You'll never be able to invest like Buffett

Everybody wants to make money and most people want to take the money that they have earned and make additional money from that money, which is known, as investing.  Truth be told, a lot of people, are fairly honest, at least to themselves, about how good or how poor that they are at investing, and all those that recognize that they aren't all that good at investing, have a very strong tendency to gravitate towards people that appear to be quite competent and also appear to have a history of high investment returns, which resonates especially well with people, that want to make that "easy" investing money.

Somebody like Warren Buffett, who is a billionaire many times over, and comes across with his folksy wisdom, as somebody's favorite uncle or grandfather, seems to give the illusion, that whatever that Buffett is able to do, that somebody else will be able to do just as well; but as in most things, the proof is in the eating of the pudding, and what Buffett has been able to accomplished, cannot be replicated in any way, form, or manner by the average person.

While Buffett says a lot of sensible things, such as investing in things that you know, investing in the long term, as well as the value of evaluating business prospects fairly, of buying when the stock price fundamentals are in line with the true value and growth prospects of that company, and so on.  A lot of those things do make perfectly good sense, and Buffett's holdings as disclosed through his parent company, Berkshire Hathaway are public knowledge, but to simply mirror those holdings, is to copy something, without understanding the true ramifications of what that signifies, and without knowledge as to the exit sell plans as well as the future buy plans for Berkshire Hathaway, it all becomes rather murky.

In addition, Warren Buffett, unlike the average investor, is incredibly sophisticated, knowledgeable, and works closely with a team of professionals that know exceedingly well the whole breadth and scope of the investing business; as well as being able to draw upon their considerable financial resources, experience, and leverage to make deals with companies that are frequently in some sort of difficulty, thereby providing an expressed advantage for Warren Buffett and his associates.  None of these things are going to be available for the average investor, and how much money Buffett has made, because he is able to utilize all the tools of his trade, so as to basically buy retail companies at wholesale or even fire sale prices, is obviously a huge component of how Buffett has been able to make billions upon his billions.

So too, companies that Buffett has owned for a very long time, such as Coca-Cola or American Express, are companies that have market capitalizations of billions of dollars, of which, when first bought by Buffett, they were far smaller enterprises, that are still owned by Buffett, mainly because they are leaders in their respective industries, as compared to their being able to generate consistent double-digit growth, and therefore, those now getting into these mainstream corporations, aren't so much betting on these companies, per se, but are really betting on the American and worldwide economy continuing to grow at a reasonable pace.

You can't invest like Buffett, because market conditions have changed since Buffett began his historic rise many decades ago, so that while that one door is pretty much close, no doubt, another door has been opened, and those that are able to find that door, will do just fine.

RICO and corporate crime

The United States is a nation of seemingly endless laws, of which one of those laws, is entitled the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) which permits and facilitates prosecutorial agents in being able to successfully prosecute the leaders, instigators, and developers of criminal offenses, in which those higher ups have previously been able to shield themselves from being directly involved in a specific criminal offense by using underlings to perform those crimes, thereby effectively absolving themselves of such; but prosecutors are able through RICO, to find them accountable, as the enablers of a criminal enterprise and thereby its criminal actions.  Most notably, RICO has been used against certain high ranking members of organized crime, but it also has been used in other areas, though, mainly against known criminal enterprises.

There isn't any good reason why RICO, or a law similar in structure to RICO, should not now be passed into law, specifically created to go after corporations and corporate criminals.  In point of fact, corporations are found guilty all the time of malfeasance, fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, collusion, stock manipulation, and other assorted crimes; in which, those prosecuting those companies, often, when it is all said and settled, merely fine the corporation money, perhaps then monitor their behavior over a set period of time, perhaps revoke some monetary bonuses paid, but almost never hold a corporate individual personally liable to pay the incarcerated price for those crimes.

This signifies, in a nutshell, that the best crime to commit, is always going to be corporate crime, because those creating such a crime, know almost for a certainty, that they will have the best legal help that money can buy, that they personally will not have to suffer a day in jail or to even be in jeopardy of having this done to them, and at worse, might have to forfeit some monies earned, or possibly, lose their job or have their job suspended for a time.  On the other hand, by committing these crimes, an incredible lot of money can be personally made, so the downside as compared to the upside is rather minimal, but an act such as RICO that was constructed so as to be deliberately enforced against corporations, would be a true game changer, by making those higher ups that are responsible for the environment of that criminal activity, to have to face the music themselves for those crimes.

Of course, most every single large corporation would fight tooth and nail to see that any revamped RICO law would not ever apply to them; clearly indicating that the people that run these corporations, more often than not, are de facto, criminals.  For, the truth of the matter is, that corporations cheat, steal, and defraud the public out of billions of dollars each year, of which the true beneficiaries of such behavior, are those at the highest echelons of the corporate executive suites, who often feel intense pressure to do what they have to do, in order to meet quarterly sales and profit goals, in which, unable to accept failure, will often resort to whatever it takes to make those numbers.

Why do we work?

One of the most important things in life is to basically prove that we have a brain and are capable of independent and perceptive thinking demonstrated by the successful utilization of that brain in meaningful action.  It therefore follows that one of the most important words to know in life is why, and behind the word why, should be some considerable contemplation, thinking, and asking, so as to supersede mere rote learning and indoctrination, and thereby to become a truly free will individual.

Just because something has always been done a certain way does not mean that is the best way to do that thing, or the most appropriate way to do that thing, or even that whatever it is, should be done in that manner.  A case in point, of upmost importance, is the very concept of work, of which, most lives are fundamentally based not really around family, not really around society, not really about what we like or prefer, but basically around work, and from that work, the getting of money. 

This signifies that before we go down that career path of work, and all that is involved in regards to commitment, schooling, training, time, and stress that it would behoove most everyone to actually think about what we are signing up for in the first place, and the true purpose behind our involvement with it.  For some people, this type of thinking isn't really necessary, because they just know that each of us has to work, because that is the way that it is done, has been done, and always will be done; whereas for others, they may not have even considered that there were options other than work, but life, in almost every circumstance presented to us, does have options.

For a lot of people, when boiled down to its very essence and core, the primary purpose of work, is to make money, so that a very simple formula is thereby created which is work, provides money, and money is necessary in order to successfully live some sort of life.  The former may be true but in order to examine it more fully, a given individual, might also wonder if there was another way to obtain money or its equivalency that didn't necessitate work; or something that was equivalent to work but that was so fulfilling or desirable, it didn't really feel like work; or whether what is necessary in life, even requires work as we know it.

This means, that we need to truly understand what it is that we really need or desire, first; and then from there, determine as to whether work is thereby the best or the only answer to those needs and desires.  That is to say, intuitively we must understand, that to say that we were born to work, doesn't ring true; but rather, most people, would substantially agree that we have an absolute need and desire to find, create, or hunt for food and water for sustenance, to socialize well with others, as well as a need for shelter in order to survive and to sustain ourselves.

The above would seem to say, that work as the be all and end all of life, isn't correct, but rather, it is our need and desire to sustain our body, provide or assist with our community, and to have a safe place to rest, that are often the true driving forces behind any one meaningful life.  Therefore to the extent that work as currently structured, can provide us with those needful things, that is a good and valid reason to work; beyond that, though, there are many more options that really should be thought about, investigated and explored.

Fiat money, fear, and gold

A lot of people have a tendency to look at the money that they have in their hand, or in their bank account, or in their assets, as being real, and to a certain degree the dollars that you have are real, but they aren't as real or as stable or as secure as most people, give them credit for being.  That is to say, the United States dollar is without a doubt, not a secure and stable instrument, which is the whole reason, why people when they are reading history or watching an old movie or an old television show, are able to see or read about some of the dollar prices, for gasoline, or for a meal, or for a hotel room, or for a car, or for a house as being unquestionably quite low in dollar amount cost back in the day.  Not to mention, the flip side of the equation, of those making money, in which, for instance, upper middle class workers had a yearly income of perhaps $3000-4000, back in the 1930s. 

Quite clearly, the dollar suffers from the ill effects of inflation, so that its value is eroding, sometimes rather speedily, such as in the 1970s, or more quiescent, yet devaluing all the same, such as at the present time.  In any event, the dollar is standardized as the coin of the realm, and is literally used for all transactions, all of the time, mainly because it is the legal tender of this country, as well as being the most convenient way to transact business, personal or otherwise.  That said, while it is absolutely true that countries, nations, and dynasties, come and go; so too, do their currencies, especially when those currencies are backed by nothing further than the full faith and credit of that nation-state.

The United States dollar is a fiat currency, and this currency is only as good as the government that stands behind it, and in particular that government's credibility, credit, longevity, and sustainability.  There are, quite obviously alternatives to using fiat currency, of which, the newest spin, is crypto currency; but there is also, still in existence, commodities, such as gold, that have historically been used by nation-states as currency, and gold is still seen today as having an intrinsic monetary value that individuals as well as countries see as being of worth enough, to actually store ingots or coins of gold for just that very purpose.

The price of gold is most often weighed against the dollar, of which, back during the FDR administration, gold was pegged at $20.67 per ounce, yet, today, gold which freely fluctuates against the dollar is currently priced at around $1231/ounce.    The price of gold, does rise and it does fall, but it does neither of these things in a very consistent fashion, except for only under one particular circumstance, which draws upon something that FDR once said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," and when the people and/or institutions are fearful, gold has a very strong tendency to go up, as compared to when things are considered to be under control and stable.

The basic reason that the price of gold goes up when things are fearful, comes down to the fact that fiat currency, is in the scheme of things, all about confidence, and to a certain extent, could be considered to be a confidence game, itself; and nobody, wants to be the sucker, so a prudent person will often look for something stable, when all hell is about to break loose, and therein lies the essential lure of gold.

Modern day indulgences

The Protestant church came into creation essentially related to the frustration and the dismay of the quite obvious corruption of the Catholic church; of which, one of the most corrupting aspects of that Catholic church, was the sale, more or less, of Catholic sanctioned indulgences to the faithful, for a monetary price, that would thereby alleviate and mitigate temporal sins from that individual soul, so that such would not suffer in purgatory or hell for the commission of those very sins, that the church as God's representative on earth, had "indulged" or, that is, forgiven.

The very thing about sinning is that most people that have done wrong actions and wrong deeds, are usually fairly cognizant about them, though, there are many that create lives of denial and justifications to placate their conscience, but basically, in truth, those that sin, know that they are sinners.  The fact that people know that they have done wrong, quite obviously creates a real conundrum for those that believe that their soul survives physical death, and of further concern is that the afterlife necessitates a thorough review of the acts that a particular person has committed or omitted, in painstaking detail.

While there is many a person, that takes solace, correct or not, that Jesus has died for all our sins, and that if we accept Jesus in our heart, that our sins are truly forgiven by God, such, appears to be, one of those shortcuts to salvation, that doesn't appear to be fair or just.  Whether the former is literally true or not, one can make a very strong case, that those that have sinned like the devil, and then at the 11th hour, through sincere repentance, are somehow forgiven and absolved of all guilt from that sin, are probably going to find, that an indulgence such as that, does not now, nor has it ever, existed.

Essentially, any preaching that puts together some formula, that somehow absolves the person of heinous acts of commission, without taking into the account, the other parties or principalities that have been hurt and damaged by those actions, probably doesn't have it correct.  Be that as it may, true repentance, necessitates propitiation of sins through the overt acts of goodness to overcome and to offset wrong deeds so done.  This should appear rather obvious, for those that have done wrong, and truly recognize it, almost always have a deep and abiding desire to make up for those wrongs by correct and right actions, and implicitly recognize, that they need to.

So too, when we look at modern day indulgences, the most obvious of them all, is the very same game plan and structure that existed when the Catholic church openly sold such indulgences; which is basically, that those that have money, and lots of it, are somehow able to pay their way into Heaven, through their generous acts of charity and foundations while here on earth.  The very truth of the matter is that you cannot now nor could you ever buy your way into Heaven, or buy indulgences for the remission of sins, for God freely gives and cannot be enticed by the entreaties of mere mortal man.  Rather, while money works extremely effectively here on this planet, for virtually anything of substance, it does not work outside of this material plane, and all those that trust in the almighty dollar to get them certain privileges, immunities, and favors wherever they so sojourn, are going to ultimately find to their dismay, that being frozen up to their neck in hell, leaves them no choices at all.

The southern aristocracy and the Civil war

History may teach us a lot of things, of which, not all those things are actually correct, and sometimes what is being taught is deliberately deceptive.  When it comes to the Civil war which cost the lives of 620,000 men and untold millions of dollars wasted on all the killing and infrastructure destroyed, it is a crying shame, that so few, could cause the destruction and loss of life for so many.

One basic theory about the Civil war is such was fought over slavery and to thereby keep the Union together, for a house divided against its very self, cannot stand.  So too, it was said, it was about State rights, that a State had the right to secede from the union, or to nullify Federal law.  There are a lot of theories about the Civil war, of which, basically none of the mainstream theories of our Civil war, really gets it right.

That is to say, the most appropriate way of looking upon our Civil war, is not ever to see it as a war of State rights, for States did not then, nor did they ever, have the right to secede from the Union, for this Union of States, is permanent, and allows no exceptions or exemption to its unity.  So too, while a house divided will not stand, the Northern States were amendable to slavery in the sense, that they did not believe that the Constitution as it stood, and without amendment, permitted the abolition of slavery; but once those States so seceded and created their own rival government, with its own authority, then it was the right and the sacred duty of those Northern States to put down that rebellion directed against the Union, especially in consideration of who it was that actually fomented such a rebellion.

In point of fact, the southern rebellion primarily was generated by those that were in authority in those States that pushed so strongly for disunion, and those that were most interested in rebellion, were those that had the most to risk and quite obviously the most to lose, if the present system, built around slave labor was somehow to become illegal or dissolved.  In the south, the power was held solely and exclusively in the hands of the plantation elite.  That is, those that own the best, most plentiful, and most productive lands also owned the greatest amount of slaves, and in an era in which agriculture was truly sweat labor, having those that labored that were considered to be property of those that owned such, was extremely lucrative and beneficial for those owners. 

Because the plantation owners held the most property, as well as holding the lion's share of material assets, they made it a point to be in full control of the legislative, judicial, extrajudicial, press, and any other pertinent phase of that State's political process.   So too, for the most part, this meant that free white men, did not dare bite the hand that fed them, for in the class hierarchy of the south, being white, brought a certain degree of courtesy, respect, and  status, reserved for those simply born white, even if they were to a large extent, uneducated, uncouth, and exploited.

The southern white men that suited up and went to battle to defend the "honor" of the south were hoodwinked into doing so, for they did the fighting and they did the dying.  The defeat of the south was the one-time opportunity to put a sword to those great plantation estates, the landed elite, and to bring true democracy, freedom, and opportunity to the south.  The fact that in the aftermath of this great Civil war, the southern aristocracy was able to rise up again, same as it ever was, is something that even present day Americans must still contend with and is a cancer upon this republic.

The common good and laws

There are plenty of people that believe that there “ought to be a law,” and the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of laws, of which so many of them are: confusing, contradicting, pointless, convoluted, outdated, and intrusive, demonstrates wholly that those that believe that there ought to be a law, seemingly get their way; and to a certain degree, because so many politicians and government officials of high importance, are lawyers, or have a background in law, then not too surprisingly, they are proponents of passing a lot of these laws.

Quite frankly, for the common good, laws that are pretty much unknown, misapplied, or are used as a weapon against certain people at certain times, are all laws that are not for the benefit of the people.  Yet, laws most definitely have their place, because any government governed by a written Constitution, has an obligation to live up to that Constitution, and the Constitution of this United States, is, in fact, the supreme law of the land.  This would seem to imply that all laws subsequently passed, legislated, and enacted must be in accordance with that Constitution, and all laws that really have little or nothing to do with that Constitution, probably should not and need not be passed into law.

Unfortunately, as in many a civilization, the law makers, recognize that the more laws, restrictions, and covenants that are passed, essentially cedes to those law makers, the interpreters of those laws, and the judicial/policing arm of the state, more power to whole sway over the population, so as to better control the population for the benefit of those law makers and their adjutants.  That is most unfortunate, for the very purpose of the Constitution is not to restrict the people, unnecessarily, but rather on the contrary to restrict that government of the people, from dictating to the people what they can or cannot do.

It is important to remember, that the real reason why laws are passed, in the first place, in any civilization or community, large or small, is because all those things that in general that we most respect, have reverence for, and consider to be of upmost importance, are necessary then to be protected and strengthened by appropriate laws, so as to keep those things that we value the most: intact, stable, vibrant, and viable.

This means that the real point of good laws is to make communities better for people and for that law therefore to be consistently and fairly applied to everyone for the continual betterment of that community, without suspending the unalienable rights that all are entitled to.  The problem, that characterizes far too many laws created in today’s environment, is that these laws are structured in a manner that criminalizes activities and decisions, which often have no victim or isn’t really the necessary business of the justice or legal authorities to begin with;, all of which is for the supposed betterment of society, but rather what it does is to take behavior that may be considered to be unorthodox or unusual, and criminalizes it, for the purpose of intimidation, power, and control.

Those that truly believe that there ought to be a law, in a land in which there seemingly is a law for everything and every possible contingency, must surely recognize that laws upon laws upon laws, in and of themselves, do not make for a good society.  Rather, the only laws that are truly necessary are the very ones that uphold our unalienable rights in conjunction with those laws that a good and just civil society, truly need in order to secure those very things that make for that upstanding civil society.

Stock market trend lines

Stock markets claim to be the fair trading of equities in a public exchange, for the benefit of public corporations so as to receive capital necessary for the growth and stability of their company, as well as being the go-to place for individuals, pension funds, and institutions to "safely" invest their money into the economy and the engine of growth of their nation.  To a certain extent, such a description is basically true, but it is only true to the extent that those investing in the equity markets, have actually done their due diligence before the investment of their hard-earned money; and further that such an investment, in order to really be considered an investment, should be done from the perspective of the long term.

That is to say, when someone invests in buying their own home, they are, in the vast majority of the cases, investing in the long term, because that is the home that they are going to live in, and they are not, planning to up and leave within a year, or a few months, or a couple of weeks, or even a couple of days.  So too, those that purchase a brand new car, and sign the paperwork for a car loan of five, six, or even seven years, are typically planning to hold onto that vehicle for the duration of that contract.  On the other hand, the stock market while having tax consequences, depending upon whether a security is held for the long or short term, as well as having trading rules, in regards to whether someone is considered to be a day trader or not, basically allows those investing in the market to do so, in whatsoever manner that they may be inclined to do so, which means that for some people, they may get in and out of the same stock, so bought and sold, that very same day.

There are a lot of reasons why some individuals, hedge funds, and institutions are day traders, but quite obviously the most salient reason is because these people, whether through specific trading tools, algorithms, or whatnot, believe that they can make money by virtue of getting in and out of trades, within very short periods of time, and sometimes these time periods are literally less than a few seconds.  The thing about the stock market in America is that it is a known factor, which can be analyzed; it is also highly liquid, and importantly it has enough volatility on a given day for many a stock, that the correct timing of trades makes it theoretically possible to make good money, from just reading the "tea leaves" correctly.

In point of fact, tools have been created, such as the Average Directional Index (ADX), which can make the signal noise of a particular stock, clarified; so that a trend line for certain qualifying stocks can be established, and thereby a trade can be made in either direction, taking advantage of that trend line information.  To say, as some have, that Wall Street efficiently prices each security correctly and accurately, based upon all available information correctly analyzed and interpreted, has never been true, and never will be true, for markets, almost by definition, always have inefficiencies contained within them, along with equities being subject to being over or undervalued, while often having trends established for certain stocks, on a macro or micro basis.  Those, then, that are seasoned and skilled technical analysts and further are not emotionally tied to any equity or position based upon ego or subjective reasons, are able to read and to thereby exploit correctly stock market trend lines.

Law enforcement, corruption, and the public money

It is always a mistake to allow those that are in charge of enforcing the law, such as police officers; or of jailing and keeping of inmates such as wardens or sheriffs; to have direct access to the money that is necessitated in order to run these operations or to have fines and other infractions directly paid to the officer on duty.  That is to say, when an officer pulls a person over for speeding or some other infraction, common sense, dictates that an option to pay the fine directly to the officer that has written the infraction is the type of thing that would obviously be abused to the advantage of the officer so writing the infraction.  So too,  when the warden or sheriff is provided directly with the funds to provide the necessary foods for the inmates that the warden or sheriff is in charge of, quite obviously, that is something that would create a strong tendency for the warden or sheriff to directly benefit from at the expense of the inmates and their meals.

To run any police force or incarceration facility necessitates the need for money.  In the case of law officers, part of the budget that certain departments have to work with, is generated from the tickets and infractions so written to the population at large. So too, for police departments that are not funded directly with a portion of the proceeds from those tickets and infractions, these are typically funded by property taxes or other taxing agencies, yet, indirectly, the monies generated by that police department through citations and tickets is ultimately going to be channeled through the property taxes or other taxing agencies in a manner, in which the police department is able to sustain itself.  That is to say, for New Jersey in 2015, as reported by nj.com, "A total of $405,611,768 was collected in 2015 from tickets issued," indicating that police departments know that they must issue a more or less specific dollar amount of tickets and infractions each year, which is the preeminent reason why so many tickets and infractions are generated, because the system requires that quota, though, it isn't actually designated as such.   In point of fact, budgets are built around tickets and infractions, along with the monetary fines associated with these, specifically as an aid to governmental budgets, as opposed to being of a service to the general public, or to the general safety of that public, or the general good for that public.

The incarceration business is big business because so many people are incarcerated; of which, there are still some jails and inmate facilities that are run as almost private fiefdoms of the local sheriff or warden.  So that, States such as Alabama, have laws on their books that essentially allocate the monies needed to feed the inmate population to the sheriff, of which, not surprisingly, this rather easily lends itself to the siphoning of that money or the skimming of that money, by sheriffs, so that they literally take money earmarked for the feeding of inmates, find a way to save on that food, by substituting cheaper items, and thereby keep the excess of that money for themselves.

In any institution, in which, funds are sent directly to the authority that is charge of the disbursement of these funds, of which there is not appropriate checks, balances, and transparency, it is almost inevitable that someone will become corrupt.  So too, when police officers are cognizant that they are basically required to write a certain amount of infractions and tickets each day,  they will do so, because to not do so will result in disciplinary action, and in all this, it is the public that ultimately pays.

Civilization and legal standing

This country was founded upon its Declaration of Independence, the most seminal document in all of American history, of which it states, "…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, … — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…"  The importance of that declaration is the very basis of why our Constitutional government, did not become a monarchy, or a dictatorship, or an autocracy, so that, the people of this great nation would never have to address the occupant of the Executive office, as "your Majesty," or "your Excellency", but rather such is addressed as the President, with all the proper and due respect so accorded to the one that is that President; recognizing that this is a country organized and instituted among the people, by the consent of those people, and so governed by the people's representatives.

In America, according to its own law, no one being, is born or made superior to another, or allowed to have exceptions set aside for them because of their power or their influence so that they are above the law, but rather all are equally subject to that same law.  This signifies that the legal standing of all citizens within America is exactly the same, of which, while, this is somewhat taken for granted in the present age, it is not the historic norm, and was at the time of the foundation of America, pretty much, revolutionary.

That is to say, in many countries, one's birth parents, created the status of a given individual; so too, in other countries one's inherited caste determined the opportunities and education provided for those members, as well as in many other nations, one's religious persuasion was the preeminent driving force of whether such a person was thus considered to be orthodox and accorded certain rights, or thereby unorthodox, and therefore accorded far less.  So too, those that were the favored racial or religious or ethnic background, were favored citizens over all those that were not of that same background, and often in most of those countries, there was not only a hierarchy in citizenship and rights, but even a formality that mandated that certain people were accorded certain rights, whereas other people could not ever have those same rights, and hence, were not full citizens, but rather people with smaller subsets of rights, privileges, and duties.

In any civilized country, one's legal standing, is of incredible and vital importance as to what opportunities that person will or will not have.  For those that are citizens of America, each of those people, no matter their background, no matter their creed, and no matter their color, are accorded equal rights and have equal standing in the court of law.  This is the very basis of what makes America such a great nation, because it not only does not prejudge or pre-classify its people, but has made it policy, that all are entitled to equal rights under the law, equally and fairly applied.

Of course, the reality of the situation is that though America talks a really good game, its follow-through has historically been somewhat suspect.  As true as this is, at least in America, the laws have been written in a manner that all have the same legal standing, though they have not always been fairly or justly applied, yet in the skeins of justice, it can be said and seen, that at least in America such is bending towards justice; whereas, in many a nation, you are either born with it, or born without.

War bonds

Wars are very expensive affairs, not to mention, very destructive, as well as risky, but the reality of the situation, is that America, is in one form or another, declared or not, seemingly always at war, though semantically words like conflict, or insurgency, or terrorism, may be used in place of what is really happening, which is war.  In America, wars used to be a collective affair, that is, in the sense that the citizenry of America, were not only subject to being drafted for war, but also working within industries supporting the war; in addition, to making personal sacrifices, as well as mandated sacrifices in regards to material items, gasoline rationing, or food stuffs, so utilized.  So too, they were subject to being impressed upon by their government to purchase with their savings, war bonds, in order to do their patriotic duty and to thereby help finance the war.

The last time that this government sold war bonds, was also the last time that Congress formally declared war, which was in World War II, but since that time, America has been involved in many wars, and continues to be involved in many wars, so that, if the America public is not buying bonds, which subsequently allows the government to finance the engine of wartime armament and personnel needs, this signifies that the financing for war is being done through different means.  To a certain extent, today's wars are financed through Treasury bond auctions, though these auctions are not specifically earmarked as war bonds; so too, it is obvious that these wars are specifically not being financed through the increase of direct taxation, probably, because doing so, would meet with some vigorous protest.

This means, in effect, that wars, as presently constructed within America, are for the most part, no longer requiring from the general public any sort of sacrifice in order to aid and abet the war effort; nor even the opportunity to purchase war bonds specifically created on behalf of the war effort, but pretty much the wars are self financed in a manner in which, essentially, more debt and higher deficits are generated, of which the government must pay this back, but the actual paying back of that debt, is essentially put off until tomorrow and then tomorrow, and pretty much ultimately stuck upon the shoulders of the present generation or on generations yet unborn.

In point of fact, because wars are no longer financed directly through war bonds, and additional war-time taxes to support such a war do not exist, then the wars that America is fighting are basically financed through smoke and mirrors, of which, one day, somebody, is going to have to pay the piper, because clearly America does not seem to forthrightly recognize that it cannot afford to pay for both "guns and butter", but it accomplishes such, by running incredibly high and irresponsible deficits, while thereby asking virtually nothing in return of its citizenry in support of the wars so being fought.

In point of fact, the reason this country doesn't:  "…ask what you can do for your country," is because the more cognizant and knowledgeable the people are about how much America's overseas wars are costing this country, the less inclined the people would be to support those wars, and the more they would question the very need for them.  Rather, this government, in its war efforts, runs strictly to serve the interests of the military-industrial complex, for better or for worse.

Concentrated money is concentrated power which is a clear and present danger to the people

In America, and to its inestimable great shame, as reported by forbes.com, there are three individuals that: "…. collectively hold more wealth than the bottom 50% of the domestic population."  In a land that claims it believes in representative government, and is supposed to be a country of the people, by the people, and for the people; as well as propagating the belief that this country is just in its laws and egalitarian in format, it has instead morphed into becoming a country of dynastic wealth, of the privileged and well positioned few, of which those people pay little or nothing in taxes, and essentially have everything of value.

While those that have an incredible and unfathomable amount of wealth, go to great lengths to explain that they aren't really about the money and have tried to or believe that they have been of great service and benefit to their fellow compatriots, as well as indicating that they intend to or are in the process of setting up charitable foundations to gift their money to good causes; all of this in the big scheme of things while perhaps even noble, doesn't not negate the fact that three individuals should not have now, nor should they have had as much wealth as 50% of the population of this great nation.

Further to the point, wealth is power, and more times than not, money makes money, primarily because of the position and power of the person or persons or corporation that are well placed to make that money, again and again, without end.  In addition, the art of business necessitates for certain people, the art of exploiting others and taking advantage of situations, fairly or unfairly, over and over again, to the highly meaningful extent that it benefits the well positioned few at the expense of the poorly positioned many.  So too, wealthy people are masters of public relations, along with that corresponding spin, that presents them as being something that they aren't really, but they look well the part of someone that seems human, and often come across as if they are humanitarians.

The most important thing, though, is regardless of whether the very, very rich are good people or not; though a very strong argument could be made that they are not good people, they have, without a doubt, an iron grip upon the economy and even the stability of a nation, because of their wealth.  That is to say, concentrated money is most definitely concentrated power, and that power can be used as a weapon for the continual benefit of the superrich; for economic engines of any country, run upon the wealth so accumulated and properly invested within that nation's borders.  So that, if the superrich, for whatever reason, decide that they want to take all of their wealth and place it somewhere outside the borders of America, to invest and to be secured within the borders of other nations, than that would be even worse than having that wealth just vanished, because that wealth created by this country but utilized outside this country could be used in a deliberate destructive targeted manner that could readily bring financial and structural instability to the very foundations of this nation, in order to ultimately extract from that nation, even more benefits for those that have virtually it all, already.

It is not possible to have a republic or a democracy, or a country by and for the people, if that wealth of that nation is in the hands of the very, very few, because, ultimately, those with the money make the rules, whether written or not, and the people, must accept them, or these superrich with the expressed backing of the military-industrial complex will put their boots upon the necks of the people.

"…a starving man is never a good citizen" -- Alfred Henry Lewis

It is a very good thing that America is the breadbasket of the world, because America is the third most populous nation in the world, and its citizenship as reported by cbc.ca has an astonishing: "… 88.8 guns for every 100 residents."  Of course, America also has the most sophisticated military arsenal the world has ever witnessed, in conjunction with the fact that America's policing agencies, federal law enforcement agencies, and additional agencies and departments that work in conjunction with those, are logistically very sophisticated, extremely well trained, and very prepared.  Yet, no military or policing organization really wants to have to expose their personnel to return fire from a citizenship that is well armed and capable of a vigorous self-defense.

While revolutions occur for all sorts of reasons, one of the most prominent reasons is when the entertainment and the food supplies run out, because a population that has nothing to do to occupy itself and is also starving is a very dangerous population, even when that population implicitly recognizes that rioting is not going to resolve their issues; but when left with few or no options at all, rioting and revolution are the go-to options that the masses will resort to, for they having literally nothing left to lose, except a slow and painful death due to starvation and their lack of sustenance; so instead, they will take the fight against those privileged and select few that have the power over them.

It is well to remember, that our Constitution stipulates that those that are the officials and representatives of this Constitutional government have a sworn duty to "…support and defend… against all enemies, foreign and domestic."  Those words, are not empty words, as the well armed and well trained military and police powers of this nation, clearly show that those in authority are absolutely prepared for the worse; of which, the people of this country as a whole, apparently will willingly accept having lives that perhaps aren't as robust, happy, free, and satisfying as they might imagine, in return for good shelter, good food, good employment, and good entertainment, or basically things that sort of approximate that.

However, even the most competent of food and agricultural producers, as well as the distributors and manufacturers of, cannot control mother nature, nor can they necessarily control the infrastructure needed to move their product around this country in a timely manner, so that something as critical as oil, which runs this great nation, somehow happens to become in exceedingly short supply, then surely chaos and havoc would rain down upon this nation, in which, suddenly, millions upon millions would be suffering, yet, no doubt, those that are high up in status, would not be suffering a whit; producing, perhaps, the very seeds of a contagious revolutionary response.

A starving man is not a good citizen and a starving man is not in the mood to hear mere words, but rather, a starving man, if he is not fed, will often resort to any and everything available to him, because when a man has nothing and cannot provide for his family, than that man will, when pushed to the very limit, fight back, and a multitude of fighting men that are armed and prepared, have and will topple governments, even ones, of long standing.

Be that light for others

In order to achieve anything of purpose in life, it helps greatly to know where it is that a given person is supposed to go.  Additionally, this is a world that does not revolve around one single person, though, it must be said that each of us is an individual; yet, collectively we are all, without exception, of the same substance, so that any goal or purpose that necessitates selfishly climbing over or trampling upon other humans, cannot possibly be a noble goal or purpose.  This means, that our purpose for being, must in the scheme of things, take into consideration others, and quite rightly we should be concerned about what we do and say, for these deeds affects those others, and ultimately then for that goal and purpose to be in harmony and in tune with what is right and proper, it must be of benefit for not only ourselves, but for others.

Not everyone that we meet is going to have their act together, and not everybody that we interact with is going to be wise, or on point, or even trending in the right direction, for many people don't make good decisions, or may come from a background that precludes them from reasoning things out in a sensible manner, or are lost, or confused, or anything other than what they could or ought to be.   These people typically need some sort of assistance or help, and that assistance or help need not come from a perfect being, or someone that is inestimably wise, but rather, someone that has sound wisdom, sensible reasoning powers, compassion and concern. 

This so indicates that a given person's life does not need to be perfect in order to be of help or of assistance to someone else, and quite obviously, those that have made similar errors or mistakes, but have learned well from them are good sources for the creation of an experienced person that is quite able to provide not only credibility to a given situation but also empathy and concern.  All of this signifies that we have an implicit obligation to serve others in a manner in which we can be of benefit to those others, through our interaction with them, as opposed to simply feeling sorry for a given situation or a given person.

Our world consists of about 71% water, and those that travel upon those waters need navigational tools in order to safely do so, as well as, even in this modern age, lighthouses, so as to recognize the dangers that are there but unseen by the naked eye without the helpful aid of such lights, beacons, and fog horns.  So too, our lives consist of dangers as well as temptations, some self-generated and some not, of which, those with experience and concern, have an implicit obligation to help guide wayward souls into the safe harbors of the promised land that will nourish and help them grow.

Each of us should recognize that to lift the darkness that stymies mankind from progressing in the manner that mankind ought and should, impresses upon us that we are all responsible for subtracting from that darkness, by making a determination and a pledge to add to and to be that shining light, for ourselves as well as for others.

The superrich and public dining

Everybody needs to eat, from rich to poor, but how people go about that eating, in respect, to where they eat at, differs fundamentally, between those that have more money than they could ever count, as contrasted to those that barely have enough to get by.  In point of fact, the superrich are different, so different, that one of the main reasons why the superrich back in the gilded age, needed so many servants, for a household that wasn't all that large to begin with, was because the main meal as well as the main social event, was the dinner so served at nighttime.  That dinner, was something that could and did consist of multiple courses, served over an extended period of time, of which, the service and the cooking was all done by the hired help to serve the superrich and their guests, and everything about that dinner had a synchronicity and a purpose behind it, and it had to be done just right.

It is only in recent times that public dining is something that nearly everybody does, though the superrich, should they choose to dine in public, do not hobnob at the same places that the common folks do.  That is why, even in today's day and age, there are still private clubs, necessitating a yearly fee, and often difficult to get into, without a proper invitation from a member in good standing, still exist, for those that have not only money, but are of the right class, as well as the appropriate background, wish to associate themselves only with those that are their equals, and money in and of itself, is not going to be all that is required, as a prerequisite.

In addition, for those that have money but do not feel the need or the desire of private clubs or the expense of private chefs, they alas are quite willing to dine in public, but only at those establishments that charge a high enough price for a meal, along with providing stellar service that treats the dining customer as someone of importance and worth, of which the common folk, while permitted to dine there, typically don't have the resources or don't feel that their presence is especially desired.

So too, for those that do not wish to dine out in public or even in a private club, there never has been a better time to dine in, because the cost and the service provided by having one's own personal chef, is relatively reasonable for the superrich, and the support staff and the logistics to put together fabulous meals, no longer necessitates abutting up to farm animals, or having one's own butcher shop, and so on and so forth, because food and ingredients from literally all over the world, can and are freshly flown in from one destination to another, often on the same day, so hosts can put on a rather impressive show, of displaying fresh foods not common to their domain, almost instantaneously, with appropriate kudos for the culinary skills so displayed.

The superrich have never wanted to be caught in a public dining room, and while exceptions are made, for convenience, if nothing else, the superrich know that they are a wholly separate class, which does not and will not associate with anyone or anything that does not properly recognize their status and superiority, at all times, and they especially won't tolerate those that don't know their proper place.

….can and will be used against you…. Really?

Those that have been arrested will in one form of another have to deal with an officer reading them what is known as their "Miranda rights" of which the most frequent recitation that most people are familiar with, perhaps from television, is along the lines of "….Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law…" which, is a statement that appears to be not actually true in form.  That is to say, if everything that is said by the suspect, will be used in a court of law, then the usage of can should be dropped, because it is superseded by the word will, but in fact, there probably aren't any cases in which everything that has been said by the arrestee, has actually all been used against that suspect.

In point of fact, how the Miranda rights are read or given to a particular suspect varies by jurisdiction, but the most common form of "… can and will be used against you," is a form that should be modified, and replaced by something that is far more clear and accurate which would be: "Anything you say can and may be used against you in a court of law," which actually not only makes more sense, but properly reflects the reality of the situation.

In the scheme of things, whether the Miranda rights are read as the common "can and will" or as "can and may be" used against the suspect, doesn't invalidate that the appropriate fair warning has been provided to the arrestee, it is just that it is more sensible to reflect how the law and justice system works in actuality and therefore it then makes more sense to reflect that in the words so spoken.  Additionally, the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona case, of which we got the aforesaid Miranda rights, this was a momentous Supreme Court decision, which overturned the initial Arizona conviction of Miranda, who thereupon was retried without taking into account his confession, and was subsequently convicted. 

The Miranda case had national repercussions as to the interpretation of the rights of those being arrested in which it became mandated for arrestees to be properly informed of their Constitutional rights, of which the majority Supreme Court opinion made its viewpoint clear, and states in part within that opinion, the words: "… that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law…" which would strongly imply that all those policing agencies within America, at some nationwide conference, should probably get together with an experienced Constitutional attorney to thereby submit what would be the definitive Miranda warning so as to read thus to all suspects a consistently worded Miranda warning utilized throughout the entire United States, reflecting properly that Supreme Court decision.

After all, at some point, if it hasn't already occurred, there will be a case involved in which the words spoken and thereby recorded by the police officer's body camera that has been read to a suspect, has been done in such a sloppy and disjointed manner, that a good lawyer, may be able to reverse a conviction or to preclude the admission of a confession, based on the fact that their client did not have properly read to them and thereby comprehended fully their Constitutional rights as previously adjudicated by that Miranda Supreme Court decision.

Another form of thievery: gossip

There are all sorts of people that feel pretty good about themselves, and will indicate, without hesitation, that they do not and have not ever stolen a single material thing from another person, and somewhat self-righteously feel pretty good about their character because of that.  However, thievery comes in many guises, and one of those guises, perhaps unrecognized or unacknowledged by most people, is that gossip, itself, is a form of thievery.  That is to say, while some gossip is rather trivial and sort of lame and serves to pass the time and fill up the emptiness of a conversation without meaning; there is, on the other hand, that other type of gossip, which may be basically truthful or may not be, but almost always is spoken in the way that the person being gossiped about is not present, and  hence can offer no defense to their character or perspective of what has been said, so that typically this gossip is slanted and stated in such a manner, that the information so being imparted, is most definitely damaging to the character of the person being gossiped about.

Further to the point, the whole basis of gossip, is really to dish "dirt", and typically to dish dirt about someone that the parties so speaking are intimately familiar with, and done so in a manner, that each side can take turns kicking at the other party that isn't there, hence making those so gossiping feel their superiority over the other person, while also damaging the other person's reputation, directly or indirectly.  For those, that are kind of confused as to what is fair information so imparted as compared to gossip, the dividing line is extremely easy to see, for if you can and are willing to repeat, literally word for word what you said about that person to that person that was the party of that gossip, without hesitation or equivocation, then in all probability, that wasn't gossip, but merely the expounding of fair information.  Whereas, if you not only cannot repeat what has been said, or will definitely not under any circumstances repeat to the party in question those words, and further, do not want that person to even know that these words have been spoken, than that most definitely is gossip.

The thing about gossip is not only is it not fair, by definition, but it often doesn't serve any good or rightful purpose in being expressed.  Additionally, for those on the receiving end of gossip, they always have the obligation, and perhaps the duty, to see that they do not add anything further to the gossip, as well as to not subsequently repeat the gossip to someone else, and at a minimum, are not accepting what has been said as the gospel truth, without in some way, directly or indirectly, allowing the other party to have their say, so as to get a better perspective on the whole affair.

The main thing about gossip, besides the fact that it unfairly attacks the reputation of another, is that, gossip on any level is not justice, for justice, in order to be justice, fairly hears both sides, and both sides are present during such a hearing; so that, those that gossip, want to tilt the scales of justice to favor whatever point or stabs that they wish to take at another so as to reduce the other person's status, and thereby to boast their own status.  In short, gossip is unfairly stealing from another to diminish them, while simultaneously augmenting their self to look so much better in comparison.

Interlocking Directorates

Every public company that is traded on a public exchange, is required to have a Board of Directors as part of its corporate structure, and this board, typically consists of at least some members that are not insiders to the corporation, of which the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) would most definitely be insiders; but these other directors, would consist of people that are retired or employed outside of the corporation, specifically selected for their experience, connections, and wisdom.

How much power a given board has, almost always depends upon the board membership, as well as how interested those that are inside employees of the corporation, care to be influence by or contributed to by outside directors.  Quite obviously, it is in any corporation's best interests, to have a board of directors that consists of members that are able to contribute in a positive way to the profitability and growth of that company.

When it comes to interlocking directorates, this essentially means that a member of the board of directors at one company, is also a member of a board of directors at another company, and may still be a member of a board of directors at yet another company.  Not too surprisingly, there are laws that preclude anybody being on the board of directors at one company that competes in the same sort of industry with another company, for reasons of collusion, trade secrets, and trade negotiations, amongst other things.

Of course, as in most things in America, there are laws, and then there are the actual impact and implementation of such laws, in which, the largest corporations in the world, have loads and loads of money, and the very best lawyers and lobbyists that money can possibly buy; signifying that when it comes to certain laws that are on the books, there are going to be, at a minimum, a lot of shades of gray, as to the interpretation of such, because money buys an incredible amount of influence.

For instance, it is estimated that the market capitalization of America for the public stocks so traded, is somewhere around the astonishing and gargantuan amount of $30 trillion.  That amount of money, is going to, in and of itself, attract people that will go to great lengths to benefit themselves from it.  The thing about any board of directors, is that the discussions being held, whether formally within a board of director meeting, or via email or phone, is for all practical purposes, going to be information that is actionable and comes directly from those that are the highest up on the inside.  Those then, on the inside of a multiple of directorates, have, in effect, real actionable information, that is of value, and can be of extremely high value, multiplied by the amount of directorships that they are on, that can thereby be traded or exchanged in a manner in which such information, benefits those parties so exchanging, giving those parties the opportunity to subsequently equity trade on accurate actionable inside information or to receive compensation for such, for their own benefit, without it appearing to be a violation of insider knowledge.

In short, members of a given board of directors, typically have access to inside information, and the more directorates that any director is part of, the more inside information that they know, so that, truth be told, information has a price attached to it as well as an inherent trading advantage, and some thereby make sure to utilize this to their inestimable favor.

Little sins and big sins

Most people have a strong tendency to judge themselves in a manner in which, the mistakes and errors that they make, are in the big scheme of things, from their perspective, not all that bad; especially when taken into consideration all those equivocating and mitigating circumstances as well as the big, big picture.  That is to say that they aren't bad people, even though they may have done some things that could be construed as bad, but even that bad, isn't all that bad.

The problem with that sort of self-justification is first of all, it is just that, self-justification.  Additionally, most people have a strong inclination to judge themselves rather leniently, whereas their judgment of others, can and often will be rather harsh, which obviously can be and is quite hypocritical.  But, more than that, the very nature of dismissing one's own sins and mistakes and diminishing their impact, or minimizing them to the degree that they are now relatively small or little in their import, effectively means, that sins and mistakes, have classifications, and little sins and little mistakes are quite obviously of far less concern and impact as big sins and big mistakes.

While, to a certain degree, the above is true, it is also a deception, because most big sins and big mistakes have their very roots in the little sins and little mistakes so made, mainly because these little mistakes have not been successfully pruned away at their root, which subsequently have developed into bad habits, with bad mindsets, and bad decision making, with correspondingly these then developing into actions that are big in their negative impact and their bad influence.

Additionally, right is right, and wrong is wrong, so that little cuts made by hateful actions, selfish attitudes, and envious mindsets, to name a few, are still cuts that wound the body, and wound other people by those deeds, and are wrong for having been done.  So then, though these wounds are not that deep, and perhaps are even surface wounds, they still leave their marks upon the body, not to mention that death by a thousand cuts is still death, and in some respects could be considered significantly worse than one massive body blow given all at once.

The Hippocratic Oath has been paraphrased to say: "first, do no harm," which more people need to take seriously, and to have foremost not only in their mind but in their being.  Those that truly take that to their heart will recognize that retaliation, meanness, inconsideration, and other negative traits don't need to be followed through or actuated, because they are harmful for the person so expressing such, and for those that receive such, in virtually all situations.  So then, in our lives, what we say and what we do matters, and the things that are in our control are our responsibility, and to belittle our mistakes, errors and sins as being of little consequence, because they appear to be relatively minor, is the reason each one of us is not the person that we really could and should be.

Labor Day: What is this?

America has all sorts of holidays, of which some are Federal holidays, some are State sanctioned holidays, as well as floating holidays, or moveable holidays, or combined holidays.  The thing about Labor Day which became a Federal holiday when signed into law by President Grover Cleveland in 1894, is that though the holiday or celebration of Labor Day was done in certain cities and States, before it became a Federal holiday, those that first celebrated Labor Day should be accorded the real credit that this day, then became, for they are the ones that risked it all, to benefit society. 

The fact that there actually is a holiday set aside for those that labor for their living, that is, a celebration and appreciation for regular hard working men and women of this country, should not be taken for granted; for historical labor conditions within America were often not progressive, and at the time that Labor Day was first being celebrated in certain cities and States  those labor conditions were typically not very accommodating or considerate of those working, for often companies required employees to work  sixty or even seventy hours a week, for relatively low pay, and those that struck for higher wages, were deal with summarily rather poorly by corporate police forces or the State or city police agencies, and justice so rendered for those striking, did them no justice at all.

However, those that labored way outnumbered, those that essentially controlled the means of production, and over time, through sweat, blood, and courage, the laborers as a whole, began to make headway against those that siphoned too much of their wages for themselves, and in consequence an era of progression and a more liberal attitude, of the sharing of the wealth, began to be developed, and the first beginnings of a real significant swath of middle class families began to create itself, when wages and hours so being worked, became more reasonable.  This meant that most laborers were no longer working literally from sunup to sundown, day after day,  just to keep their heads above water, but now actually had time for some rest, relaxation, and with their additional wages, an opportunity to spend their hard earned money on things that they so desired and needed to procure.

Nearly everyone in America, at some point, must or does work, and not only must they work, they at least initially, typically work for someone else, that basically controls or limits or heavily influences their wages as well as their work hours and schedule, along with their work conditions.  The fact that there is a minimum wage established in America, along with established rules for hours to be worked on a given day before overtime is allocated, as well as rules for work breaks during working hours, in addition to established safe working conditions, can be largely attributed to those that labored hard and worked with progressive and visionary politicians to see that these important legislative laws would be and had to be passed and ratified. 

When the worm had turned, labor began to receive their just rewards in America, of which this was fundamentally accomplished through the hard work, politicking, and organization of labor unions and laborers, sacrificing themselves for the betterment of the common man; and the fact that labor unions have subsequently been in massive decline in recent decades, reflects the fact that though we celebrate Labor Day, we have to a large extent, dismissively abandoned the common laborer.