards of the state, having at one time, been part of the middle class through a previous generation, but now, instead, are an integral part of the lower class, with the trend between rich and poor getting wider and wider by the day, and the middle class struggling valiantly just to hold their own.

Welfare for the rich v. welfare for the poor

There are many pundits and people that rail against general welfare programs that provide lower income and impoverished people with benefits such as food stamps, housing assistance, an earned income tax credit, health insurance such as Medicaid, and supplemental aid, as well as everything else local, State, or Federal, which takes money from the government and its taxpayers and doles it out seemingly somewhat indiscriminately to people as grossly unfair and imprudent.  Those that complain the loudest may indeed have legitimate points that they make, for government "hand-outs" are rife with fraud, bureaucracy, incompetency, and inefficiencies, in addition to the fact that none of these programs ever appear to get smaller year by year.  Yet, all of these benefits are in their intention, provided to those that have little or nothing, in this the richest nation the world has ever known, in which, this government and its people have a duty to take care of those that have little or no part of the American dream, but live instead, its nightmare.

On the other hand, far less talked about, is the massive welfare for the rich, that is to say, not specific individuals, but the corporate entities that the government, for whatever reason, has stepped into on behalf of the connected to prop up, subsidize, forgive, extend, and help to the tune of billions upon billions of dollars.  For instance, banking institutions appear to be the most favored group to have received financial help from the government, repeatedly, and therefore its taxpayers, in which at critical points, for example, the Savings & Loan crisis, of the 1980s through the 1990s, ultimately resulted in the closure of over 1,000 Savings & Loan institutions, with Wikipedia.com reporting an: "…estimated cost of the crisis to around $160.1 billion."  Then, during the banking crisis and meltdown of 2007-2009, the Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP) as well as the separate bailouts of behemoths Fannie Mae and, Freddie Mac, in addition to institutions such as AIG, General Motors, and Chrysler, came to a staggering total as estimated by propublica.org of $625.7 billion dollars. 

These bailouts of institutions are primarily for the benefit and specific  stabilization  of those particular institutions, of which, the American people as a whole, have no or little voice in the matter, so that these entities are thereby labeled as being "too big to fail" and consequently, are immune to bad business decisions, and can therefore pay exceedingly well its executives and management teams, so that when times are good they will mint millions upon millions for themselves, and when times are bad, they know that they can stick the government and its taxpayers with the full bill for their imprudence of monetary assets, which is exactly what has transpired.

This means that certain big corporations in this country, are often able to work hand in glove with the government, so that, their bad decisions are bailed out, in addition to being favored in the first place by their government sponsors; whereas, the people that are born into abject circumstances, are thereby stuck with poor housing, poor health options, pathetic schools, and are made to essentially beg, hat in hand, for their government benefits, of which, what they receive from their government is just enough to live another day but never enough to allow them the opportunity to actually live, so that there is a massive divide between those that profess a belief in the "free" enterprise system that provides these favored few with an economic safety net, tax benefits, and fat salaries, contrasted against those that are considered to be the refuse of this country, tired, poor, and wretched.